Opposing Views: Pomp & Mike Green on Bitcoin

Published on
February 3rd, 2021
Duration
77 minutes


Opposing Views: Pomp & Mike Green on Bitcoin

The Interview - Crypto ·
Featuring Michael Green, Anthony Pompliano, and Ash Bennington

Published on: February 3rd, 2021 • Duration: 77 minutes

Mike Green, chief strategist and portfolio manager at Logica Capital, and Anthony Pompliano, investor at Pomp Investments, join Ash Bennington, Real Vision senior editor, to discuss their opposing views on Bitcoin. They each explain their views on Bitcoin—Pompliano makes the case for Bitcoin being a store of value that should be widely adopted and encouraged by the United States in order to stay competitive globally while Green asserts that Bitcoin is used primarily for nefarious activity and is mainly controlled by entities that are oppositional to the United States. Green believes that Bitcoin is the perfect example of markets indicating that something is incredibly successful, even when in actuality it is failing (or will fail), and that its price appreciation does mean that it is a robust system. Filmed on February 1, 2021.

Key Learnings: Pompliano believes that there are many non-trivial indicators that suggest Bitcoin is robust and becoming widely adopted including the number of wallets, transactions, and hash rate. He believes there is a significant chance that Bitcoin will be adopted by a significant amount of the S&P 500 companies and nation-states. On the other hand, Green thinks it is extremely unlikely to see major adoption from the largest companies and nation-states, explaining that this could even harm the U.S. He believes that Bitcoin can be trivially attacked and taken down by a nation-state and that the system is not as secure as many people claim it to be.

Comments

Transcript

  • JN
    Jeff N.
    12 February 2021 @ 04:32
    Long Bitcoin, Long Big Ethereum, Long Dot, Long Litecoin. I don't have the mental capital to join in the debate after watching the video. Even with low mental capital to debate I do think we should explore the question about over half of the bitcoin hash rate existing in China. If any one question comes out of this video that we should explored more into it's that question.
    • DG
      Darrian G.
      27 February 2021 @ 03:58
      I would also say to explore the statement of empty blocks pushed out to the network as well.
  • MD
    Michael D.
    18 February 2021 @ 04:44
    Wonderful conversation. I'm fairly well-versed on the usual bitcoin-sceptic arguments. For the most part, the risks to the security of the network are well documented and refuted. The Bitcoin Standard book does a great job of explaining why there are strong inbuilt economic incentives that will serve to perpetuate the network security. HOWEVER, these arguments are based on the assumption of economic actors. Mike's key point (and one that I don't think was rebutted) was that the bitcoin community has not fully engaged with the risk of attack by a non-economic actor. This needs to be ventilated more. I think that it would be very useful (and make the understanding of the risk that he has identified more accessible to average Joe) for their to be a discussion about the motivations of such a non-economic actor. Game it out. Let's assume that Mike's concern is a valid one. What might Iran/China/Russia (to use his examples) be playing at? What are their current motivations? What is their endgame? How might this play out in real time? What flags might we want to keep a lookout for in the future that would confirm or question the thesis. I think that a thorough workshop of this would be a wonderful exhibit and provide a much-needed public service. As a bitcoin holder I do not dismiss Mike's concerns easily but, at the same time, I don't think that Mike has presented his argument in an easily accessible way. I suspect this has Average Joe stick their head in the sand and stick with the popular (positive) narrative. This is a disservice to Mike's intellect and reputation. (if this has already happened on The Exchange I would be very grateful for someone to post a link)
    • JD
      John D.
      22 February 2021 @ 13:31
      I second this comment
    • MH
      Man H.
      27 February 2021 @ 00:11
      I third this comment.
  • SW
    Simon W.
    26 February 2021 @ 22:34
    If Mike is right (and on fundamental research few are stronger) on the suggestion that ~40% of the hash rate for bitcoin in the hands of three nefarious economic actors (China, Russia and Iran) how can the boards of companies like Tesla be fulfilling their fiduciary obligations and their legal obligations (to the extent they are obligated) on things like KYC and AML by trading in bitcoin? There is a lot surfaced here - unfortunately a lot of what Mike raised was not properly addressed but rather responded to with superficial arguments. RV - well done - but far from complete or closed!
  • RK
    Robert K.
    23 February 2021 @ 01:28
    A bit too acerbic for my tastes, but very much appreciate hearing two such strong and well reasoned opposing views to help keep me out of my echo chamber
  • JD
    John D.
    22 February 2021 @ 23:46
    I really appreciated this debate...there can be some critiques here and there but I am most impressed with how well everyone respected each other, even during some intense moments. You can only find this on RV. Please have more of this type of content. Would love a round 2 with mike and pomp and/or mike and someone who is able to go back and forth in Mikes style.
  • LM
    L M.
    22 February 2021 @ 05:31
    Another great interview Real Vision!! But it left me with some questions. Now I would like to see a follow up interview with thorough analysis by someone who really understands computer programming evaluating whether the “Empty Block Attack “ proposed by Mr. Green is a serious threat.
  • CD
    Christopher D.
    19 February 2021 @ 22:20
    Excellent piece! I really liked the debate format and would like to see more of this type.
  • AD
    Aldo D.
    15 February 2021 @ 21:55
    Pomp does a lot of great things in exposing Newbies to BTC but he was slightly outmatched in this debate by Mike. Although I agree with Pomp that BTC is the future I think it would have been better to have Mike matched up against Michael Saylor on this.
    • CD
      Christopher D.
      17 February 2021 @ 19:56
      Pomp is good at pumping, his ad hominem attacks are no counter-argument and do not reflect well on him. Agreed Green/Saylor would be more appropriate.
    • KV
      Keld V.
      19 February 2021 @ 13:56
      You should listen to Mike Green vs Nic Carter on the Grant Williams podcast.
  • MM
    Michael M.
    18 February 2021 @ 01:29
    RV please put out more content like this. I like to see more debates on topics.
  • tl
    thadeus l.
    15 February 2021 @ 20:21
    Only RV video i am not watching all the way through. Barely made it 35 minutes in, normally enjoy Pomp but he is way to emotional here. Going to find some more neutral content to watch instead.
  • BK
    Brian K.
    14 February 2021 @ 21:50
    Disappointed in Pomp, expected better from him. This is not a YouTube audience. I think as a speaker you should know your audience. At times, the arguments are presented well. It felt like Pomp was talking at Mike and not with him. The nitpicking on terms and words made me feel that wanted to change points and flaws in their arguments, looking to create a new fight where you can have a defined winner. Even though Pomp held the floor longer than Mike. Pomp arguments tended to get weaker with less cohesion to new point talking points. Great points were made on both sides. The conclusion one will be right and the other wrong. I am a bitcoin holder. I think Mike may have something there with his points on the argument. If India signs the illegalization of bitcoin in their country? I may have to monitor my position in bitcoin more closely.
    • GK
      Gautam K.
      15 February 2021 @ 03:30
      Someone wipe the smirk off of Pomp’s face - I guess Mike did that a few times during the interview already
  • ES
    Eric S.
    11 February 2021 @ 04:40
    Mikes major points is the 7 Billion dollar attack on the network. I think we should start there. Who are the prime suspects? Who would be motivated to do that? Who would benefit? Once we have that list, we ask how would they do and what would they do it with? And when could it happen. Best answer would be USA or China or the G7 or G20, USA citizens wouldn't allow it. so China is the prime suspect! but China wants Bitcoin as it circumvents the USD power, so I really don't see Mike's Point. Let's discuss in more detail, because I think this is the most important debate in the world right now.
    • VN
      Vano N.
      12 February 2021 @ 04:21
      I would suggest that "7 billion dollar" attack is not possible for several reasons: * Mining equipment makers are competing for the semiconductor production capacity against Apple, NVIDIA, Intel, AMD, Samsung, Qualcomm, MediaTek and others in various fabs like TSMC and Samsung. * There is huge shortage of the semiconductor production capacity for everyone - NVIDIA and AMD cannot produce enough GPUs even for the high end consumer market. AMD cannot produce enough CPUs either, particularly for laptop market. GPU manufacturers could not even supply enough when there was no GPU mining craze started yet. The shortage is so bad that miners started to buy gaming laptops for cryptocurrency mining. * Chinese semiconductor industry is still years back in terms of technology and capacity compared to the likes of Intel, TSMC and Samsung so they cannot produce enough either. * To my knowledge, neither North Korea, nor Iran have any competing semiconductor industry. * Even if you start to order huge quantities of mining hardware for evil purposes, you will be competing for the production capacity not only against other cryptocurrency miners but against companies like Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, Samsung and consumers of their goods - companies using their server products all over the world and retail consumers. So the global shortage of such goods will be even worse and that cannot be left unnoticed. + it will become unsustainably costly for the illicit actor to purchase such amount of hardware at an ever increasing price (because of competition). * Cryptocurrency mining follows the cheap electricity. Russia, Kazakhstan, Iran, China... All have ways of producing insane amounts of cheap electricity at 0.02-0.03$ cost per kwh. Miners 100% know about the risk they are taking in operating such markets but once the cost of electricity increases or there are increased political risks, they will move to other legislations again. With cryptocurrency mining, you are seeking to lower your total expenses, either by sourcing a cheap electricity or by making economies on cooling. That's why northern countries are popular. That's why countries with cheap and renewable energy sources are popular. To summarize, once you start executing the "7 billion dollar attack" it will easily cost you hundreds of billions of dollars just because how the market works.
    • AW
      Aaron W.
      12 February 2021 @ 04:45
      They do not need to buy or rent anything. They just pick up the phone, under threat of militia. It is very easy. It's probably cheaper than $7B, actually. Guns always win.
    • DP
      Dean P.
      15 February 2021 @ 03:01
      @Vano N. I think you make valid points. But listen to what Mike is saying: "for non economic reasons" - in other words he's saying they would do what you're saying, and possibly spend the hundreds of billions to shut down something due to the geo-political, or even greater risks to their power... that's the danger of #BTC - its' such a major revolution the "powers that be" and I think ignoring his arguments is not wise for us all...
  • BP
    Benton P.
    11 February 2021 @ 18:04
    I'm disappointed in this - neither side really got to go through their position. They seemed to be really arguing and getting emotional, it's agitating and very little info is divulged...
    • DP
      Dean P.
      15 February 2021 @ 02:52
      I feel like Mike made some very valid & concerning points, however Pomp was unable to address them nor produce a strong enough rebuttal/counter-argument. He kept going back to his own arguments on why he is bullish on #BTC, but he didn't directly address Mike's points. Hence, why like you, I'm quite frustrated about an hour into this... the Nic Carter vs. Mike Green debate hosted by Grant Williams truly was supreme to this one. Check it out on Grant Williams' podcast.
  • SB
    Shaun B.
    10 February 2021 @ 15:24
    Mike is a Clown!!! Fuck this guy!
    • jb
      joseph b.
      14 February 2021 @ 22:36
      thanks pomp
  • dm
    dude m.
    7 February 2021 @ 22:51
    Another great interview by RV. Ash does a really wonderful job tethering the two opposing views. Mr. Green's impeccable logic would have brought Mr. Spock down faster than his pet Sehlat on a burrowing animal. Keep brining us more of this awesome s*(^% Mo Fo!
    • DM
      Douglas M.
      14 February 2021 @ 21:55
      I agree. Ash did a fantastic job - underrated management of this debate. He's a pro.
  • DM
    Douglas M.
    14 February 2021 @ 21:42
    Mike Green's mask slipped a few times, particularly when Green mentioned that Pomp's politicians were 'against the Green New Deal' and "have a perfect score from the NRA". Not only was this not germane to the debate, it exposed Mr. Green's bias. This was only the beginning. It must be nice to casually wave ride all the popular positions among that the Davos Elite espouse on Twitter. Those of us who are teachers, like me, have watched the Establishment types erode the US Dollar, witnessed the Establishment go into other countries and blow people up, install sanctions that harm children and the vulnerable, as well as create enemies through shibboleths like 'weapons of mass destruction'. All courtesy of the FED, jerking itself off by creating as many dollars as it needs. They also need the USD to pull all of these atrocities off. Mr. Green suggested that, because the ratio of dollars to the amount of Bad Behavior is an acceptable one, it is somehow different than our 'enemies' using bitcoin, therefore rendering it a bad thing. This was a bafflingly bad argument. Because a good is used for bad, the good itself is guilty? This is the argument used against gun manufacturers. I would ask him if he and his immense wealth (the defenders of the Green New Deal would call it obscene and try to take it from him), are protected by armed security. Hats off to him if the answer is no. This is the 'system' that Mr. Green wants someone like me, a public school English Teacher in the African - American neighborhood, to remain loyal. It's difficult to put into words the disconnect he has to what regular people are going through. He mentions reform within the system. He talked about how ECB, FED, and Treasury secretaries might ban bitcoin. The same people who have destroyed the currency I'm forced to use. The same people who told all the small businesses they have to close, because people might get sick, while the large corporations can stay open. During this time of heretofore unseen transfers of wealth upward, I suggest it would be helpful for Mr. Green to have walked with me through Target (the one on 225th and Broadway in the Bronx) where milk has gone up in price quite a bit in the last 18 months. In the smaller grocery stores the price is even higher, as they don't have Transnational - Corp. - Immune - to - CV19 status. As I, and other like me, scurry to find an asset that holds value, Mr. Green suggests that I should remain loyal to politicians and bureaucrats who can print political money - but I can't. And I should avoid bitcoin, an asset where I can't print more - and neither can anyone else. All because the biggest and most oppressive entity in the history of the world doesn't want bad actors in Iran and China using it? I've listened to many of Mr. Green's interviews on this channel, and I've learned a lot from him and enjoyed his keen analysis. He falls flat here.
  • GK
    Gautam K.
    14 February 2021 @ 06:39
    The biggest problem with Bitcoin is that the people backing it sound so dumb like Pomp, it’s almost like this one asset class attracts the most number of idiot - an idiot magnet
    • GK
      Gautam K.
      14 February 2021 @ 16:42
      Idiots*
    • GB
      Griffin B.
      14 February 2021 @ 20:47
      If you can’t speak simply about something you don’t understand that something
    • GK
      Gautam K.
      14 February 2021 @ 21:41
      It’s not about speaking simply, it’s about having class and Pomp clearly doesn’t have that along with a number of Bitcoin backers. More classy people like Raoul need come out talking about this asset class.
  • DN
    Damon N.
    14 February 2021 @ 20:51
    I take Mike's "im scared of china, volatility and drag dealers" But if youre young you would be crazy to not size a small allocation to bitcoin. I have already pulled twice my principle out and playing with house money now.
    • DN
      Damon N.
      14 February 2021 @ 20:54
      Drug*
  • GC
    Guillermo C.
    9 February 2021 @ 16:57
    So basically Mike sounds like every politician. Yeah, we know things are bad but the alternative is chaos, crime, bad things, Iran bla bla bla. Come on dude, middle class is getting destroyed and you're mad that some plebs are making money? Fucking psychos, central planners, let people alone. If it wasn't for Bitcoin I would be cleaning your fkng toilet while you manage the wealthy's money. Fk off.
    • LS
      Lemony S.
      10 February 2021 @ 01:52
      Exactly, the time for "dialogue" was in the 1990s when US leaders went full on degenerate - and it was more public than ever. Oh, yeah, that's right, the smart and wealthy were making too much money then to care that much about "unity" and "dialogue". Even after 2000 most weren't humble enough to start the discussion or talk about fixing the (then) $5 trillion debt. Ross Perot was a visionary and true American, the rest are johnny come latelys on this topic.
    • VI
      Veselinius I.
      14 February 2021 @ 02:52
      Indeed!!! The so called 1% and wealthy individuals are obviously sooo scared and shocked that their power is slipping away through their fingers at the moment - it is so pathetic and entertaining at the same time xD They are totally MAD that they will not be in control of everything and WE the people are actually able to come on top despite all their criminal schemes, world orders and numerous forced genocides for centuries.... The funniest part is that they are all barking like dogs with rabies towards the Bitcoin blockchain, which is not used for absolutely anything else than just to transfer and store "digital gold" or "sound money". In reality the Ethereum network and DeFi is what they should be totally scared of!!! It is already rendering their control obsolete and showing how much better, transparent and self-sustaining each platform on Ethereum and other Smart Contract capable networks is!!! The contrasting superiority of what we are witnessing just during the past 1 year in DeFi, while everything is regulated simply by plain supply and demand IS MIND-BLOWING! Just the necessary tools and services each person had been needing all this time - WITHOUT INTERMEDIARIES! TRUSTLESS! OF COURSE THEY SHOULD BE SCARED!!!
  • GB
    Griffin B.
    13 February 2021 @ 22:40
    Wow...Pomp should have just walked off after his response to Mike’s sleight that Pomp is not “a technologist”. We all appreciate much of the work Mike has done, but his view on crypto is, as Pomp would say, “absurd”.
  • AW
    Aaron W.
    11 February 2021 @ 05:09
    When you realize that bitcoin is not decentralized, everything changes. A couple phone calls can shut this whole industry down. As Mike knows, two people control 70%+. And if you don't understand "how" or "why they haven't stopped it if they could," then you should learn how and why.
    • VN
      Vano N.
      12 February 2021 @ 04:03
      This is very misinformed and wrong position. Could you please explain in a bit more details how would couple (or 10) phone calls shut this whole industry down?
    • AW
      Aaron W.
      12 February 2021 @ 04:43
      In the same way that one phone call from Xi stopped the world's largest IPO in its eleventh hour, and in the same way that Gavin and Satoshi personally erased 184 billion bitcoin. Today, Xi and Putin can take bitcoin's price down 60% in a day and -90% within a week, at any time, whenever they want. "Mine empty blocks, or the military will be paying you a visit." They certainly do not want to do that *right now,* as the non-USD trade networks, money laundering, and foreign direct investment are fabulously lucrative for them, at the moment.
    • VN
      Vano N.
      12 February 2021 @ 13:17
      I would not agree to that viewpoint. Bitcoin is not an IPO now and you cannot erase anything from Bitcoin now compared to those early years when Satoshi could push anything. Now even small updates take lots of time and consensus to get pushed to the final code. Neither Xi, nor Putin or Biden can threaten and make miners mine empty blocks as the hashpower will just move to a different legislation and those guys will lose whatever financial gain they were getting from having miners in their countries. Gaining something from Bitcoin is far, far easier compared to trying to harm it in any way.
    • AW
      Aaron W.
      13 February 2021 @ 20:45
      There is no consensus needed to force empty blocks, and it cannot be stopped nor "rerouted" elsewhere. Your transposition of hashpower and empty blocks reveals your understanding. The network can go down within an hour, whenever they want to stop it, and the price would collapse immediately. You should study why they have not done this -- why they have not stopped it, yet, is the most important thing for people to understand. Why would Xi let this continue, even if he can stop it at any moment?
  • TO
    Truls O.
    8 February 2021 @ 14:16
    What about Mike vs Raoul?
    • KC
      Krzysztof C.
      13 February 2021 @ 17:34
      Mike vs Mike Saylor would be good. Pomp was a bit disapointing in this debate, losing his cool too easily.
  • CA
    Chris A.
    6 February 2021 @ 19:34
    Hearing Mike’s “non-economic actor” attack was worth the listen. Ultimately Bitcoin has to be wildly successful for the next 5 years before that argument worries me even slightly and by then the cost would be enormous. I’m willing to take that gamble and ride this wildly successful investment. When bitcoin hits $1M I will be sipping rum drinks on my private island and will remain unworried. The rest of Mike’s arguments were rubbish.
    • WD
      William D.
      13 February 2021 @ 15:14
      There aren't enough private islands for all the hodlers...
  • TA
    Thomas A.
    13 February 2021 @ 11:10
    Poor Mike. Only because he shows no emotions doesn't mean his arguments are logic and superior. He's empty poker face can't hide his lack of understanding a new idea.
  • JJ
    Johnny J.
    13 February 2021 @ 01:33
    What are the actual stats on hash power? I found this https://www.statista.com/statistics/1200477/bitcoin-mining-by-country/ which indicates 65% of the hash power is in China (of course, not necessarily by the CCP).. that surprised me. If we have an honest debate, can we agree on a set of facts? I found pomp more convincing generally. Mikes argument that young people don’t need a store of value bc they use their labor instead seems ridiculously old and out of touch. Everyone needs a way to store their production in the most efficient and safest way, out of the reach of governments and others who would keep them as rats in a wheel — everyone.
  • BT
    Boris T.
    3 February 2021 @ 15:57
    Am I alone being rather disappointed with the fact that so much of the discussion revolves around Mike’s assertion that Bitcoin is basically anti-American? Leaving asside what I think of this assetion, it seems like some sort of obsession here which in my view is at odds with the center of interest of the RealVision audience: global investors. Both words I used to qualify the RV audience are important: - investors: meaning that while they probably have no issue hearing about the politics around Bitcoin, their main focus is to understand the arguments in favour or agaisnt the potential investment thesis for it (discussing politics is fine but it shouldn’t take the center stage, or if it does be more clearly linked to the investment thesis). - global: people watching are not a group looking at how to either preserve or displace the current political establishemnt in the US. Many (if not most) listeners aren’t even from the US. And even within the American audience I am pretty sure there are both people who would not like and who would like for Bitcoin to potentially challenge their polotical establishment, and probably even more of them as well who disagree altoghether with that fact that it has an ability to challenge it.
    • JJ
      Johnny J.
      12 February 2021 @ 16:26
      It’s a good point. What shreds of moral authority the US has left post WWII are quickly evaporating.
  • JJ
    Joao J.
    12 February 2021 @ 10:28
    Independent of my stance on Crypto, Pomp just doesn't have the depth to debate at Mike
  • EM
    Eric M.
    10 February 2021 @ 20:51
    I would like further explanation of Mike's claim that it would only cost ~$7B for anyone (a nation-state) to collapse the bitcoin network by flooding it with blank blocks. (like a DOS attack? how would it work?)
    • EM
      Eric M.
      10 February 2021 @ 20:59
      I don't understand how a miner, even with infinite resources, could "mine empty blocks"
    • AW
      Aaron W.
      11 February 2021 @ 05:02
      You should learn, then. Because it is very, very important.
    • ag
      alan g.
      11 February 2021 @ 21:52
      Maybe you could elebarote Aaron?
    • VN
      Vano N.
      12 February 2021 @ 04:27
      Technically, it is very much possible to mine empty blocks or do other illicit activity, like mining blocks with double spends, etc. But obviously, if you do not have at least 51% of global hashpower, you cannot get your blocks accepted by others, because of the longer chain rule and how the Satoshi Consensus works. I posted my take above but will post it here as well. I think the "7 billion attack" is not possible due to how market works and the cost will become parabolic once you start executing it. Once it is costing hundreds of billions, you are effectively stopping, I think and even become an economic actor as you can benefit from it far cheaper and easier. I would suggest that "7 billion dollar" attack is not possible for several reasons: * Mining equipment makers are competing for the semiconductor production capacity against Apple, NVIDIA, Intel, AMD, Samsung, Qualcomm, MediaTek and others in various fabs like TSMC and Samsung. * There is huge shortage of the semiconductor production capacity for everyone - NVIDIA and AMD cannot produce enough GPUs even for the high end consumer market. AMD cannot produce enough CPUs either, particularly for laptop market. GPU manufacturers could not even supply enough when there was no GPU mining craze started yet. The shortage is so bad that miners started to buy gaming laptops for cryptocurrency mining. * Chinese semiconductor industry is still years back in terms of technology and capacity compared to the likes of Intel, TSMC and Samsung so they cannot produce enough either. * To my knowledge, neither North Korea, nor Iran have any competing semiconductor industry. * Even if you start to order huge quantities of mining hardware for evil purposes, you will be competing for the production capacity not only against other cryptocurrency miners but against companies like Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, Samsung and consumers of their goods - companies using their server products all over the world and retail consumers. So the global shortage of such goods will be even worse and that cannot be left unnoticed. + it will become unsustainably costly for the illicit actor to purchase such amount of hardware at an ever increasing price (because of competition). * Cryptocurrency mining follows the cheap electricity. Russia, Kazakhstan, Iran, China... All have ways of producing insane amounts of cheap electricity at 0.02-0.03$ cost per kwh. Miners 100% know about the risk they are taking in operating such markets but once the cost of electricity increases or there are increased political risks, they will move to other legislations again. With cryptocurrency mining, you are seeking to lower your total expenses, either by sourcing a cheap electricity or by making economies on cooling. That's why northern countries are popular. That's why countries with cheap and renewable energy sources are popular. To summarize, once you start executing the "7 billion dollar attack" it will easily cost you hundreds of billions of dollars just because how the market works.
    • AW
      Aaron W.
      12 February 2021 @ 04:48
      When Xi tells someone in China to do something, or when Putin tells someone in Russia to do something, it happens. It is done. Turn off the machines, give me the bitcoin, mine empty blocks until I say stop, whatever he wants. It's happening now, or you're going to disappear for a while. Stop doing math. Think.
  • SB
    Shawn B.
    10 February 2021 @ 02:53
    State control of hash rate seems like the central issue. China has more than half. Theoretically, that makes bitcoin their network. That's a risk factor that needs to be considered by any investor.
    • JC
      Joshua C.
      11 February 2021 @ 17:26
      China already has the largest manufacturing capacity in the world for physical goods. By this kind of reasoning, why is that not a much more important problem to solve first before the one you point out? Having higher hash rate means they get to collect more mining rewards. It doesn't mean they can break the rules of the protocol because if they violate the rules of the protocol, other nodes (including regular users of bitcoin) will just ignore them. It doesn't mean they can reliably censor transactions either because there will be blocks that are mined by other miners that don't censor. So, to say "that makes bitcoin their network" is a stretch.
    • VN
      Vano N.
      12 February 2021 @ 04:32
      No, they do not have more than half or even a third. It means that even though hashpower is concentrated in China, these are miners all over the world operating in China (and in Russia, Kazakhstan, Iran, Georgia...) for the sole purpose of the cheap electricity. If the electricity cost rises or there are big legislation risks, they will move to different countries. Just because we see more than 50% hashpower coming from Chinese mining pools, it does not mean that Chinese government can exercise any control over that. There are people and companies all over the world (from USA, Israel, Gulf states, EU countries) operating in these countries with the cheap electricity for that purpose only.
  • AL
    Andrew L.
    10 February 2021 @ 21:25
    Mike won the debate and exhibited superior intellect and maturity. Pomp's thin skinned reactions revealed a lack of confidence in his own assertions.
    • SM
      Sean M.
      11 February 2021 @ 02:16
      Mike is a guy who actively seeks out people to debate, and is just a brilliant mind. Pomp is a podcaster who only has friendly voices on his show. I'm long bitcoin like everyone else, but Pomp is out of his element.
    • EC
      Edward C.
      11 February 2021 @ 15:50
      This is also well worth a listen. I really enjoy hearing both sides. That is most important to keep an open mind and know if we need to change our minds. But market is proving Pomp correct. https://ttmygh.podbean.com/e/gwp_002/
    • MK
      Michael K.
      11 February 2021 @ 22:10
      Agreed, & am still long bitcoin as you -- better match would have included Nic Carter - I've never heard of the 7 bil attack - but since you can't even buy 7K of GPUs or any ASICs right now,, this isn't an immediate issue, still something I'd be interested in understanding. Mike is obviously brilliant, but I'd rather have a beer with pomp!
  • MP
    Mister P.
    3 February 2021 @ 16:18
    This was sort of like a child debating an adult. Pomp is way out of his depth and should stick to being a hypeman on Twitter where his ideas aren't subjected to real scrutiny.
    • MK
      Martin K.
      3 February 2021 @ 16:32
      Have fun staying poor, boomer.
    • MP
      Mister P.
      3 February 2021 @ 16:35
      Ah, an ad hominem attack. Very appro pro.
    • KV
      Keld V.
      3 February 2021 @ 16:43
      In the debate between Nic Carter and Mike Green it was the other was around though. Mike Green was way out of his depth: https://www.grant-williams.com/podcast/both-sides-of-the-coin-featuring-mike-green-and-nic-carter/
    • MK
      Martin K.
      3 February 2021 @ 16:43
      I'm sorry but Mike's arguments are from 2013 and have already been refuted many times. If he doesn't want to understand because he's balls deep in gold then that's another problem
    • SP
      Sheldon P.
      3 February 2021 @ 16:54
      Its was like watching Nobel Prize winning Economist Paul Krugman debating a young Internet entrepreneur Marc Andreessen on the value of the Internet early in its emergence. Krugman argued that the Internet will be nothing more than a fax machine. We know how that turned out
    • MV
      Martin V.
      3 February 2021 @ 17:51
      Where was Mike's depth on Bitcoin? He's had many opportunities to elaborate on his "danger" thesis, and it's so undeveloped it's laughable.
    • PS
      Pietro S.
      3 February 2021 @ 18:58
      I think you are right about the relative depth of the two participants. But I am also not comfortable to decide that the fact that Mike Green sounded (or was) more mature means that his position is correct. Simply Pomp is not a good enough debater. For example Pomp kept using straw men argument where he would say what Green said and then debate that. Mike left him speaking and then simply acknowledged that Pomp did not answer. This does not mean there is no answer. Simply Pomp didn't say it (maybe he ignored it, maybe it did not exist). It would be good to have this kind of debate with other, more prepared, people. Also I find disingenuous that Green points to the fact that dictatorship is the place where people use Bitcoin as a proof that Bitcoin is a tool to harm the United States. This is really silly. Bitcoin is active where there is a strict control of capital. And of course Dictatorships are the places where people use more Bitcoin. That's where people need it. Ultimately it was the host work to keep pushing the people and avoid them to wiggle out. For example writing down the claims, and the answers.
    • DK
      Dean K.
      3 February 2021 @ 19:09
      I would suggest - Present and insightful vs cynical and arrogant
    • cc
      c c.
      11 February 2021 @ 06:21
      I hate that I had that feeling too. Pomp seemed wildly unprofessional and failed to argue many key points brought up by Mike. I would like to see this discussion again with Mike, but with someone who is a bit stronger at debating.
  • RG
    Rob G.
    8 February 2021 @ 07:35
    Great chat. Two smart guys. Sounds like Mike is under-ivnested in BTC
    • AW
      Aaron W.
      11 February 2021 @ 06:00
      If what you understood from that debate is that Mike cared about the price of bitcoin, you missed the entire point.
  • DN
    Douglas N.
    8 February 2021 @ 01:57
    I haven't really watched this, because I took the advice below and watched the Carter/Green debate instead. I came away with this: If you want to remain a crypto bull do not listen to Mike Green. He convincingly makes the case it can't be money and its status as a store of value is a matter of faith. All the algorithms in the world don't change these facts. I hold enough Bitcoin so that I will be delighted if it hits even 50k, and not notice if it goes bust. But the first thought I had when I started looking at it about 6 months ago was come again....why on earth would I EVER want to banish financial middlemen? For example, VISA? If something goes wrong with a transaction I dispute click a button to dispute it and get dozens of people scurry around and end up crediting my account. I love these middlemen. I want to marry these middlemen. Save me from a world where I am forced to deal directly and irrevocably with anonymous crooks and thieves.
    • SG
      Syed G.
      8 February 2021 @ 21:42
      This truth is worth at least 1 bitcoin.
    • LS
      Lemony S.
      10 February 2021 @ 01:57
      "He convincingly makes the case it can't be money and its status as a store of value is a matter of faith." Nobody really believes it will be money, at most they believe it SHOULD be money. So it's a stupid, irrelevant point. And second, everything that has a "store of value" is based on faith. EVERYTHING. If it weren't, why would people be going to a new store of value called BTC? Are we even living in the same world as these people? It's odd when guys as smart as Mike have a bad take on things, and it's rare, but it's alarming. Oh well.
    • ES
      Eric S.
      11 February 2021 @ 04:55
      Visa will become the middleman for Bitcoin. Bitcoin will be the asset as its monetary policy is more trust worthy. The prime issue is that politicians and central banks are fundamentally inefficient and at times very ineffective, bitcoin at least is a hard money system where the rules don't change and hence is one less factor in the system. Rules change all the time in the Fiat money system, now its okay for rules to change in politics as they should, but money needs to remain the same.
  • ph
    phil h.
    8 February 2021 @ 06:57
    Excellent. Really enjoyed. In my humble opinion, both are wrong and right. But one thing is clear, bitcoin is a reaction to imbalance just like protests are. This is only just beginning for digital everything and hopefully it will force positive change where it’s needed - and reduce the powerful taking advantage of the population. It’s an enabler if managed properly.
    • ES
      Eric S.
      11 February 2021 @ 04:52
      well said, add to that. What digital trends do you see? I see adoption of distributed networks more and more. I see people running nodes and mining bitcoin to help guard the network.
  • WR
    William R.
    9 February 2021 @ 00:06
    Mike’s concerns about a non economic actor are the most cogent criticisms of Bitcoin. So let’s go deeper. Who or what is that actor? It’s not an individual, too expensive. What about a company, or a competitor? I think we can rule those out too because of the “non-economic” criteria, and because there really aren’t crypto competitors to bitcoin’s store of value proposition. That leaves state actors. They definitely make non-economic “war” based decisions all the time. The problem is that Bitcoin is an attack vector for one state only - the United States. Only the USD, and it’s reserve currency status, could be harmed by Bitcoin. Other states like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea actively engage in conduct to undermine that reserve status and to get around the SWIFT payment rails. So from a game theoretical perspective, these “bad actor” states have power based, non-economic incentives to encourage bitcoin adoption. In fact, these state actors have every incentive to defend the network from attack, as Bitcoin furthers their Realpolitik objectives. This leaves only one state that has non-economic incentives to attack bitcoin: the United States. Now maybe there are “deep state” elements that might work toward that end, but every branch of the public facing US government, as Pomp said, is embracing Bitcoin and digital assets in general. So we would need to see a complete about-face at a US macro policy level. Is that impossible? No, but the attack surface seems small, and would be counteracted by intense political lobbying, and robust property rights in the US legal system. Said differently, Mike is overweight a tail risk that becomes increasingly difficult to execute as Bitcoin’s network and value effects grow over time. He also discounts the response from other economic and non-economic actors if such an attack were to occur.
    • ES
      Eric S.
      11 February 2021 @ 04:47
      I think there is too much positive incentive for everyone to adopt Bitcoin. There is very minimal incentive that I can see for any state to attack the network. The US doesn't even want to police and bank the entire world. Bitcoin, Apple, Google, Starlink, Facebook, Starbucks, digital Central banks and digital banks will bank the world. The US doesn't need to be so involved with everything and that is okay, but US wont let China bank the world, so the fair opt out is Bitcoin.
  • DL
    Dan L.
    11 February 2021 @ 00:45
    @Mike Green - loved the Glen Gary reference!!! Classic. But I'm still long Bitcoin, you haven't convinced me to capitulate yet...
  • AT
    Aleem T.
    8 February 2021 @ 11:16
    Mike providing facts and no logical responses back. Mike G vs Michael Saylor would be a better debate
    • DD
      David D.
      8 February 2021 @ 14:29
      Yes, Mike marshaled facts and logic; Pomp less so.
    • BH
      Ben H.
      9 February 2021 @ 18:58
      Agreed
    • cw
      chris w.
      10 February 2021 @ 14:20
      Conveying facts does not win an argument.
  • ML
    Michelle L.
    10 February 2021 @ 11:04
    "War is not an economic interest"????? (29min09sec). Wow that would have to be the quote of the millenium, Mike!! Someone let the industrial military complex know! You Americans crack me up.
  • DL
    David L.
    7 February 2021 @ 21:53
    Very interesting discussion. I do wonder about the extent to which Mike Green is stating his ACTUAL views.... and to what extent is he advocating for an outcome that would be of benefit to him personally. Mike makes a good living in traditional finance, and it would be contrary to his interests for his clients to abandon HIS money management operation in favor of cryptocurrencies. So it is in HIS interest to convince his existing clients (and future clients) to REMAIN in the traditional finance investment vehicles. In addition, Mike is probably allied with the bankers, who stand to be made worse off by the rise in use of digital currencies.
    • GC
      Guillermo C.
      9 February 2021 @ 17:03
      No no no, he is genuinely worried about the middle class and the bad international actors. He's a good samaritan.
    • LS
      Lemony S.
      10 February 2021 @ 02:00
      I like Mike a lot, but it's too little too late. And he still hasn't answered European hodler while he yuks it up with Peter Thiel and their multi million dollar ventures. The power brokers and leaders changed the game, the rules, got most of the money ... and now the re-balancing occurs. As I said, too little too late. The last chance to stop it was either 1965 or latest, with Ross Perot.
  • YL
    Yun L.
    10 February 2021 @ 01:00
    Pomp’s attitude is just so hard to watch. He was privileged to have a chance to debate mike, who’s so strong in logics.
  • JG
    Judith G.
    10 February 2021 @ 00:29
    Distributed ledger technology with tokenization is the future, not Bitcoin. Bitcoin provided a proof of concept which Etherium advanced the concept further, but Hedera Hasjgraph blows them both out of the water as far as I can tell.
  • AW
    Aaron W.
    9 February 2021 @ 15:23
    Sadly, Pomp spent half of his time arguing against things that Mike never said.
  • GC
    Guillermo C.
    9 February 2021 @ 14:59
    3 minutes in and the guy is already spreading patriotic FUD
  • TS
    Tao S.
    9 February 2021 @ 01:17
    Love Mike Green, he did well, but bitcoin (Pomp) wins!
  • RS
    Roger S.
    7 February 2021 @ 15:44
    A network that provides trusted transactions on the net without the need of a third party is beneficial. Send me some fake news, now send me a fake gold bar which is just gold plated lead, now try and send me some fake Bitcoin.
    • GP
      Geoff P.
      8 February 2021 @ 18:42
      or more appropriately, steal your cc info or get your btc hacked.... go ahead i'll wait... yeah cc cos are mandated to protect against fraud. btc is the equivalent of storing all your wealth in cash under your mattress hoping you don't get robbed.
  • PJ
    Paul J.
    6 February 2021 @ 08:32
    pomp - Freedom democracy, capitalism, free markets. Green - Logically fact based arguments.
    • JE
      Johannes E.
      6 February 2021 @ 15:47
      Green's command is not "of facts", but "of narrative".
    • PJ
      Paul J.
      8 February 2021 @ 18:33
      What part of Green's debate was narrative? I would be interested to know! Want was the most convincing logical arguement of Pomp, based on facts, that has the most weight for you?
  • PJ
    Paul J.
    6 February 2021 @ 12:15
    Green - "At binance you are not trading against another counterpart but the house". Really? Is this true?
    • JE
      Johannes E.
      6 February 2021 @ 15:43
      I suspect there's truth to this in either case. It takes days before you can cold store a bitcoin off of platforms like binance or Coinbase. It's a matter of custody and settlement with any intermediary. Same for gold and silver, often, / reliance on ETF representation. What's disingenuous from Green is that this is the system as is. Every stock you think you own in a brokerage account really isn't own. All you actually own is a claim to the stock against your broker,age who owns a claim against a custodian, who in turn owns a claim with the DTC. Hence, settlement takes days and many counter-parties and you're invariably an unwitting participant in related counter-party risk. (See SIPC insurance in the US) Incidentally, that's the counter-party risk exposed during credit crisis when the "music stops" and suddenly its discovered that "claims to" far exceed actual asset seats. As for bitcoin, the core reality is that it's only truly bitcoin and BItcoin if it's self custodied under your own stewardship. All else is a counter-party risk.
    • PJ
      Paul J.
      8 February 2021 @ 18:30
      Thanks for the reply Johannes E. I do not think you ansered my question. Green said that you are trading against the house at Binance. This seems wrong to me. My question wasn't a questionsw about counterparty risk. You are not correct that Bitcoin is the only asset with counterparty risk. If you hold gold in your own vault, Art, wine, real estate and other pythical assets.
  • BT
    Bryan T.
    7 February 2021 @ 16:01
    Do yourself a favor and watch the discussion between Green and Nic Carter. Think of this discussion between MG and Pomp as the opening act...with Green vs Carter as the main event. https://www.grant-williams.com/podcast/both-sides-of-the-coin-featuring-mike-green-and-nic-carter/
    • BG
      Brian G.
      7 February 2021 @ 19:46
      Thanks for sharing.. the Green Vs. Carter interview is a more thoughtful debate....
    • JL
      Jason L.
      8 February 2021 @ 17:13
      I agree. The Mike vs Nic debate was superior. Nic is a much deeper thinker than Pomp on Bitcoin and produces his own research and analysis. He's also more knowledgeable of the studies and concerns Mike cites. Pomp embodies Mike's straw man argument while Nic tears down that argument.
  • JF
    Jose F.
    8 February 2021 @ 07:37
    Mikeeee you rock!!
  • SW
    Steve W.
    4 February 2021 @ 09:51
    Get Mike on with Michael Saylor the interview would go something like this MG - bitcoin is a deflationary currency that will cause ruin MS - bitcoin isn't a currency it's a digital store of value MG - Oh ok then...........but what about patriotism and losing control over the world MS - Maybe you should have been more outspoken about elites shipping our dollars and jobs to China if that was your concern MG - I would have been but I was earning too much money......anyway it was an inside job by techies who will become the new global elite and I'm worried cos I'm not a techie. MS - Well maybe it's better that they become the world leaders rather than a man who has clearly just had a stroke MG - It wasn't a fair distribution though? MS - and you think other currencies are? .......everyone had the chance to buy it at 20 dollars, 100 dollars, 500 dollars, 1000 dollars, 5000 dollars, 20000 dollars. It wasn't institutions first, it was clever people first, regardless of economic or ethnicity MG - Yes but what does the common person in all this do, it requires specialist knowledge? MS - Dunno Mike, maybe they should play long vol, gamma, break even rate gambles or short stock that doesn't belong to them? MG........errrrrrrrr..........
    • AW
      Angela W.
      5 February 2021 @ 04:40
      Oh Steve, that is priceless!! Thank you so much!!
    • LM
      Lorin M.
      8 February 2021 @ 04:48
      Caught all of that one.
  • LH
    Laurent H.
    8 February 2021 @ 03:33
    Very interesting, and they were at boiling point at times. Was exciting!
  • BC
    Bill C.
    4 February 2021 @ 17:53
    Mike's point about who the predominant miners are at this point is concerning.
    • PW
      Paul W.
      7 February 2021 @ 19:24
      He is lying.... he has no way of knowing same as the rest of us https://www.blockchain.com/pools I once heart him(on RV as the interviewer) say that he was an expert on technology because he was born and raised in silicon valley........I played pool with plenty of kids who were born and raised in SV when I worked there in the dotcom era......non of them where tech experts.. experts in lots of other stuff including taking money off me.... but not tech.
  • KB
    Kurt B.
    6 February 2021 @ 00:57
    While Pomp lost this battle, Bitcoin has already won the war.
    • aK
      ac K.
      7 February 2021 @ 19:18
      I disagree with you. In my opinion, Pomp 'won' this "battle"...and with little doubt. These same arguments that Green used here were similar to those used when the internet was first growing, when the home computer was first introduced, when iPhones were first introduced, when I-watches were first marketed...and when Elon Musk first introduced Tesla. You are right on one point: Bitcoin has already won and will continue to be adopted. Let us hope America will lead here and doesn't not trail behind the world with this mathematically beautiful technology that can help people around the world live better lives.
  • MC
    Matthew C.
    7 February 2021 @ 19:00
    It was nice to see that we have real arguments about crypto. It is the difference of opinion that makes the markets or betting on the horse races. The fact that Mike lives on getting to the dollars first, as they are dumped into the system, make for a good reason to defend it and shoot down any new comers to the party. I truly get his point. He is part the problem with the current system and he feels he can use the unknown to scare people which will continue make him rich. He just says he sold his Bitcoin. Did he really? The fact that the US government was created to protect our property rights and created a fixed and defined currency(Gold and Silver) has nothing to do with the fact that the private central banks provide a different currency which is actually a debt instrument called dollars which is completely different than Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a digital commodity which makes it closer to gold that dollars. A bitcoin miner is just like a banker in that they receive the value first before it gets distributed so they will get rich providing the service of creating the asset. They will also get rich maintaining the asset once it cannot be mined. But they cannot hypothecate your assets like Banks and Brokers do now as they steal your wealth by not paying you to use your assets. So far Bitcoin is the best collector of Shit (coins and Fiat) assets. The Euro and Dollar are include in that statement which is why Bitcoin appears to rise in value against them but there will be many more tradable and valuable Crypto assets as people learn they can cut the leaches( Bankers, Brokers and Money managers ) out of the system. The fact that the central Bankers created massive quantities of Fiat just in the last year which if converted into paper would probably remove the last trees on the planet does not have you looking for a better asset to create and protect wealth. I am not sure what does. I am going with crypto while minimizing the destructive effects of participating in the current Fiat world. When a government thinks you are its property and creates laws that do not make sense and you do not follow them it makes you a criminal in their eyes. America was created by criminals to some(The King and his establishment) and heroes and freedom fighters to others(new Citizens). Citizens welcome to the new world!!
  • RS
    Robert S.
    5 February 2021 @ 03:35
    I appreciate Pomp's enthusiasm but I don't think this was a fair comparison of ability to debate the merits. I am going to suggest Lyn Alden with her facts and research against Mike Green in a debate format.
    • ps
      peter s.
      5 February 2021 @ 10:25
      yes!!
    • CF
      Charles F.
      7 February 2021 @ 16:47
      I’m going to suggest Lyn Alden as others have. Lyn famously “brings the receipts” to all her interviews and her delivery is more than a match for MG’s admittedly formidable performance.
    • PW
      Paul W.
      7 February 2021 @ 18:26
      Loretta Joseph...... would tan Mike G's pompous ass
  • EM
    Eric M.
    7 February 2021 @ 17:38
    Great debate, I like many of Mike’s points. I am still buying Bitcoin though.
  • TZ
    Toomas Z.
    4 February 2021 @ 15:23
    I think if we look back at history, major turning points and unexpected events can later be seen as "wow, it was so obvious and there were so many signs". If you take an unbiased look at Bitcoin, while it is the market leader in the crypto space and an entry point for people unknowledgeable in the crypto space and why it is so valuable, there are so many red flags. Here's just a few to name; 1. Mining energy costs are higher than the energy consumption of Switzerland and growing fast. The establishment is obsessed about green energy & energy efficiency in general, which Bitcoin is clearly not. Will this affect it in the future, and will policy makers look at this with disdain/attempts to curb PoW chains via taxes/other impediments in favour of other energy efficient protocols? Who knows.... 2. While 51% attack costs are high and human solutions/hard forks would probably be found to any attack that is attempted, this would shake confidence in the chain and mining power concentration can be used to launder money/funnel dollars to China/control BTC without looking like it. For example, recent investigations have shown Chinese govt. sponsored miners setting up in Iran/other countries, pretending to not be affiliated with China so as not to cause mining concentration concerns in govts/people. 3. Scalability - the obvious one, L2 is clunky and doesn't work while very few people actually use it. All the amazing financial innovation is happening in altcoins (tokenization, NFT, DeFi, payments, data ownership, DEX), with very little being built on BTC that people actually use. 4. Tribalism - people pushing BTC in general struggle to take have an unbiased view, and are tunneling in on a single outcome as that is the one which will make them rich, without even looking at the risks or possibilities that they could be wrong. This dogma has been heard through history many times; "house prices are stable and can never go down", "bonds are safe and risk free" etc. - these trends often go on far longer than anyone thinks they should, before reversing violently. I'm not saying BTC will go down in price, it may actually go up/level out somewhere but to say that it is guaranteed to dominate world finance in 10-30 years and will maintain its lead over other platforms that are building future financial systems (ETH, Polkadot, and probably other future platforms that will solve the problems that these 1st/2nd gen ones will inevitably have) is beyond any rationality, in my mind.
    • WL
      William L.
      4 February 2021 @ 16:02
      Pomp is twisting the Greene’s facts/comments and without replying to them and he becomes unprofessionally aggressive making it personal rather then professional.
    • MS
      Milkey S.
      4 February 2021 @ 16:29
      You lose all credibility right out of the gate by going after the green energy FUD when its factually false. A large portion of Bitcoin’s mining in China uses abundant energy that would be otherwise sitting on grid/excess supply, and most notably in “green” powered areas like Sichuan and Xinjiang where renewable sources like hydroelectric, solar, and geothermal are common. So essentially, BTC brilliantly converts abundant energy to "money/value" storing it for potential future use as an effective SOV should. Many other nations also use/tap into electrical grids over supply.
    • CF
      Charles F.
      7 February 2021 @ 17:06
      On point 3 you are partially correct in that one potential L2 solution - LN - has not seen widespread adoption - however billions of USD worth of bitcoin have migrated to other networks as collateral - those wrapped tokens suffer none of the scalability issues seen on the BTC network. As far as clunkiness goes? We are in the very early stages and very few resources have been brought to bear on UI/UX - that will change quickly. I’m not even sure we are in the Mosaic stage yet - we might even be the Internet pre- www.
  • SM
    S M.
    7 February 2021 @ 04:04
    Intentially adding empty blocks to the Bitcoin blockchain through a sustained attack would add electricity and maintentance costs for all participants in the network, so if by Mike's own admission 90% of the nodes are operated by nation states that are adversaries of the US, then this would not be an attack vector worth considering. Am I missing something?
    • CF
      Charles F.
      7 February 2021 @ 16:30
      It would be a short term inconvenience and accelerate the adoption of layer 2 solutions. It’s the same scalability problem that is already being addressed.
    • CF
      Charles F.
      7 February 2021 @ 16:32
      So no, it’s unlikely a nation state would attempt the empty block attack and even less likely it would have the desired outcome.
  • AP
    Antonio P.
    7 February 2021 @ 16:01
    I said on twitter and I will say it again here: Pomp was not the guy to debate Mike Green. I will stop hearing because it is a waste of time...
  • PP
    Peter P.
    7 February 2021 @ 12:56
    Thank you both as not easy to step up and debate on video for others to watch later and comment on. What got me into Bitcoin was Real Vision accepting Bitcoin as payment for the Real Vision subscription - no longer an option (Maybe Ash is working on getting that back ?) Years later, I fail to see anything that makes more sense to pay for in Bitcoin rather than US$. Mike Green's argument that there is no economy built on inelastic money is the last word. Bitcoin code is easily replicated & when final improvements come, any World Bank type organization can distribute an inelastic money to everyone on earth to make barter payments with - providing a store of value and safekeeping for an unbanked mother in a 3rd world country without property rights - more important use & utility than anything in the USA. Pomp - name dropping famous names is fun but you will learn these traders tell you they are in, after they are in, and they will not call you beforehand to say they are going to get out.
  • BJ
    Brandon J.
    7 February 2021 @ 10:10
    Pro tip: skip the parts where Pomp talks. He doesn't debate anything, just monologues on and on saying nothing at all.
  • ST
    Swamp T.
    7 February 2021 @ 08:53
    Bitcoin will remain a store of value until the day many people/institutions don't want it. When that day comes, you better hope you're on the right side of that trade! Just as its price history shows, that day will be very ugly.
  • BS
    Benjamin S.
    7 February 2021 @ 07:46
    The MG / Nic Carter debate was much better. Hard to tell if MG is sincere or just looking for a way to get more notoriety. (Like PS and gold).Regardless, It’s important to hear the other side of the BTC argument.
  • KA
    Kyle A.
    7 February 2021 @ 06:46
    Pomp sounding like a broken record as usual. Just remember folks, at the end of the day, Pomp is a marketer.
  • KA
    Kyle A.
    7 February 2021 @ 06:14
    Pomp is insufferable. "Mike, Mike, Mike". Debates like a child.
    • KA
      Kyle A.
      7 February 2021 @ 06:19
      Mike attempts to support his thesis with facts and statistics. Pomp chooses to primarily reference anecdotal evidence and broad, unsubstantiated claims.
  • TP
    Tate P.
    6 February 2021 @ 12:43
    Anyone have an idea where Mike Green got the idea 40% of BTC transactions are illegal? Is this due to cross border transfers like remittance and the like, or silk road type activity? If he's correct isn't the fact that you can see those activities on the blockchain give you the opportunity to build out tools to prevent them?
    • jb
      joseph b.
      6 February 2021 @ 13:15
      That is a question for a proctologist. But this might be a clue. Arthur Hayes the founder of Bitmex is facing a possible 10 years in prison for not adhering to KYC, AML regs. Really. WOW crime of the century stuff.
    • JE
      Johannes E.
      6 February 2021 @ 15:35
      Crime of not enabling surrogate violations of the 4th by Congress, more like.
    • aK
      ac K.
      6 February 2021 @ 20:48
      There is NO such data to support his claim. Green is likely just comfortable in his 'analogue' world while the digital world is clearly central to the future (and the present). People do NOT want to give up their influence over others, which is exactly what fiat money does because others (a person or government) can literally steal 'time' (the value of a fiat) anytime they chose too.
    • NI
      Nate I.
      7 February 2021 @ 04:53
      Nobody knows what percent of BTC transactions are for illegal purposes. It's just a made up number that sounds scary that will be used to justify onerous regulation or outright criminalization of BTC. It's the same bs many governments have used to justify elimination of high denomination fiat bills. They just run the same playbook over and over. The goal isn't to stop criminals. In fact, governments love criminals because that keeps people scared and it gets them to agree to ever larger government. The true goal of these measures is always the same. It's to make sure the slaves don't get off the plantation.
  • NI
    Nate I.
    7 February 2021 @ 04:40
    While I hope and pray for the outcome Pomp expects, I think the outcome that Mike expects for BTC is virtually certain. There is no way - short of divine intervention - the US gov will allow BTC to supplant its worthless dollar. They've killed millions of innocent people to protect the dollar and they'll gladly do it again without hesitation or regret.
  • Se
    Sandra e.
    7 February 2021 @ 03:59
    This debate was very helpful for me to better understand Bitcoin. Green made some very valuable observations. I agree with him and see NO reason why Bitcoin would be adopted by central banks. There are already some very interesting basket-based stable coins for that. What bitcoin is is 'sardines in the can'... stories of Bitcoin as similiar to gold storage are just stories. I also think people are naive in understanding that there are countries out there that want to take down the US $ which would greatly weaken our Country. Bitcoin was a great beta project to guide governments in bringing out there own crypto.
  • JS
    James S.
    7 February 2021 @ 03:49
    Sigh... The frustrating thing about watching these crypto debates is that people fundamentally disagree on a lot of the data underlying each others' arguments. For example, people disagree on the volume of Tether transactions flowing into Bitcoin and Ether on various exchanges, the level of illicit activity in crypto exchanges, or alternatively the percentage of the hash power that is located in various countries based on IP Addresses. This data transparency problem effectively means you can choose statistics from conflicting sources to support your own personal narrative rather than having an objective debate. In my opinion, this is why crypto debates are so divided with so many dogmatic opinions...
  • SM
    Show M.
    7 February 2021 @ 02:54
    Just saw the Nic Carter and MG debate. It is clearly an order of magnitude above this one in the quality and substance of the discussion. However, I came away from that one, more convinced of MG's p.o.v. With the Tether saga coming to a head, I think we will find out soon enough where the bodies are buried. When the dust settles in its aftermath, it will become clear what BTC and the broader crypto market are really worth.
  • MS
    Matthew S.
    5 February 2021 @ 14:16
    This will not age well for Mike. Bunch of recycled Bitcoin FUD (fear + uncertainty + doubt) dressed up in smart intellectual prose and insider macro-finance terms. Not quite as bad as the Quad4 debacle for Keith @ HedgeEye but close. Never forget - Mike almost did a PHat bitcoin buy when the price was really cheap and he passed. How much of his thinking is biased by knowing that he screwed up and is not ready to sacrifice his ego and admit he was (and still is) very wrong.
    • MM
      Martin M.
      7 February 2021 @ 02:27
      I get the strong impression from watching Mike’s interviews that his moral principals are what stop him from participating in the system. If he wanted to prosper on the speculation he still good. Although he seems to be convinced its run will be handicapped very soon.
  • DK
    David K.
    5 February 2021 @ 21:57
    Breaking News ::: Pomp has ben officially removed from the debate circuit::::Breaking News RV...Who cancelled at the last minute??? Have watched Pomp debate Bitcoin with others and he never looks good....Never!! Is there any surprise that Laila Ali couldn't go 12 rounds with Mike Tyson? "Pomp, please stay in your lane! You're a nice guy, a good interviewer, you're entrepreneurial, you have a beautiful wife, but please...You're a bitcoin podcast host!" This was not a fair fight! I am a Bitcoiner and thought Mike Green was knowledgeable, articulate and made some excellent arguments as he landed body shot after body shot to Pomp's abdomen. This is an interesting and important topic and unfortunately for us/me a "rare" missed opportunity by RV. Ash, excellent job as always!!
    • MM
      Martin M.
      7 February 2021 @ 02:18
      Pomp, ”when Mike feels cornered he uses smart language and intelligence, I’m not going to insult you by speaking simply so everyone can understand. . . .” My expectations for hearing some cogent well researched nuances fell dramatically from that point forward.”
  • SG
    Stuart G.
    7 February 2021 @ 01:30
    Mike is... Mike's saying... Make wants... Mike's argument is... (Pomp inserts bad stuff. Mike calmly rebuts. Repeat ad nauseum...) Either Pomp is projecting, this is more of a grudge match than a debate, or both. I wasn't part of the prior conversations and can't stand to keep watching.
  • JJ
    JORDAN J.
    5 February 2021 @ 18:40
    Regarding China's Attack: I'm not an expert in technology by any means, but did it occur to anyone perhaps that if China is producing blank blocks, that nobody would be able to sell their bitcoin, and therefore, the price cannot actually go to 0? (Except for maybe weak hands who will find ways to sell OTC) It's like a circuit breaker against network corruption. And then when the Nodes that have the entire blockchain recorded swap over to a different mining algorithm, making China's billions in mining equipment entirely worthless, and bringing the network back online, will people be willing to sell out of BTC at that point in order to buy debased fiat? I guess maybe they might, but I doubt it. BTC would just get stronger. Here's my argument: "Non-economic" actors are like people who jump and think they can defeat gravity. They can exist in that state for a period of time, but not indefinitely. BTC doesn't need protection against hypothetical "non-economic" human actors because, if those ones even exist, they can't afford to be around for very long. Now if the argument was that an asteroid would wipe out all life, or a solar flare would remove the atmosphere -- I guess yeah in those cases, BTC might go to 0. :D
    • LK
      L K.
      6 February 2021 @ 19:51
      That is a very interesting thought. However, price action on exchanges does not completely depend on on-chain transactions. It is correct to to say coins would not be able to move on or off exchange. But whatever was already there would be able to be traded. This would likely mean a severe crash due to lack of liquidity. The on-chain ledger would be unaffected and therefore it would be possible to fork to a new mining algorithm. But this would time to implement in a decentralized network. The reputational damage caused by such an attack would certainly have a negative effect on price that would persist for some time. I would not like to speculate how this would affect the long-term price.
    • CF
      Charles F.
      7 February 2021 @ 01:15
      This isn't even a new problem. We've already experienced it on a much smaller scale and while it's true that China could potentially control a large amount of the hashrate, they cannot control all the hashrate and blocks filled with transactions would continue to be mined - albeit at a much slower pace. The mempool would fill up and transaction costs would rise exponentially as a result. The solution to this perceived threat by a "non-economic" actor is the same solution to the existing scaling problem: Layer-2 solutions, side-chains and wrapped bitcoin exchanged on Ethereum, Polkadot, etc. Bitcoin's store of value would continue to function and the "non-economic" actor would have burned billions to create a temporary inconvenience and delay of on-chain settlements as the crypto world adapted. If I can figure this out I'm pretty sure China is smart enough to realize this as well. On a side-note this is also why the big-blockers are wrong - well they market already determined they were wrong so we didn't really need this thought experiment to make that point.
  • JJ
    James J.
    7 February 2021 @ 00:06
    “The problem with the Bitcoin system is that it ultimately relies on economic incentives to keep things flowing.” “The problem with the stock market is that it ultimately relies on economic incentives to keep things flowing.” “The problem with the US Dollar is that it ultimately relies on economic incentives to keep things flowing.” “The problem with gold as a store of value is that it ultimately relies on economic incentives to keep things flowing.”
  • aK
    ac K.
    6 February 2021 @ 21:21
    No fiat currency whose value can be manipulated by a person or government has ever lasted (something mike green fails to acknowledge). The oldest fiat currency in existence is the English pound that has since lost well over 99% of its value! Regardless of its demand, the supply of Bitcoin cannot change and no one has the power to do so.
  • aK
    ac K.
    6 February 2021 @ 20:44
    Mike Green's opening sounds much like those arguments used against the internet, the mobile phone, WiFi, Social media (FB), and Tesla - he can't see the future and the connectivity or "network effect" that Bitcoin and Crypocurrencies will have on America and the world. Green's world view is locked in the past and sounds like someone who doesn't want to learn (or doesn't appreciate mate and physics) or has little respect for the network effects of this 'technology.' Thank GOD for this technology and those who are willing to learn and 'see' that no one can shut this technology down.
    • aK
      ac K.
      6 February 2021 @ 21:12
      (or doesn't appreciate math - not 'mate' - or physics) - #typo
  • DR
    David R.
    6 February 2021 @ 21:02
    I think this discussion largely missed the mark. Bitcoin is being adopted (regardless of what any government does) because it is the soundest money. That is why gold became the ‘gold standard’ previously - because it could not be easily debased. Now that Bitcoin has been invented, people are adopting it because it is a better ‘gold’ than gold. Money is a measuring stick - and nobody wants to use a measuring stick that keeps on changing based on the whims of government.
  • TS
    Tom S.
    4 February 2021 @ 03:22
    Mike won the debate but that is primarily a function of Pomp not being strong in this debate. With that said, I am not convinced that not having some allocation to Bitcoin is not a prudent thing to do.
    • ME
      Mina E.
      4 February 2021 @ 04:44
      Exactly. Mike is a master debater and clearly a very smart guy. But none of this appeared to be a good faith, intellectually curious discussion. Mike admits there is a non-zero chance of bitcoin success but refuses to hedge that tail risk by buying some as insurance. This appears to be a purely emotional decision as there is no rational reason to have ZERO allocation. But now that he's come out publicly against bitcoin, he will be forced to double and triple down to save face. He does not strike me as one who is humble enough to admit he may be wrong, and pride comes before the fall... I'll take him more seriously when I see more steel men and less straw men.
    • LK
      L K.
      6 February 2021 @ 20:42
      Good point, Mina. I also found it strange that MG has also stated that his wife wanted to invest $10k very early on and he suggested that they put in $100k because that would make a difference. Ultimately they didn't make the trade. The amount proposed by his wife would not have been an insignificant amount of bitcoin relative to total supply. It would have been a large percentage of his net worth at the time he decided to liquidate his position.
  • JB
    James B.
    4 February 2021 @ 18:14
    Alright time for a rant: Mike's Main Point: Buying Bitcoin is unpatriotic and it's your duty as an American to bend over and take it like a champ while the government abuses your life savings and weaponizes the dollar agains the entire world. If Mike is so patriotic then maybe he should serve in the military like Pomp did instead of working for a hedge fund. Also, are any of the things he has bought in his life sourced from China? Because if so, hE'S HeLpInG A NeFaRiOuS AcToR GeT DoLlArS. Mike has such a US-centric view of the world. I have lived in the US, UK, Japan, India and if we want to get into a true moral discussion then it's fair to ask if the US holding sole power over the global reserve asset is a good thing for the 7.3 billion people who don't live in the US. I am strongly anti-CCP but China, Iran, Russia, etc. are made up of human beings who want to be happy, healthy, provide for their family just like the rest of us. Maybe a neutral global reserve asset would be a good thing for those people.
    • SD
      Sebastien D.
      4 February 2021 @ 20:00
      I got tired of seing Mike lately. The fact that he is so concerned about morale and the societal impact of Bitcoin after spending a career making money with hot air for rich people feels particularly hipocrit to me.
    • DP
      David P.
      6 February 2021 @ 06:36
      Your argument brings something to mind. For the ancient Greeks, something worse than tyranny was xenocraty, being ruled by a foreign country or company (thing East India company). Something that is the case of many countries in the world.
    • LK
      L K.
      6 February 2021 @ 20:25
      One downside of RV's guests being so successful and accomplished are that they are often out of touch with the every day person they claim to advocate for. I think both MG and Pomp fall into this category, to different degrees.
  • CJ
    Chris J.
    4 February 2021 @ 19:50
    A superior Mike Green. An argument forgotten is that 50% of the world's bitcoins are held by just 1,000 people, thats very dangerous to say the least.
    • LK
      L K.
      6 February 2021 @ 20:20
      This is incorrect. Wallet addresses do not correspond to individuals. Nic Carter addressed this very eloquently in his debate with Mike Green on Grant William' podcast. Willy Woo has also covered this point on numerous occasions.
  • FC
    Felipe C.
    5 February 2021 @ 13:40
    It was painful to watch and I gave up half way down. Mike is presenting concerns and opinions about Bitcoin and Bitcoin’s network, specifically. However, Pompliano does not seem to understand even where the debate is and keeps generalizing Mike’s positions about Bitcoin on the overall decentralization and digitalization story. He does not come back with a counterpoint and just keeps repeating the same fan boy BS non-stop. One of the comments suggest that RV should let Mike present his case unchallenged. I Agree. Or do a better job finding someone who can debate instead of those annoying cheerleaders types.
    • AA
      Andrew A.
      5 February 2021 @ 15:10
      Completely agree with you Felipe. Any objective person could see that AP did not address MG's concerns about the concentration of mining (and hash rate) in China and the potential for the Chinese State to attack the network through any number of measures including nationalisation and cutting power supplies. The most significant risk highlighted by MG is, once they take control of the miners, launching an attack on the network by mining empty blocks and preventing transactions. We need someone with more technical knowledge than AP to explain why MG is wrong. I'm a long term BTC holder but am seriously considering reducing my exposure because of this.
    • LK
      L K.
      6 February 2021 @ 20:13
      Does anyone know where this geographical hast rate data comes from or the methodology used to estimate it? Although Pomp did poor job of responding to this concern, he did at least make the point that hash rate is increasing. Since hash rate is lined to to price, the higher the valuation the more costly this attack would be to implement for a non-economic actor. Of course this is a slight simplification, due to the halving cycle, but it is not unreasonable to assume a doubling of price over a four-year period and and some compensation in block reward being offset by increased transaction fees. Here's another hypothetical scenario (I'm not saying it is likely!): what if private US corporations increasingly use bitcoin as a treasury asset? At some point this might create make bitcoin systemically important to the stock market. This the government would have an incentive to protect the network from such an attack to ensure market stability.
  • jb
    joseph b.
    6 February 2021 @ 02:16
    I watched the entire "debate". It was disappointing on many levels. First and foremost it highlights the deficiencies of Real Vision when it comes to BTC and crypto in general. Real Vision is a site created by a trader. The emphasis here is on "how much money can I make?" "what is a good bet? " what is a bad bet?" The "ethos " of BTC is completely absent. Perhaps if lberty and the right to choose were important it would be given at least lip service.I first heard about BTC when it was $4. I got my first BTC as a gift when it was $10. I looked at it and said "Holy Shit this is our money. Mike Green is a smart guy. Unfortunately he is a legacy Keynesian. When he argues for an inflationary "elastic " monetary system I want to puke. Pomp was speaking Italian and Green was talking German. Pomp should have put him on the defensive. I would like to hear Green defend the Federal Reserve. The USD is not a government currency. It is a Federal Reserve note, issued by a private corporation. The value of which has declined 98% since 1913. When it was less than the age of BTC it created a market feeding frenzy that led to the market crash of 29. The Great Depression was a direct result of Fed policy. As a matter of fact Green mentioned the Dot com bubble which was engineered by the Fed. The housing bubble engineered by the Fed. Satoshi Nakamoto designed BTC to counter all of that. Green says gold was not a currency? Gee I wonder what those St . Gauden $20 gold coins in my safe are then. Then Green makes the assertion that BTC is hurting young people. This is laughable. There is no place in the legacy system for Millennials Does any Millennial believe Social Security or Medicare will be there when they are in their 60's They are paying for the boomers golden years while being saddled with student loans which can only be forgiven by death. By the time Millennials get to their 60's what is the USD going to be worth. Green dismisses a currency that will actually reward Millennials for saving. We have 5 generations of Amerikaans who have no idea the effect of a sound money regime has. It changes the whole decision making process from this moment to the future. Not only personal future but future generations. Then Green comes up with some anonymous bogeyman non nation actor ( who the Fed, Bis, Wef etc) who could bring down BTC with $7 billion. Really.? Charlie Munger said "show me the incentive and I will show you the result" FUD pure and simple an asertion with no basis in reality. As long as there is an internet there is a BTC network. Green brings up Yellen and La Garde. LOL. Really? Of course they hate BTC they are central banksters. They can't control it . They can't inflate it into oblivion. They are afraid of the most sound hard money ever created. Then the narrative of BTC is used for crime. ROTFLMAO . I told my daughter what he said and she said " that is so 2013" Documentation was absolutely missing. Name the crimes. Green can't I can name the crimes in USD, HSBC, Wells Fargo , JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Bank of New York Mellon, Standard Chartered Bank and a host of others. Conservative estimates of the amount of money large banks launder is well north of $2 trillion. , The market cap of BTC is approx. $720 billion. Then Green talks about "bad actors" China Iran and Russia. China has been kicking the US's ass for a lot longer than BTC. China doesn't need BTC to kill the US a $28 trillion National debt will do just fine. Or stop sending us their goods, or divest of treasuries. Then there is Russia again, everybody's scapegoat. Iran? Come on Green get real. If Iran is threat to the US it has bigger problems. I saw a "debate with Green and a guy whose name escapes me, who lives in China. Green took the position that China was not a threat. Now it is ? seems like he will take whatever contrarian position suits him in the moment. There is much more but it is tired and I am getting late. Clearly this was not Pomp's finest moment. If people are looking for someone to poke holes in Green's thesis (besides me lol) I would suggest Safiedean Ammous. I would also suggest Real Vision have Andreas Antonopolous in oppostion to Green. Andtreas was one of the first people in the BTC with real knowledge. He can speak with gravitas on BTC from technical, financial and social perspective. The fact that he is not a regular here is a gaping hole in the Crypto channel. All in all Mike Green has an agenda based on a belief system bereft of documented facts. Pomp should have easily filleted him.
    • JE
      Johannes E.
      6 February 2021 @ 16:01
      Everything this man says is pretty much spot on. RE: Antonopolous, he has plenty of great vids on free sites. I also recommend his Rogan conversations. He's a straight talker with revolutionary insight.
    • JE
      Johannes E.
      6 February 2021 @ 16:10
      One counterpoint: I don't think Green is suggesting China is a threat to the US. I suspect his point was that, Bitcoin is a threat to sovereign monetary hegemony, and that if Bitcoin were to genuinely threaten the Yuan, the PBC would exercise a nuclear option against it via a zero attack. Of course, the more bitcoin presents an alternative to currencies of those your own nation competes with, it becomes an ally. It would have been nice if Pomp had addressed that particular threat. Antonopolous would have understood its nuclear implications and handled it. On all of that, Bitcoin doesn't need to become top dog that wipes out other currencies. It just needs to be a viable alternative and present a ultimatum of detente against boundless debasement. Other forms of crypto will subsequently root into the systems soil and replace present trust system custody/transmission that are costly and manipulated for gain. This is a multi-front market=based attack on the status quo hegemony in money and finance flow.
    • DK
      David K.
      6 February 2021 @ 17:03
      What he said!! Nailed it !!
  • CH
    Calvin H.
    6 February 2021 @ 16:50
    Pomp is paying for this air time, thru BlockFi and is illiterate compared to someone like Michael Saylor or the fellow he interviewed this week Ross something on his Microstrategy conference. These are giants compared Pomp and much better suited to argue both sides of the case equally. I’m glad I didn’t pay for this.
  • MR
    Michael R.
    6 February 2021 @ 01:00
    One point that I did not hear being mentioned/discussed is that the dollar is going to be removed or altered as the reserve currency regardless. The diagram showing the duration of national reserve currency highlights that it occurs on a timely basis. The point is what replaces it? One bridge discussion area might be a basket of currencies like the SDR that includes among others gold, bitcoin , and national currencies deployed as stable coins Plus the concept of stable coins that Central Banks are beginning to explore would have been nice to explore more in depth. That same strategy could be applied to centrally held gold. Discussing the pros and cons of that might have been interesting and maybe provide a bridge to the discussion?
    • JE
      Johannes E.
      6 February 2021 @ 16:13
      Green's obsession with neo-Keynesian forms of redistribution enabled by the present system is universally embraced by most anyone permitted into policy conversation / positions of importance. The alternative will come organically from what's left of the voluntary market via a system that operates out of the control of the present system's beneficiaries.
  • SM
    Show M.
    6 February 2021 @ 04:04
    I don't think Raoul's debating MG on BTC. He's knows better than to debate another smart macro guy on why a highly speculative, solely-technology-dependent, completely virtual "currency" is not only a reasonable but a solid asset and that one should apportion a serious amount of capital to it in one's portfolio. Let's be honest. Most HODLers are in it for the price action and the gains and would want nothing more than to get out before the rocket comes back to earth, as it inevitably does for all such "virtual" assets. You can't really get out with any profit if you become ideological about it to the point of proselytizing your views and having strong-willed debates with naysayers. So you stay on the sidelines if you have a position and especially if you have a large position and just pray to God that you catch the bulk of the uptrend before the party comes to an end.
    • KB
      Kurt B.
      6 February 2021 @ 11:11
      Let’s be honest? Okay. No coin peeps have wrote talking points that they regurgitate in the same predictable manner as bitcoin peeps and their talking points. Nothing novel. No new insightS. Confirmation.bias abounds. There is, however, a real world scoreboard. And we will ultimately learn who is/was right.
    • jb
      joseph b.
      6 February 2021 @ 13:27
      "Let's be honest. Most HODLers are in it for the price action and the gains and would want nothing more than to get out before the rocket comes back to earth, as it inevitably does for all such "virtual" assets." Wow quite the assertion. The rocket comes back to Earth for all virtual assets? We have had "virtual assets" for 12 years.The BTC rocket has not come back to Earth. whatever that means. Well north of 3000 fiat currencies have not only "come back to Earth but have augured in never to be seen again. The Federal Reserve note is well on its way to said fate. The "Great Reset" and the basket of currencies will be the first stanza in the USD eulogy. Where ya gonna go then? Oh wait the Yuan , Nevermind.
    • JE
      Johannes E.
      6 February 2021 @ 15:56
      While I'll agree many hodlers are spec, what's the big deal?? They're like an investor in any speculative asset, in it for the gain. I mean, what is Tesla trading at relative to reality? Man more, especially some of the bigger recent entrants, however, understand the language Bitcoin speaks atop bitcoin. Bticoin is not just some digital avatar. it is a reliable protocol for the internet of money, of value transmission and storage. How this will play out is an experiment to be seen, but 12 years on, it's growing more robust by the 10 minutes. Like any protocol or instrument of value, it does not need to conquer the world to have relevance or valuation. Especially when the competition -- global currencies - are falling all over themselves to deflate and plunder at the behest of their masters.
  • KS
    Karol S.
    6 February 2021 @ 10:41
    Mike made good pints, that relate mainly to bitcoin. Next generation of networks is solving all the raised issues. Unfortunately, pomp the self proclaimed crypto - well bitcoin only - evangelist loved so much by main street media, got destroyed again by not adhering to posed arguments as per any intellectual debate. Regrettably, he represents a typical crypto influencer profile: zero technical knowledge, closed minded and pumping own crypto bag.
    • JE
      Johannes E.
      6 February 2021 @ 15:46
      Yeah, I was a little disappointed by Pomp's handling of some of Green's points. On the other hand, Green's criticism and monetary knowledge is far less than he presupposes, with wide blind-spots that could have been dismissed, and half-corrupted by misguided faith in the system and the potential of policymakers/politicians. Interestingly, Pomp failing to exploit those points potentially exposed some shortcomings in his own perspective. Unless he just choked at dealing with them.
  • JE
    Johannes E.
    6 February 2021 @ 15:32
    For as smart as Green is and largely gets it about macro econ, he has major blind-spots on the purpose and utility of currency / money. Devoid of understanding it's a ledger, and that the present form of ledger lies and incentivizes massively non productive/distorted economic activity and outright plunder, which in turn, begets greater economic disparity and bubbles/collapse, and then endless greater intervention to paper-over to sustain. He also needs to read up on "marginal utility" if he thinks hodlers will hodle in perpetuity, thus rendering destitution to latecomers. This is the same idiotic Scrooge McDuck caricature every intervention / redistribution apologist holds up to justify unsound money, when it is the dishonest unit of account that enables the very plundering the masses. e.g, the fastest growing demographics of 1%ers are in Metro DC and Wall Street Hubs, followed by asset-inflated Tech $billionaires inflated to infinity regardless of earnings/economic reality.
  • jb
    joseph b.
    6 February 2021 @ 13:37
    Green mentions the whole CBDC idea. This is an idea worth exploring and Pomp let it slide. There are many ramifications in fiat world that will be more detrimental to Joe 6 pack than crypto. Consider the "bang up job" the CB's have done destroying the value of the currencies. Now consider combining monetary policy (money printer go brrrr) with fiscal policy. Putting both of those under one roof with zero accountability and total surveillance of your financial life sounds positively, delightfully Orwellian. I am sure the voters in what passes as a Democracy these days will run into its open arms, led by Mike Green. Anybody ever consider that the USD is already 97% digital?
  • PJ
    Paul J.
    6 February 2021 @ 12:46
    Pomp is a technologist. lol.
  • DN
    D N.
    6 February 2021 @ 10:45
    It would be good to have a deep div on mining and proof of work. I feel that there is alot more intricacy that is being glossed over in the MG debates so fsr. Eg alternatives to using 'energy' as a means of distributing governance that is more democratic, inter state coordination and game theory to do 51 pct attsck, the role of the difficulty adjustment if Hashrate gets taken offline, hard forks, why satoshi separated txn processing (miners) from validation (nodes) , mining hardware supply chains and chip innovation market forces etc. Without touching on these it's hard to have a proper debate.
  • DW
    Dale W.
    6 February 2021 @ 06:04
    Pomp I saw your debate with Mike Green. Really nice job. I agree with almost everything you said against a brilliant intellectual. One suggestion IF you are humble yourself and take it. Attack the methodology, concepts, ideology and perspective and not the person. Attacking the person diminishes your argument and your position and is significantly less effective and convincing. Rise above it. Also stop repeating yourself. You are talking to a very smart audience. We get it. Peace and Love.
  • CM
    Costa M.
    6 February 2021 @ 05:39
    I wish this was better. They started out okay, but they're both biased. It was just a debate.
    • CM
      Costa M.
      6 February 2021 @ 05:52
      I take it back. Second half was pretty steller.
  • PE
    Paul E.
    5 February 2021 @ 20:21
    I'm pretty sure that anyone who debates Mike Green is going to have a rough day! Probably on a variety of subjects.
    • UN
      Ulrich N.
      6 February 2021 @ 04:17
      Nic Carter on Grant Williams podcast didn’t
  • SM
    Show M.
    6 February 2021 @ 04:10
    Pomp always struck me as a "believer" and a salesman and this showing was no different. I just can't take seriously any bull who's devoid of any skepticism whatsoever about his asset/symbol, no matter how small. It's all about managing risk in the financial markets. If you're selling a product asserting that it is the most perfect thing since sliced bread and has zero or the least risk of any asset class, you shouldn't expect serious and discerning investors to take it seriously, except if they want to use it to speculate, make wild gains and swindle lesser investors and the uninformed.
  • JW
    Jared W.
    5 February 2021 @ 01:14