[00:00:00] Welcome to Crypto Talk Radio, the podcast for everyday investors like you. Visit us on the web at CryptoTalkRadio.net. And now, here's your host, Leicester. Thank you for that, Bailey, and welcome everybody out there on Crypto Talk Radio found at CryptoTalkRadio.net. Yet another quick short day. I'm excited. It's hot outside though, folks. I gotta say, I'm not feeling good with this heat.

[00:00:28] I'm used to heat. I come from states that are hot, but this heat is abnormal in the sense of humidity levels. I come from dry heat, you know, Nevada, etc. So I'm used to desert type conditions. I will tell you, I don't hang very well in those from a breathing perspective. It's not healthy. But when the humidity is high, that's actually dangerous. You may not know that.

[00:00:52] It's harder for your body to respirate. Look it up. As in sweat, it's harder for you to do it because there's so much moisture that it seems weird, but it's harder for you to sweat when the humidity is high. So it's actually dangerous. So stay hydrated. Look into electrolytes like Pedialyte, believe it or not, it's good for you. Stay hydrated. Stay indoors if you can. We'll talk a couple of news bits on crypto and then I got a rather funny tail end of the episode today.

[00:01:24] CoinMarketCap.com and we will zoom out to the month chart for Bitcoin, which is currently hovering just around the $58,500 mark with a very strong, deep downward trend as I recorded with some YouTubers estimating we were going as low as 55. A couple of them estimated we're going as low as 30 and some people are still throwing the $0 Bitcoin narrative.

[00:01:48] The $0 Bitcoin narrative is this idea that I have parroted at times, the idea that Bitcoin doesn't really have value. And of course it doesn't. But I said that it's because of some of these Emperor's New Clothes sorts that they're not going to let it go to zero, that it's unlikely to go that far. And I previously predicted 66,000. I got that wrong. As it does seem like it's going to go quite a bit down.

[00:02:13] You know, at this point, I can't even best guesstimate how far low do I think it goes to the 30s? I think it's I think it's 40,000, certainly the realm of reality. I say that some people will tell you it's a smart buy. And I would emphasize that, that, as I said before, CryptoFalk.fm, you should be looking for discounts if you believe the thing's going to take off again.

[00:02:39] So if anything is going to, it would arguably be Bitcoin, if only because, again, there is a slice of people out there that won't let it go to zero, especially if they're ones that made bank off it. You know, there's some that made a bunch of bank and then blew it like they literally went to the real casino, the actual casino and blew what they won. Some of those people might buy back in because they think it's going to run again because of the cycle that they keep talking about.

[00:03:06] But some have estimated that cycles getting longer and that you won't see any sort of significant move until 2027 to 2029. I have no idea on the dates. I will say that it's highly unlikely that Bitcoin goes to zero. I will say it's highly unlikely this down is going to last. I do think that the Clarity Act plays a little bit into it and the uncertainty of it. And I would argue the Clarity Act is a move in the wrong direction for the right reasons.

[00:03:36] It's trying to add clarity, certainly, in terms of who has oversight, but we're not really solving the root of the problem. We'll be talking about that here soon. We're not really talking. We're not solving the real root, which is treating it like currency. That's its flaw. That's the main flaw of crypto. Treating it like any form of currency. When you try to treat like currency, what does the government want to do? They want to tax it and they want to regulate it and they want to lock it down and they want to scrutinize it. The scrutiny is the big problem.

[00:04:04] Taxation is a problem, but the scrutiny is a problem. The KYC and you got to put IDs and because we're in this mobile phone world, I guarantee you we're going to have a bunch of breaches and identity theft. And they're not trying to protect you on those at all. They're just trying to make sure that they get their money. Now, if we had a system that said. You cannot require somebody to scan their ID on a mobile phone. You need to have another way for them to provide whatever verifications that you're trying to do.

[00:04:33] I probably wouldn't mind as much, but they don't. But there needs to be another way that doesn't require using your phone, which is already insecure, to scan your ID, putting it out there in the cloud, which is insecure. We need a better way. I don't have an answer as to what the way is, but we need a better way. Here's some suggestions. How viable? I don't know. Did you know that the local libraries in the Midwest and in the South started carrying game consoles?

[00:05:01] So like when I went back in my day, you know, you go for books, you might have a computer there in the corner. You might have board games. And that was about it. Sometimes they had CDs. Sometimes they had tapes, cassette tapes. Sometimes they have VHS, but by and large, it was books, computer. So when I saw they're doing the video game console, you know, with the loss of Blockbuster, it's, you know, I think it's a good thing, right? For kids that can't afford it. It's really for those families that can't afford to drop 500 freaking dollars on a Switch 2 or something.

[00:05:31] So I'm not against it, but these like the library, I think is a good conduit and it's a trusted source. It's a trusted location. If they could figure out some way to integrate libraries for ID verification, you go to the library, you show your ID. The library is the one that's verifying your ID against some trusted something, not ID.me, that scam. That's a scam. I'm talking some trusted something. They verify the ID. They verify it's the person they say it is.

[00:06:01] They then can update to grant access. So you're not having to scan it, mobile phones and all this crap, right? If they would figure that out, I think that would be a viable option. It's libraries are everywhere. Believe it or not, they're everywhere. They're easy to get to. They're friendly people. They're free, right? That's what I would want to see. I would want to see everything, including this, where they're trying to verify ID, leveraging libraries to do that verification. Instead of having to scan it on a phone and do the crap.

[00:06:32] Then I would like to have a central database, just like the Nexus program or Global Entry. You know, these other programs where it's a central single source and all these exchanges and all these entities, they just tap into that. Okay. You're already approved. I don't need to do it again. We're using the trusted source to verify what the heck's going on. So you do it once and done. That's what I'd like to see happen.

[00:06:57] So we're not exposing our information 70 times because of the assumption. Well, this one exchange can do everything you want, but then, well, we're not going to carry those cryptos. So you're forced to sign it with multiple crypto exchanges just to be able to trade what you want. Thus putting your information further at risk. That's what I'd like to see fixed that the Clarity Act doesn't solve. So I'm not sold on the strength of the Clarity Act as it was. Quick on Ethereum then.

[00:07:27] Ethereum currently hovering just shy of $1,600. Downward trend, just like Bitcoin. Ethereum is the other thing. If you were going to buy something that I would think is kind of worth your time, if you were going to buy into something, because you should look for discounts. Now, Ethereum does look, I don't think it goes beneath $1,200. We've been down this road. This is 2022, I believe it was, where I said, if it goes beneath this, I'll do this. I don't think Ethereum is going to go that low.

[00:07:54] If it does, that's a clear buying opportunity because there's no way with the smart contract, just a loan, smart contract supports and everything that Ethereum is going to go that low. If it does, it won't last. I promise you it won't last. Not for that one. Speaking of the Law and Clarity Act, were you aware you might not have been, and that's what I'm telling you. That's why you should tell people, CryptoTalk.fm.

[00:08:17] Were you aware states can pass laws that sometimes contradict or just take a different tack for what the feds do in the United States? The state of Illinois recently put on the books that they're going to put a 0.2% tax on crypto trades and transfers and custody, targeting central exchanges. So it's transparent, but it's going to basically increase your spread or increase whatever,

[00:08:46] whatever they charge you to do the trades of the crypto. And again, it's focused around the exchanges, central exchanges. You might wonder, well, wait a minute. Am I not, isn't that just my money? How can they tax my money? The same way your income's taxed. It's the same concept. How's that any different? The states always can, they can levy their own taxes. They always could. In order for the exchanges to operate in states, should they choose to, and many do because

[00:09:14] they want those people, they have to sign up. They have to agree. They have to register. They have to go through the process. As part of it, they are also subject to whatever the state imposes. Robinhood for the longest time did not allow SHIB for the longest time. And I kept telling people, okay, get it from somewhere else. Get it from Uniswap. Get it from Uniswap. Why does it have to be Robinhood? And then it listed finally years after the fact, and it didn't move.

[00:09:42] It was just a vocal minority. The point is that states do control kind of what crypto is going to be allowed to be traded for the residents in that state. They also control taxation. They control anything that they want to in exchange for having that access to those citizens. So Illinois passing this law, they're the first to impose any kind of tax against crypto trading or transfers, et cetera. Some states ban it. Some states block it.

[00:10:11] Some states limit what can. This is the first you see any kind of taxation. You might say, well, the feds are going to lock it down. They can't. State taxes are always under the auspice, look it up, of the state. They can govern what that is. If you want to conduct business with our citizens, this is the rules you're going to follow, period. There is no negotiation on it. What then usually will happen is other states will start to jump on board. That may or may not happen.

[00:10:39] Remember, and I believe it was Montana. There was another state where they became the first state to allow cryptocurrency to pay your property tax bill or whatever it is. That didn't catch on. It didn't go wide. It may just take time. You might not have known the state of Oregon for the longest until just very recently still had effectively slavery on the books. Now, they didn't do it. Now, I say that.

[00:11:09] Oregon has racist people. Don't get it wrong. Okay. Oregon has blatantly racist people. I'm saying that they didn't get rid of slavery officially on the books, ratified. It's word. They didn't get rid of it on the books until very recently. Some states are slower than others. That's the point I'm trying to make. So it could be. This will catch on, but it's going to take years before you see it. And by the time it happens, you're going to see tax rates like 1%, 2%, 3% or whatever. Now, what's the flip of this?

[00:11:39] The flip of it is if that's done in lieu of having to report it on a tax form, then it's a good thing. If it puts the burden of the filing of tax on the exchange, that's a good thing. And it should be what the IRS does. If, because I don't like the IRS taxing income in the first place, but if you're going to do it, if you're going to do something like that, I want that business to be on the hook to file it.

[00:12:06] That's why I want consumption tax because then the stores and the retailers and whoever they're on the hook to file the business, not the individual. Individuals should not be filling out a form explaining why you should get money back. It's the biggest scam going around. Keep an eye on what's going on with Illinois. I think it's fascinating and intriguing in the longterm in the short term. I don't think it's going to make a dent. I don't think the feds are going to do anything, but it's worth watching it over time.

[00:12:35] I noticed some YouTubers complaining and the amount of begging and pleading like James Brown for people to like subscribe and comment and help me trend is out of control. It's just out of control. And I understand. Okay. Some of them have gone YOLO into YouTube as some craft or career. No, I'm the show. Crypto talk.

[00:13:03] That is not my primary job. I do it. Cause I like to do it. I make a money. I'm a JLB. I'm on business. And the podcast is simply an asset. It's a brand. It's, it's, it's secondary. It does not. It is not an income source. It never has been. I have a tip jar. I don't, you never, you hardly ever hear me talk about it. It's just kind of out there. Not because I don't necessarily need the money from listeners. I, I like talking.

[00:13:33] I like sharing. I like providing whatever I can because I know it's a cesspool out there. That's what it is. If people want to tip cause they want to tip, they can tip tips there, you know, but it's not something where I have actively promoted any sort of financial, including the YouTube, which is a replica, the show distributes to podcast platforms, which is where I prefer you listen. I have the own site, my own site, and then it replicates to YouTube.

[00:14:02] It used to replicate to other video sites that turn those off because of other nonsense, but it replicates the YouTube simply because there are people on YouTube who are craving level-headed information like myself. So that's the only reason I do it is I just, you know, so I don't care about getting thousands of subs and hundreds of views. And if it happens, it happens, right? If it does, great. I, you know, I appreciate it, but it's not, you don't hear me shilling for that because

[00:14:30] it, you know, YouTube is just an app or something because if you do that, you're just beholden to YouTube taking a chunk of your money anyway, only to gut features, focus on crappy shorts and all this garbage. Turns out there's a larger thing happening, which is something I alluded to some time ago. But what's happening is that there's a bit of fatigue across social media around cryptocurrency.

[00:14:59] It turns out that people on various social media platforms, including YouTube are muting crypto and all mentions about it. They're turning it off. They don't want to hear it. They don't want to see it. They don't want to see the garbage. They don't want to see the NFTs. They don't want to see the crap that is related to cryptocurrency. They don't want to hear it. They don't want to see it. So they're using the social media tools to suppress that content. YouTube is no different. They're suppressing that content and people ran stats.

[00:15:29] And it turns out that some of the largest channels by subscriber count, and that's important, by subscriber count are losing. They're losing whether it's views, whether it's subs, they're losing. They're not gaining like they did during the wall, wall west of 2021 and 2022, which is when the vast majority of them started to spike. You'll hear some of these names and they will be familiar to some of you. I knew some of them, some of them I didn't.

[00:15:59] Crypto Banter, who I would argue is at the top of the awareness, like people know Crypto Banter very well. Allegedly, these are alleged numbers. I haven't verified it. I don't plan to, but allegedly Crypto Banter has just shy of 1.2 million subscribers. Views over the last 30 days, just over 1 million.

[00:16:22] So if you have 1.2 million subscribers and it takes you a month to get anywhere close to your subscriber count, as far as view count, that's a significant drop in terms of your audience. The subscriber, it means I'm simplifying this because I'm on YouTube and have been. And as a sidetrack, I had a different channel that I had before the show.

[00:16:50] And there I was directly on YouTube and I was doing what I call the sound alike series because I have a skill where I can sing songs that I can convince you very closely that I'm very close to the original artist. Separately, at that time, I had, that was before YouTube lets you put garbage thumbnails on things. You had to have, you had to have tenure. You had to have a number of subs. You had to have a number of views.

[00:17:18] You had to actually be good before they let you do a custom thumbnail. That's what it was back then. They changed it where anybody can do it. It's crap now. And they do the shocked face crap or the face down crap or all the garbage thumbs that are designed to trigger you. And the reason I'm spelling that out is because a lot of these people, they have gone full on into the garbage thumbnails because they know it triggers your FOMO. That's where they're getting people from is they assume these because the stats tell them

[00:17:48] that's why they assume it. The stats tell them these are the ones that get the most clicks. Clicks. Clicks. If you get, let's say you saturate it. This goes back to the ad days of like AOL in the nineties. Your click. So that it was a number of you put banner ads and you were paid based on the number of clicks. It was small, but you were paid. So if you got a million clicks and let's say you got a penny per, that's not bad, right?

[00:18:17] Obviously you're paid more for people that buy the product, but just getting the click was actually lucrative back then. When the ad market, A got saturated, B got overwhelmed by ad blockers. Platforms like YouTube, when it got bought out by Google went to this model where, okay, well we know they're blocking ads. We know they're doing this, that, and the other thing, but we still can use that click

[00:18:45] kind of conversion to tell us how popular a channel is. And then they did science and determined, okay, this is what drives clicks. If they see emotion coming from that, they want to see a person's face. They want to see emotion and it's going to drive clicks. Clicks are obviously views. So then they said, okay, well let's look at view length. So how long are people staying on a different, a given upload?

[00:19:14] And they bias does YouTube for those that get the most clicks, the most views, the longest watch time it's referred to. And then engagement, engagement is beyond views. You're, you're liking it, disliking it. You're commenting on it. You're sharing it. You're subscribing. You're doing something to interact with it beyond viewing. The flaw of that entire model is TikTok.

[00:19:43] TikTok shows up and what does it do? It dumbs down the population and causes them to prefer short snippet videos. In order to meet metrics, they said, well, the best videos that get the most traction are less than X minutes. Usually it's like two minutes or three minutes. It's low, quick, dirty tidbits of information where the human brain, and I'm, I'm deviating because it's important.

[00:20:11] The human brain cannot properly absorb what is being said for the purposes of learning anything. It's critical. You understand that these quick snippet tidbit things are FOMO driven. They're designed to just get you to react without being thoughtful about the content you're getting. Now, why did I deviate that way? It's so you can understand the reason for the numbers that I'm quoting here.

[00:20:40] Coin Bureau is another popular one, 2.7 million. Altcoin Daily is another one, 1.65 million. Ben Cowan, I never heard of, 1 million. Bitcoin University, really popular, 278,000, but very popular what it does. Crypto's RS, which is, I think his name is George, Asian guy, 800,000 on the subs. All of the ones I just gave you, they're 30-day views.

[00:21:08] So in terms of a month, over a month, they're basically averaging one. It's like one sub viewing across the 30-day. That's crazy. So crypto banter, only 1 million of 30-day views out of 1.18 million. Well, the problem with subs, and this is what this article is trying to say and where I'm going with it.

[00:21:34] The problem with subs is that the vast majority, they'll sub because you told them to. Like, subscribe, you're just acting to try to help the channel. Not because you like the content. You might not care about the content. You might never come back. But now you've got this sub tally that just keeps going up. Even Jim Cornette, who has really high numbers, he has higher numbers than AEW at times. Even Jim Cornette struggles with this because he's got hundreds of thousands of subs.

[00:22:04] The only time he's cracking 100,000 is when he's talking about Vince McMahon or some nonsense controversy that's out there that people want his feedback about. That's it. If he's just talking routine stuff, nothing. If it's a regular review, nothing. Some of the old school chats he'll do, those get some good spikes. Or if somebody just passed away, those get spikes. But if he's just routine talking about something, he doesn't get anywhere near over 100.

[00:22:31] But if it's like Vince McMahon crashing his freaking car, 200-something thousand. Because people are topical. They're looking for something specific. They're trying to find something specific. They're trying to pull specific content. When people don't talk about what somebody wants to hear about, those channels don't get views. They don't get subs. They don't get engagement.

[00:22:57] Because you're not talking about what somebody, right now, because of FOMO, I want to hear about this. So, Bitcoin, when Bitcoin starts crapping, you see a whole slew of people talking about Bitcoin. Luna Classic. Bleeds has been just doing Luna Classic for weeks. He doesn't respond when it's this, I saw one chatter, and he's like, I wanted to respond. This BGM capital whatever scammed me, and I want Bleeds to respond because he shilled it. Bleeds isn't answering that question.

[00:23:26] Debbie's got a bunch of fiascos. Sometimes he'll answer it, sometimes he won't. Volt, he's not speaking about this variety of stuff where people are actively trying to hear from him about these things. And so, as a result, even his are dwindling. His views are down. His likes are down. Everything's down. Back in the Satama days, if you go and look at his history, he was pulling thousands of views. Especially when he was talking, ranting, he's pulling thousands of views. Nowhere close now.

[00:23:53] Because he's switched and he's just talking about what everybody's talking about. Luna Classic right now, just because it was that chatter that was going on. Or XRP because it's the chatter going on. Or Bitcoin crapping. Da Vinci Jeremy's doing the same thing. Bitcoin, he's just chatting about it. Now, when silver was spiking, he was chatting about silver. The vast majority, they just leap to what seems to be in the current popular.

[00:24:20] Because they know people are out there just searching for content. They're searching for something specific. But as a result, some of these ones that are more in the diverse set of coverage, they're losing. Crypto banter, it says, approximately a drop. And I think it's referring to views. A drop of $35,000 a day, which is the average views. Coin Bureau, $41,000 a day. Altcoins, $60,000 a day.

[00:24:49] CryptoZRS, $21,000 a day. And CryptoZRS, subs is dropping for him. Bitcoin University is not. It's staying steady on the subs, but it's losing views. Bitcoin University is staying pretty consistent with its view counts, which I think is good. It's hard. But it's laser focused. It's really focused on what it covers or tries to be. But then Altcoin Daily, 10,000 subs lost over a 30-day period.

[00:25:19] Same with Coin Bureau. I have a theory. Is it possible that some of those subs are not real? I don't know. I'm asking the question. It might be possible. My channel, I have actually two of them or three of them. My channel here, people might subscribe, but I'm not asking them to. They do it because they want to follow whatever is covered. Many of them are looking for specific content, which I may or may not cover.

[00:25:47] And then there's some people who approximately ask, and that's fine. If I get the question, then it's kind of a self-imposed obligation. But I'm not, I'm not shilled. You've never heard me on any of my, you can go back to history. I've never shilled for views or likes or subs because I feel the quality of your channel is directly correlated to organic engagement, not requested or forced or required. I think it should be organic. I think it should be organic.

[00:26:16] It should be, I'm so damn good. You want to do those things. And sometimes I'll have a video that's reasonably popular. I don't get people liking it. That's fine. But from a view count perspective, they're viewing it like crazy. Sometimes repeated. That's fine. If they don't like it, it's, it's their choice. I assume, and it's an assumption. And that's why I'm on the lower end of the totem pole. I'll get to that in a second.

[00:26:43] That's why for me, this kind of news doesn't surprise me in terms of the decline. But what disappoints me is what people are doing about it. What people feel like they're doing about it is the polar opposite of what I think they should do. I don't think they should just simply cater to what seems to be popular at the moment. I think they should say, this is what we see. This is what's happening, but we're going to do X, Y, Z and stay the course of what got us to the dance. Like beliefs.

[00:27:11] He used to, in his earlier days, he would go down the list of pop of projects. And it was like a news thing. Okay. With Kishu here, the, the, the, with sad shoes, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, and I liked that format. I much preferred it. Then he would intersperse it with Satama stuff. And I liked that format. I missed the paneling, but that's a separate problem. But he's, you know, he doesn't do any of that stuff anymore. And it really bothers me because I thought that was quality from what I saw. I thought it was quality from my personal perspective.

[00:27:40] So it doesn't surprise me. It's the point of what I see of the decline, but it disappoints me that all of the, it seems like all the YouTubers are just, they're doing the same thing because the numbers say that it's the, it's the right way to do it. Subscribers is taking less of an importance, which is good. I think it's good. And I think if it's right, the social media, they're just turning off crypto, which is, I suspected that would happen. You know, I'm not even on, I'm not on X. I quit the fucking account. It's like stupid.

[00:28:09] But if that's true, it doesn't surprise me because it felt like, first of all, crypto was all over the stuff and just a bunch of garbage. But second, it's just, it's, it's, it's clown show. It's clown show. It's ghetto. It's, it's terrible. And I, I don't blame people for turning it off. That's really what's happening. For the remainder of my episode, I am going to hit you with a little bit of educational

[00:28:35] note because it, it, it occurred to me from this recent exercise, just how little people understand about AI. When I say AI, I'm referring to not just the concept of it, but also the implementation of it, the biases of it, the flaws of it. It's, it's staggering to me how much people don't understand about AI.

[00:29:03] I'm going to start with a term, LLM, large language model. Don't worry about the technicals. If you want to search it, feel free. Suffice to say that an LLM, a model, the model is what's used in order to provide the answers when you interact with any AI tool. The one everybody knows is ChatGPT.

[00:29:28] ChatGPT is a front end that interacts with various AI models to provide you answers. You might've heard terms like Claude. You might've heard terms like Opus. You might've heard terms like Haiku. These are models. These are various models that help the tool, whatever tool provide responses. Claude is a direct tool. It has its own interface. You can directly interact with Claude.

[00:29:58] Claude leverages the other models as well. There's a small fee if you go above and beyond a certain use. It's a consumption model. It's a consumption model. But you can try it for free. And some of you probably have tried AI at some point. So if you've tried it, you understand, I hope the flaws. Number one, if you don't, I'll help you. Number one, AI does not always get it right.

[00:30:27] And it has to do with what I described, the large language model, which you can search, but suffice to say. AI is simply scraping the information it has available to it. But understand, just because the information is out there doesn't mean it's accurate. It doesn't mean it's correct. AI is fundamentally flawed in that regard to the point many of them will tell you in their footnotes. Sometimes it makes mistakes.

[00:30:57] You need to verify it yourself. Well, because we rushed away from physical media, it's now difficult to independently verify some of the content because you could be searching the wrong source too. And then you're using a flawed source to try to validate it. If it's a topic you're not directly familiar with. So as an example, did you know that solar panels can actually catch fire? Did you know that it doesn't take much for them to catch fire?

[00:31:27] Did you know that solar panels, in terms of voltage, voltage of a solar panel is directly, you have to match it to how you're feeding power to what's storing the energy. If you get this wrong, you can start a fire at a basic level. AI will tell you these things, but depending on how you phrase the question, it won't proactively tell you about the risk.

[00:31:54] So let's say you asked it the question, I want to buy solar panels. Which one should I buy? It might ask you questions back, you know, what's the size of your house? How much energy do you consume? How many, you know, how much power do you need? Do you have a basement? It might ask you key questions simply for the purposes of understanding. What are we dealing with from the physicals? You give it that information. It's not going to then say your house is what? You have a wood roof.

[00:32:22] I don't recommend solar because of X, Y, Z. It's not going to do that. You'd have to ask it, what are the risks of solar? And then they'll gladly tell you, here's what can happen with solar. It still might not get down to the fact that they can catch fire. If you have a solar installer, their job is to tell you about the risks of doing it. Their job is to make sure to mount it in a way that mitigates those risks as best they can. And then inspections. There's layers and layers of things that are trying to protect you.

[00:32:53] AI cannot know what's really going, it can't see your house. It can't see your roof. It can't see your situation. It has to go off what's said. That's why it's limited. But it can still give a wrong answer even with everything all points true. So we understand that sometimes it can get it wrong. And I'm explaining this because you should not blindly trust AI under any circumstances. It's easy to debunk AI if you know what you're talking about.

[00:33:18] I have defeated AI on countless occasions, which told me its level. Its level is that it's calibrated to tell you what you want to hear. It's dangerous to have anything tell you what you want to hear. The real strength of man is to deal with adversity and to be told what you don't want to hear, but that you need to. That's what keeps people safe. So the FOMO crowd, see it all ties together what I said before.

[00:33:47] The FOMO crowd, the YouTube shorts, the TikTok crap, all the T-MOO, all these things that are designed to just appeal to your FOMO and just get you excited about something. And to the moon, all of these do not benefit you. They hold you back. They suppress you. They make you less of a human. They are not your ally. They are not your friend. They do not support you. They do not benefit you. And in fact, they can endanger you.

[00:34:17] Evident by the guy who I did a coverage on this years ago. The guy who traded crypto as a kid, he was like 17 or something. He traded crypto. He was doing, I think he was doing shorts and then he got liquidated. And it was like going to be like $6 million or some crazy something. And he killed himself because he didn't know. This is what I'm saying. Crypto, crypto is not your ally. Crypto is not your friend.

[00:34:44] Everything that it does is designed to trigger you into action. And that's its fatal flaw. That's what AI by default does is it gives responses that are what you want to hear so you can act. You have to train yourself to be skeptical of what it says. And you have to train if you're going to use it for anything. Because I'm not saying don't use it. I'm saying if you're smart about it, then it's fine. But it means you got a level set.

[00:35:11] Once you get to a point, if you have the knowledge, you realize AI is not much better for many things. It's fine for certain things. My prison wallet, it played a part in its creation. But I guided everything else. I had to tell it exactly how to do things. I had to tell it how to secure things. I had to tell it how to manage API, you know, keys and things. I had to tell it how to do these things. They didn't know what it was it needed to do in order to be a robust tool.

[00:35:42] So as long as you have the knowledge, it's perfectly fine to then just take on the legwork. I just did one today where I told it to write up. And all I did was just do a write-up step by step of setting this piece up that I'm going to be setting up just to have it. It's essentially a competitor to do not pay dot com for myself. And then if I turn it out fine, I might consider pitching it and selling it. But for me, it's for myself. But I had to tell it.

[00:36:10] Here's just do the write-up of what it is. I take a look at the write-up. I need to verify what it says is true against my tool sets. I explain all that because it turns out that allegedly BlockDAG, the project that's cursed, has released an LLM, an AI model, an AI engine. BDAGAI.io. Public, it does not currently use credits. I'm sure it will at some point because it's not sustainable without it.

[00:36:40] But BDAGAI.io. They just announced this today. I took a look at it. I ran through a couple of queries. I was... How best to describe it? It's very rudimentary. It's nowhere near what the other ones do. It's very rudimentary. But I did ran through some queries and somebody else on CoinMarketCap asked it a question. I can't...

[00:37:09] You can't see the question that was asked in the screenshot. But they asked it a question that essentially tried to get the tool to provide its thoughts on whether or not BlockDAG was a scam. Yes, BlockDAG's own AI. They were trying to get BlockDAG's AI to admit it was a scam. They were successful. BlockDAG's AI said that most likely BlockDAG's a scam. Screenshots out there. Now, we don't... Again, we don't know what question it was asked. I can't see the question.

[00:37:37] The question that is important context. Without it, you cannot understand bias and intent. So I went to this BDAGAI.io and I asked it first, why would you say that BlockDAG's a scam? It came back and said, I didn't say that. Okay? Doesn't have memory. That was the test. It does not have memory as part of it. But it seems like it's browser specific. So it seems like it tests, it's storing stuff in your browser or something.

[00:38:05] Because when I opened up a different browser, it was a new session. So then I broke down. Here's the quote that came from this other guy's screenshot. This is what they said that you said. What do you say about it? And it came back and said, well, yeah, here's the red flags. It came back all the, you know, the ZachXPT crap and the DL News crap and all the stuff you heard. Right? Nothing new. It came with nothing new. But it was transparent.

[00:38:31] So we understood that it appeared that this BlockDAG AI was not, it was not biased in favor of BlockDAG. That's my point. It was honest. It said, you know, Grunkiesel has been, you know, on projects and all these companies. It's been an investigation. The Seychelles. It called all the stuff out. It was nothing you have not heard. So it was transparent, at least in that regard.

[00:38:59] I went through, there's three bullets that came back and it said A and then B and then C. And as a result, yeah, it's probably a scam. I went through each one of those bullets because I was trying to get it to understand, you know, what you're saying. That's not the way this works here, dude. Because it's not. It's just not the way it works. So here's what I said to it for these three. Because again, it was all about Zachary and DL News.

[00:39:28] That's all people have, right? Number one, DL News. They shut down due to financial constraints. Some of this you may not know. Any organization that's financially struggling is arguably not qualified to speak on the financial constraints of other projects. If you're broke, you don't have any call to be criticizing Wesley Snipes for being locked up for not doing the taxes. If you're broke.

[00:39:51] If you're broke, you don't have any call to criticize Iggy Azalea for saying she's going to stay single unless she finds somebody richer than her. You're broke. You're not qualified to talk on it. DL News shut down because they are broke. So how can they be qualified to criticize Block Dagg's money questions?

[00:40:11] Additionally, everybody, everybody that complains about this keeps harping on this $450 million thrown out when the CEO himself is on record saying they collected $200 million, which is the same number I said it was. So I want people to let go of this $450 million number. It never existed. It's not real.

[00:40:39] I guarantee you they raised about $200 million, which is what I said, because that's clear. Because if you look at the liquidity wallets, which we assume are owned by the team, there's roughly half of that amount. And then the other half, we understand for 11 plus months, they were paying people.

[00:41:00] And if you look at roughly about $100,000 per person and you look at how many people they had, it's quite easy to understand that they would have burned through tens of millions of dollars. Quite simply. Then you talk the technology. Then you talk the hackathons. I can see a world, if I'm right, where they only did $200 million and then sliced half of it, burning money on people because Turner didn't know what the F he was doing. Am I right? I have no idea.

[00:41:29] The point is the CEO is on record saying $200 million. So if $200 million is the real number, we got to let go of the $450 million. And if they've got roughly $100 million close left over, that's not too bad given how much waste has been done up so far. So DL News' statements, there's no basis in anything. They're just something to put a banner on CoinMarketCap, which is still there. But they shut down because they're broke.

[00:41:57] So they're not qualified to speak on financial matters. That debunks number one. Two, Zach XPT. This is my statement. Zach XPT indicated commingled funds, which he did. Crypto is not a regulated space. Commingling of funds is problematic, but breaks no law until and unless fiat gets involved. The commingling he refers to is all cryptocurrency, which it is because he's providing blockchain trace.

[00:42:25] Blockchain trace means they're cryptocurrency assets, not fiat. You can say they're stable coins, so they're equivalent to fiat. Until they're converted to fiat, there is no fiat. This is what people don't understand. Until they're converted to fiat, there is no fiat. So he would have to provide evidence. In order to be taken serious, he would have to provide evidence, as some people theorize,

[00:42:50] that he cashed out a bunch of USDT Tron and handed it over to some wedding planner to do that fancy wedding. Can you provide that information? Imagine he's supposed to be this amazing sleuth. Why can't he do it? Because it doesn't exist. That's the problem. That doesn't exist. We see a fancy wedding, but you cannot connect the dots that that was or was not money he already had.

[00:43:16] That's the exact problem that I'm trying to emphasize to people and why this bullet number two is already debunked because it doesn't prove anything that runs afoul of a law. Number three, Zach XPT on Spartans. He's calling out a concern. This is me about a shared operation doing the same thing. Casino. This in of itself is not illegal because it's not setting up casino a and setting up casino B. There's no illegal.

[00:43:46] There's nothing. There's no law broken. There's nothing. It's shady. It's sketchy. It's problematic. You're possibly creating a little bit of Ponzi, but you have to prove that. You cannot prove. Him saying, well, they're shifting funds. There's no funds. They're cryptocurrency. There's no funds. Until you can prove fiat movement, there's no funds. There's no illegality. You have to let it go. That's what I'm trying to get people to grasp.

[00:44:15] There's a difference between something being problematic, being sketchy, being shady, red flag. All of those. None of those are in question. Once you start getting to this level of accusations of illegality, that's where it's a problem. So the three is debunked because again, okay, set up two casinos. There's no law broken to say that you can't do that. So I said, the three sources you selected are effectively debunked.

[00:44:41] You must find sources that A, show definitive proof of illegal activities. That's the big one. Where is a proof, any proof of an illegal activity? Not one you think is illegal. Not one you suspect was illegal. Not one that you have convinced yourself is illegal. Can you prove it's illegal?

[00:45:03] And it came back and I'll talk about this later, but it came back and talked about the fact that, okay, there's a claim of money lost, but it's not been audited that there was fiat loss. That's exactly the point. If you cannot, and then second, show direct communication between bad actors. What does that mean? There was a photo floating around between and Andrew Tate and theories that they were working together on what became zero knowledge proof. Maybe they did.

[00:45:32] Then it was Zach SPT said, yeah, money was shit with a block that had to zero knowledge proof and a Spartan. It's still not fiat. You still can't do anything. You're not proving anything other than a move in a crypto, which in of itself is not illegal because it's not a regulated space until it turns fiat. You have nothing there. It's shady as shit, but it's not illegal. There's a difference. Show specific loss of funds, which is fiat. This goes to what I said. None of them have proven that they're looking at a chart.

[00:46:00] They're looking at the price, which crapped. And they're saying, I lost that money. You lose money only when you sell. You couldn't sell for the longest fucking time. So you didn't lose that money. You lost value from a pre-sale if you chose not to sell. Only if later than when you claimed, you then turn around and sold it and said, screw it. You lost that money. You took the loss. Okay. But was it stolen or did it just crap? And yes, there was wash trading.

[00:46:30] But was it stolen? Can you prove intent? That's the burden. Can you prove intent? I'll get to that in a second. It came back. They're AI. And it basically says, it goes one by one by one by all the claims that it used to initially tell the other guy that it was a scam. On the on-chain fund tracing, it's not court admissible conviction, does not prove intent to defraud, doesn't prove fiat was lost.

[00:46:57] On the DL News, it's a civil breach of contracts. It was talking about the Borussia Dortmund and Inter Milan and Formula One, et cetera. Civil breach of contract, not criminal fraud. And of course, DL News shut down due to financial. Correct. That all those contracts, it's shady as shit. They didn't pay them, but it's a civil breach of contract. Settled on civil matters, not criminal. The Seychelles, the FCA I talked about. It's a warning. It's not a conviction. They actually pulled it back.

[00:47:25] They were talking about Lannistar, which is not Block Dag. We know they're associated, but it's not the same. And they actually pulled it back off Lannistar. The UK High Court and the bankruptcy for Lannistar, it was a liquidation order, but that's Lannistar, not Block Dag. Even if it was, Block Dag's in a totally different area. And then the allegedly, according to ZachXPT, 10 to 15 self-reported victims.

[00:47:48] So if we're going to say out of 150,000 allegedly total people invested in the project, that because 10 to 15 of those people reported some sort of harm, that it rises to the level of illegality. It even says, these are unverified claims, not audited losses. Their claim might be valid. They might be perfectly, I did not get my coins. I couldn't claim them. I couldn't whatever. I buy minors, didn't get it. These might be valid.

[00:48:17] They're not losses until things stop. Things have to stop before you can declare it as a loss. So take the minors. As long as they keep telling you that they're coming, they're coming, they're coming. You haven't lost it yet. They have to basically stop and say, screw it. We're done. We're not going to. Then that's a loss. Then you have a case. Until they do that. And unless they do that, you've not lost it. It's held up. You've not lost it. You've got to stop making claims of loss.

[00:48:44] Their own AI has acknowledged and it gave a sub note that basically says, I was speculating when I implied the evidence met a bar of definitive proof. Correct. Which is what all of these others have been doing. This doesn't mean that they don't have valid, legitimate complaints, but I went and I asked Claude about it because Claude gave me a more concerted answer with respect to it. Claude essentially said, I don't want to quote it.

[00:49:15] It's quite a lengthy, but it essentially said there's enough here that individuals can bring their own lawsuit and they might get some traction. There's not enough here for any kind of Rico anything because you can't directly prove any kind of intent and you can't prove any kind of malicious acting. All we see is incompetence, which is what I've kept telling people.

[00:49:39] However, it seems as though individuals have enough strength to bring their own lawsuit. Guess what? That's very expensive. That's why people aren't doing it. That's why you have not yet seen people bring their own lawsuits because they know it costs a shit ton of money and they don't want to put up out of pocket. They want somebody else to pay for it. That's why they put their hopes and dreams on people who gave them lofty hopes and dreams on something that had no merit.

[00:50:09] Listen to what I'm saying to you. At no point did I say do nothing. At no point did I say don't act. I said you got to be smart about it. I said if you felt like you were wrong, sue the motherfuckers because you likely would have a case if you can prove directly prove losses come out of your pocket and sue.

[00:50:33] And I encourage if you feel that you've been wronged in any way, sue, go after them. You as an individual, you go and do a civil lawsuit against them and see what happens. Understanding it's expensive as hell. Six figures. By the time it's all said and done. And that's assuming you can get them to settle. And you got to understand you're dealing with people that have a lot of money to fight it. It's up to you.

[00:51:02] Never have I said do nothing. Never have I said it's on the up and up. I said if you felt like you want to do something, then do it on your own as an individual. The reason that it's being perceived as a big nothing burger is because there's too many people relying on vigilantes to try to do the tough work for them. They can't help you. They never could. It's false hope.

[00:51:31] They gave you false hope. Period. Because it didn't rise to that level. It still hasn't. But you as an individual might have a case. But you're going to need to come out of pocket. That's the reality of the system that we live in. I can't speak for the UK. I can't speak for Germany. I can't speak for other countries. I can speak in the US. In the US, anybody can sue. I talked about it.

[00:52:01] So bring a civil suit against them and see what happens. Understanding you're going to come out of pocket. You might find a lawyer slimy enough to say, I'll just get paid out of it because I know it's a slam dunk. I don't think you will. I think most lawyers are going to laugh you out the room. I had to believe that. But you can go pro se. Represent yourself. See what you do. It's cheaper. But you're still going to spend money. Because it costs money to do these things.

[00:52:29] Don't rely on vigilantes to save you. They can't. Your justice must be your justice. If you want to do it, do it. The reason I'm so confident now. The reason I'm so confident. The reason I'm so adamant. And the reason I'm trying to emphasize this to you. The reason that they cannot help you. This launch. The team. Emphasizes the very thing that they're doing. The team. Is doing.

[00:52:58] They're rolling shit out. They're giving things. Things are happening. Things are moving. Things are being built. They're unstable. They're a buggy shit show. They're a nightmare. They're delivering things. There's activity. There's activity. Things are moving. Claims were active. Exchanges are active. There are things moving. As long as there's activity. Of any sort. It weakens your case that you're trying to make.

[00:53:27] That these idiots have lied to you. And convinced you was solid. It was never solid. It was never going to be solid. Because as I said. He's smarter than them. I'm going to say it one last time. And I'm going to ask everybody else. Kurtulthot.fm. To help me. You've got to help me. You've got to get people to understand. Get them to understand. Because they're not going to listen to me.

[00:53:56] They're not going to listen to me. Get them to understand. You know I'm correct. If you feel like you were wronged by this. Sue them. You. Not wait on vigilante motherfuckers. You. Sue them. You. Go to the table. With your own money. And sue them. Civil case. Sue them. Don't talk Rico. Just civil. You were wronged. You were out crypto. Whatever.

[00:54:25] Go to your police. File a police theft report. Go through the process. And sue them. And see what happens. And if you get laughed out the room. Understand what that means. Have them explain it to you. Have them tell you what I'm telling you. There's no case here dude. Or. I can get you back X. Because of the minors. Or. I might be able to do it. But we're going to have to wait. It's going to be one of those three.

[00:54:56] Chances are it's the third. We've got to wait. We've got to wait. Because there's stuff happening. There's stuff happening. We can't say. Because stuff's happening. That's what I think they're going to tell you. Because that's what I see. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try. That doesn't mean if you feel wrong. That you shouldn't act. All I'm saying is. Stop believing dumb ass people. Lying to you. If you feel like you were wrong. You file the lawsuit. You. Do it yourself. If enough of you do it.

[00:55:25] Something might happen. Who knows. This. Rollout. It's clearly rudimentary. It's clearly a copy. It's clearly rookie. It. But it's something being rolled out. There's activity. There's things being rolled out. There's things being built. There's things being done. There's things happening. It is not happening the way you were told. And they're not happening the way you expected. And as a result. Everybody is at a low point.

[00:55:54] On the money scale. Like every other pre-sale ever has been. None of which. Rises to the level. You're trying to impose. It. Does not. If you don't believe me. Ask AI. But make sure that when you do. You are clear. And transparent. With the way you ask. The question. You cannot. Fall on. Zach. XBT. He has proven nothing. He's provided no evidence of anything. All he's done.

[00:56:24] Is shown. That crypto is moving across chains. And that some people. Who invested more than they can afford to lose. Are sitting at a loss. On a project. That's doing something. That's. That's what you got. Doesn't rise. DL News shut down. Doesn't rise. Because they were already broke. At the time they reported it. They were trying to jump on the bandwagon. And save their asses. Before they shut down. It didn't work. Nothing's worked. That's all that's here.

[00:56:54] DL News. And Zach. XBT. That's what you got. And photos of a wedding. That's what you got. And photos of Andrew Tate. That's what you. Listen to what I'm saying to you. That's what you got. That's the best you got. And you think. That a group of you. Is going to take him down. When that's all you got. I'm trying to help you. If you. Feel. Wrong. You. As an individual. Go. And file a civil lawsuit.

[00:57:23] I'm imploring you to do that. And see if you win. Go pro se. Learn how to do it yourself. If you cannot afford an attorney. But please stop. Stop. To dumbasses. Who are misleading you. They don't know what they're talking about. They don't know what they're doing. They're just trying to. Rile you up. I'm not suggesting. You shouldn't be angry.

[00:57:53] I'm saying. Don't let them. Rile you up. If you're angry. Be angry on your own. For your own reasons. And be angry at yourself. For making the bad decision. And then do better next time. I promise you. You'll feel better. If you just. Sit back. And listen. Things are. Being built. Things are being developed. Though buggy. Shit show. They are. And as long as there's activity. You can't prove anything. That's the problem.

[00:58:23] That's the exact problem. I'm trying to get you to understand.