Why celebrities are getting into NFTs | Business Casual

Why celebrities are getting into NFTs | Business Casual

Show Video

I don't think that most celebrities or even most crypto companies think of the environmental costs as being much of a concern. And I'll tell you why I hear this lip service to it. But then you ask, Okay, so are you devoting resources to figuring this out? And they say, Oh, someone will. And it's like, Okay, so.

So you're not. Is what I'm hearing here? Is it today? Scott It's about the burgeoning business behind celebrities shilling for crypto. And there's this elaborate web of celebrities, NFT creators, crypto exchanges, and talent agencies behind all of it. And we wanted to know how it's all connected and whether any of its legit And how regulators plan to control it. So, Elizabeth La Pardo is the deputy editor at The Verge, and she joined us to dove into the murky behind the scenes financial relationships and how policymakers and regulators are responding in this world of NFTS and crypto. Just last month, Big news in the world of crypto.

President Biden signed an executive order on ensuring responsible development of digital assets. This was seen as a win by crypto advocates, as you write. Can you help us understand the executive order and what it means for the crypto community? So I think the one of the reasons the cryptocurrency industry was really excited about this executive order is that it seemed to be taking cryptocurrency seriously.

It seemed to acknowledge that there was technology involved that was worth thinking about in a serious way. And it also mentioned a central bank digital currency, which for me as a money nerd was like the most exciting part, the possibility of, you know, having a digital dollar maybe, or something like that. So it felt like, I think, vindication for a lot of the crypto folks I spoke to that there was this roadmap for potentially approaching legitimacy because right now I think a lot of people are operating in a regulatory gray area and they would prefer not to be. Hmm. So legitimacy acknowledgment is the first step but to your point, it's still quite murky when it comes to the regulatory environment.

And you've dug into regulatory issues around influencer endorsements. When it comes to cryptocurrencies or other digital currencies, the space broadly. Let's start with an example here.

You wrote about Gwyneth Paltrow and her current avatar. Her profile picture on Twitter is a world of women and here. So first of all, what is special about NFT profile pics or avatars on Twitter and other social platforms? And then and then how do airdrops factor into all of this? I didn't know a whole lot about airdrops until I read your piece So one of the things that Twitter now offers is that if you have an NFT, you can use that as your profile picture but in order to do that, your Twitter account needs to be associated with a specific wallet. And the thing to know about wallets, which you know are where you keep your cryptocurrency, your NFT is all of those things you can figure out which wallet belongs to. To Gwyneth Paltrow.

And one of the things that I think is true about celebrities is that people like to give them free things because if a celebrity is seen with you know, a special purse or the right NFT or whatever, that makes other people want it to. And so one of the quirks of cryptocurrency is that if your wallet is known, it's possible to airdrop stuff into it. So let's say you're an artist. You've minted some NFT use you want to, you know, really use the market for your art. And one way to do that is to put it in front of Gwyneth Paltrow and see if she likes it.

So you can just airdrop now that you know this address because you can see where her wallet is because it's hooked up to her Twitter account. Just airdrop your art into her wallet. And if she likes it and showcases it, then there's a tremendous benefit for you. It's not that different from swag bags, which are really normal at digital awards shows. Yeah, exactly. Well, free sample, but because celebrity marketing is super powerful, the FCTC has a series of regulations around influencer endorsements on social media platforms.

And if you're getting something as a promotional consideration or you're getting paid to advertise the product, the product you need to disclose this. So I think there are a couple of other like things like if you're employed or you have family who are somehow involved, you also have to disclose that, too. And so one of the things that I did when I was writing about this was I emailed the FTC to ask them what I'm sure they felt were some bizarre questions about what one can do as a celebrity with fees. And the spokes, the spokeswoman who I spoke to was very polite but very firm, saying she can't comment on any specific celebrity or any specific scenario. But there's a general principle applies.

So like if there's a reason somebody might not know of a connection between a marketer and a celebrity, that needs to be disclosed. So if you think about like the Matt Damon Crypto.com ad that's an ad like you don't need to disclose it, right? Like we all know he's getting paid. Like he there's no there's no need for disclosure there. But like if he were on his Instagram account and like, hey, here's a cool news service I love to use that he would need to disclose because, you know, the presumption is not necessarily that you're doing ads on your Instagram account.

If he were being paid for it. I mean, you could also write you can just say, hey, this is not a paid endorsement. I've never been. But I actually just love this thing.

And, you know, on TV, you'll see sometimes in small print they will say paid endorser, right. When celebrity comes on. So there are regulations around all this in the legacy media world. But again, this is all this is all new territory here, Liz. And I'm fascinated reading your your stories about eight coins, which we'll get into later. But all these everything that's happening in the crypto web3 world, it all seems to be being done from scratch by I don't know, lawyers.

I assume there's a legal foundation to all this. But, you know, it's like who who are the NFT lawyers? Because if you went to law school, even if you graduated two years ago, there was probably no case study on NFTS. Right. Or a year ago.

So like all of this is so burgeoning and so new, who are making the decisions? Who's who is informing the president about that? EO, who's putting all this together? It just seems like it's happening in real time. It is. And it's funny that you mention this about lawyers like you presume their lawyers.

This all started with engineers. Actually, I do know a number of crypto lawyers, people who put together Daos, for instance, or who work at various exchanges, but there are fewer of them than you would think. And actually, last year, after writing a story about NBA Top Shot, which is another crypto sort of trading card type platform, I was actually asked to give a presentation to a number of media lawyers about what these things were and how they worked because they were curious and had no idea and they weren't sure how, for instance, IP might work with this kind of thing. So that was certainly enlightening. This is a place where it seems like the technology is at times ahead of the law, which is why you see for instance, some of these these companies will make settlements with financial authorities and then be given a path to being regulated basically There's a really great Matt Levine newsletter about this is like just trying to figure out how any of this works.

And one way to work is to do something, get fined, and then get a path to legitimacy. And that seems to be where a lot of people are going, which is, you know, that's fine. That's one way to do it.

It's not risk free, but this is a space for people who like risk. So that doesn't totally surprise me. It now feels like a Taylor's old his time where the regulation follows the technology years later, if not decades. Later.

We're seeing that with social media now in big tech, where even the FTC is looking to maybe unwind acquisitions that it approved years ago. So I think this is something we'll be dealing with with some time. But going back to this celebrity component here, my favorite line in your article about the weird world of celebrity NFTS was, let's be honest, celebrities exist to market things, and that's why they were invented by 20th century Hollywood. And you also make this comparison to SPACs or special purpose acquisition companies where there's often a celebrity involved is the success of NFT is at least how it's constructed now.

Is it kind of contingent on celebrity participation for that fandom and that community? This word we hear so much on NFT is, is this sort of the default now is having this big name attached to these big NFT situations? That's a really good question, and I think it depends on who you're trying to talk to. So I was at a theory in Denver earlier this year, and there are a bunch of really enthusiastic people there who are really big believers in cryptocurrency. And building things on chain, all of that.

You don't need a celebrity to reach those people. Those people are already bought in. However, if you're trying to reach, for instance, my dad you know, and you're going to need help.

He's not necessarily bought in on cryptocurrency already. He's not he doesn't have a wallet and you're going to have to go through the sort of arduous process of setting one up. And so in that sense, if you want to reach the broad market, if you want to reach sort of your average consumer, then it seems like an easy way to bring them on board is to bring in celebrities. And that's part of what's going on here. You know, there was a fortune. I think it was fortune.

It might have been Forbes. I'm sorry, I get these two magazines confused, but it was a profile of Katie Horne, who is, you know, one of the big fish in the space who's just struck out from Andreessen Horowitz to do her own crypto focused firm for investment. And it talks about her getting dinner with a bunch of celebrities and just sort of introducing them to the NFT space because they were really curious about it.

And this is the sort of thing that I had been hearing about last year with TOPSHOT was that the NBA was like very interested in CryptoKitties, which was one of the early NFT projects, and wanted to think about a way for them to do something there to like a lot of these folks, I think, are really interested in tech, want to be involved with some of this innovative stuff and like they also have money to invest. So they're thinking about ways that they can invest their money, especially, you know, if you're an athlete, you know, your career is not going to be that long. It's not gonna be as long as like an ordinary person's career. There's only so long your body can perform at that level. And so you're thinking about investments that might potentially carry you through the rest of your life.

And so I think that's been a big part of it is people who are curious, who are interested and who are aware of the fleeting nature of fame, let's say, and are trying to figure out a way to to, you know, invest so that they will have stuff later. Web3 seems to be the opposite phenomenon. From Web two, and we had this discussion with Ryan Broderick a little bit about how Web two, you know, when social media was starting out, it was very much about adoption from the mainstream masses or just regular people, right? Who are discovering Twitter, discovering Facebook, you know, and then it was, Hey, Shaq, you should get on Twitter hey, you know, I don't Ashton Kutcher get on.

You know, it was regular people reaching out to celebrities to get onto Twitter. And the celebrities were skeptical of all that, right? They had their PR machines. They had Hollywood, Old-School, Hollywood. They're like, what is it? Social media now with is all about the celebrities appealing to the mainstream and saying, hey, you got to get on board this. You got to get onboard this.

It is funny how that's flipped. Well, I would actually asterisk what Ryan had to say here, because if you've read Sarah Friar's book about Instagram, you know that a big part of Instagram success came from deliberately pursuing celebrities and bringing them on to the platform. And that brought regular people on. And so I actually think this is a Web two playbook that was developed sort of later in the game, later than Twitter, later than Facebook that we're now seeing Web three adopting as well. And that's the playbook that created influencers, which is a really important part of how WEB3 operates.

You see all of these folks who are basically cryptocurrency influencers, some of whom are very funny, very sharp, and that's a major onramp, I think, for people just like memes and celebrities and all of these things that make something that's a little bit difficult, feel much more approachable, especially when you're talking about celebrities and high profile folks. There's also this this ethical dilemma that comes up around, say, energy cost and impact to the climate when it comes to mining, cryptocurrencies and other facets of the NFT market. Do you get a sense from your reporting that celebrities, high profile folks actually care about this or are paying attention to this when promoting NFT use and crypto when many of them at the same time are trying to align themselves with this fight against climate change as a part of their brand as well? Does that come up? I think the funniest time it came up was when Tesla briefly accepted Bitcoin as payment for the cars. And actually it you've done for Kimbal Musk who is the brother of Elon and sits on the board, was like, well, we heard about the environmental stuff very fast and I was like, I bet you did.

Yeah, yeah. But I don't think that most celebrities or even most crypto companies think of the environmental costs as being much of a concern. And I'll tell you why I hear this lip service to it, but then you ask, Okay, so are you devoting resources to figuring this out? And they say, Oh, someone will.

And it's like, Okay, so, so you're not is what I'm hearing here? And it's, it's kind of like with the, the transition. There's a transition that's supposed to have been coming on Ethereum from proof of stake, which is or sorry, from proof of work, which is more energy intensive to proof of stake, which is less energy intensive. And it's been six months away for a very long time. And I will be very excited for everyone if they make it happen. But it hasn't happened yet.

And I feel like a lot of the talk around environment is just that. It's talk there isn't there isn't somebody going to work. It's, oh, somebody else will solve it real quick. What is like the easy version of the difference between proof of work and proof of stake? Maybe the easiest way to describe it is proof of work is a bunch of computers that are all trying to solve the same difficult puzzle. And then once you've solved it, you awarded the reward to the computer that solved it first.

Right. And everybody else is out of luck. And so it's very computing intensive. And the idea behind proof of stake is that you put money behind the transactions.

Essentially, you put up some collateral, and that decreases the amount of computing required in order to make the transaction happen. I think that's maybe the simplest way to explain it. And it's the computing power that draws on the energy grid, which is mostly powered by fossil fuels still, which is why we're having the climate discussion around cryptocurrency, right? That's right.

And, you know, as crypto supporters will tell you, loudly and at length, some crypto mining is actually from renewables. Some of it is hydroelectric power. And that's true. Some of it's wind power. That's also true. But it sort of depends on where the mining operations get set up.

What this is and there are also, to be fair, knock on effects from setting up more hydroelectric dams because there's an increased demand for energy. Right. Like that potentially changes the environment, too. So it's really actually a very complex thing to think about because it's hard to isolate this stuff out. Yeah. And I mean, I like the comparison again to traditional media and the let the Web two world or even the pre-digital world, if you want to call it, because it is easier for some people to understand.

You know, Shaquille O'Neal is is a major endorser of many products, including Buick Cars. Are people getting on him for promoting a fossil fuel burning car that's bad for the environment. You know, you don't hear it in other areas, right.

But in crypto, for some reason, it's become a massive rallying cry for the naysayers. I think the reason for that is that with a car, there are externalities, right? Like maybe you need it to get to your job because there isn't public transportation where you live. Or maybe you're a big supporter of American jobs. And this is an American made car. And so that means jobs for people.

So there are these other sort of factors that go into goods that are not necessarily going into digital goods. Like the best thing that you can say about NAFTA is, is that it's helping support artists and musicians because it is a real problem for creators to get paid online. Like, that is true, that is real. But if you're just talking about something like Bitcoin, for instance, there are people out there who will say, well, this is just like this is pretend money.

This is this is just energy. Like all you're doing is buying a couple of expensive lines of code. So what's the real benefit here? How does this benefit anyone They're not seeing the utility that could potentially come from all this or the digital currencies that you're in badgering the central banks. And again, just a tie back to Schack, I maybe have a fascination with him.

It's true. I did. I did it. I did name my bird, my pet bird growing up, Shaquille cockatiel O'Neal. So. All right. I mean, it's great. He's loomed large in my life. Since he is. But now again, he's all over TVs promoting every other product that you think the guy made of money playing basketball.

They they need to pimp themself out like this. But Papa John's is another one of his endorsements. And, you know, coming back to celebrity marketing and we're talking about celebrity marketing and of it's to compare it to, you know, Reese Witherspoon, for example, partnering with World of Women or Gwyneth Paltrow. How is that different from Shaq endorsing Papa John's or Buick? I mean, these are celebrities getting paid to promote things.

Is it so shameful that they should be getting paid for their their reach, their community, no matter what it is they're doing, whether it's, you know, pizza or bored apes? I mean, I am not an expert on celebrity ethics. I just want to be clear. So I don't I don't know that it's that different. But the way that I think about it is, every once in a while you'll hear about a celebrity who played a private party for, let's say, a dictator.

Right. And people get really mad about that. Right.

So but but people generally don't have a problem with celebrities playing private parties. So J.Lo plays somebody super sweet. 16. No one's mad as long as the person isn't, you know, maybe somebody they would prefer.

J.Lo weren't associated with. So I actually think it has more to do with the association and the fact that many people are really skeptical about cryptocurrency and they think maybe cryptocurrency is a negative. The NFTS are potentially a negative rather than the existence of celebrity endorsements at all.

So UGA labs, which is the folks who brought us for dates and bought a yacht club, is has created something called eBay Coin. What exactly is it in simple terms, since you are so good at explaining things to us in simple terms? Oh, thank you. So it's it's a token a okay. And the question the question. Right. The question is what kind of token is it? So I'm going to take a little detour, but I promise I promise there's a reason for it.

So you may remember there was like this wild craze for initial coin offerings in around like 20, 17 or so. And there was a brief pop in a Long Island Iced Tea Company's when they renamed themselves to I think it was like Long Island Blockchain Tea or something. Like there was just it was like a moment of froth, I would say. And a lot of these ICOs ultimately were frowned upon by the FCC, which came after them. So but sort of the idea behind it was it was like a cryptocurrency version of an initial public offering, like for stock where you would get all these coins, then you could trade them and you had a stake in whatever project it was.

And so we're going to fast forward now to 20, 22 when the sort of craze right now is for something called Daos or decentralized autonomous organizations. And you see them often in the open source software community, because one of the problems with open source software is that it can be hard to have incentives for people to do the right thing. And so by creating this DAO, it lets all of these developers vote on what projects they're going to be doing next. And essentially have a stake in the community. And the idea is that the coin is associated with a vote and the vote steers the sort of collective organization the Dow and so because it is decentralized, there isn't necessarily like a CEO who's saying, we're going to do this next. It's the community So you go labs is like, cool, we're going to launch the ape coin, DAO.

And every ape coin is a vote in the Dow, and we're going to do some cool videogame stuff and some merch stuff. And if you want to, you know, have a voice in all of this, you need to have a coin and they airdropped ape coin to people who already had board apes or mutant apes. And that was sort of the initial thing. And then they divvied up the rest of it between themselves, some some other folks.

So Animoca Brands, which is the video game that is using ape coin as an endgame currency. They got a chunk. I think Andreessen Horowitz got a chunk. So there's this sort of collective right around this for the organization.

And because Daos aren't really legal entities, I'm saying aren't really legal entities but there is a Wyoming DAO law, which with the that's probably too far afield. But but for most purposes, Daos are not legal entities. So they created what's called a wrapper, which is a foundation, the Eight Point Foundation based in the Cayman Islands. And that foundation is sort of the legal part of the Dow.

So if it wants to interact with the real world in any way, it does it through the foundation Just real quick, so so what is the utility here for people who have a coin? You mentioned there's video game stuff, merch stuff. Just what is the bottom line here? You can use it as an in-game currency for Benjy Bananas, which is a game made by Animoca Labs. So if you're into that, that's cool. But you can also use it, for instance, to buy drops of board at Yacht Club merchandise, which happened last week, I think. And then the other piece of it is there are proposals for the Dow and you can if you have eight coins, you have essentially as many votes as you have Abe coins. So you can vote for specific proposals.

Now, so far, most of the proposals have just been sort of, here's how we want this to work. We're going to hire these people to do some infrastructure stuff. Here is how long board members get to serve on the foundation, sort of the beginnings of like some kind of a I hesitate to say constitution, but like the setup of of how this thing functions. And one of the reasons it's difficult to talk about a DAO, especially at this sort of nascent stage, is that like there aren't projects that have been set up and voted on yet by the members that, you know, we can say, oh, they chose to create a video game or they chose to license some kind of IP here or they chose to whatever, because they haven't done anything yet because it's still sort of setting itself up So one of the things that I've noticed, though, is that AIP coin is trading pretty briskly and I'm sure that there are some people who are using it in the video game and there are some people who are buying it in order to buy merch.

But it seems like a lot of other people are speculating about the value of this token. And I don't know if that's because they want to be involved in the Dow or if they're just engaged in like making rampant speculation, which is just another fun part of the cryptocurrency world or what. But there is a sort of a complex number of things that are going on with this coin and the reason I've been following it is that it's so High-Profile and it's so like flashy that I'm pretty sure that if nothing else, we're going to have they're going to get calls from regulators like, Hey, can you explain this? And that might just be all it is, right? But it's also possible that regulators might take kind of a dim view of this. And so I've been watching this pretty closely because I'm really interested in how it functions in reality, because one of the things that I found in the cryptocurrency space is there's sort of a lot of speculation about how things should or could work, and it's all pretty theoretical.

So whenever there's an on the ground example, I watch it really closely. And that strikes me as a really interesting on the ground example of a specific flavor of DAO. And if, you know, the SEC is like, Yeah, this is chill, we're fine with it.

I think we're going to see a lot more things like this popping up. What what do you mean by regulators may take a dim view on this. They might be skeptical or or criticize. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, so the question is whether or not coin counts as a security.

And obviously it's the view of UGA labs and the Bitcoin Foundation that it is not. But a security and there is a standard definition it's from a 1946 Supreme Court case called SEC. The Howey Security represents an investment in a common enterprise with the expectation of profit solely through the efforts of others. So for instance shares or bonds or any of a variety of other sort of derivatives all sort of count as securities. And if you think about the first DAO, which was just called Daos, you know several years back, it was in fact a security because it was a place for people to pool their money and then invest in things that was explicit part of what it was for. And one of the things about it point out is that it very carefully is not promising a profit to anybody who owns a coin.

It's not meant to you know, represent that, like the amount of money that you put in and then you're going to get paid back. So there's some question to me about how regulators are going to view this Dao especially, you know, depending on what ends up coming out of it, you know, if it's just sort of you can vote on some stuff and you can buy, you know, a boarded up yacht club hoodie and play this video game that seems pretty limited. And I'm not sure that that necessarily qualifies as a security, but I don't know. And so this is part of what I mean about the regulatory gray area. We're in where we're not totally sure how the U.S.

government is going to treat these new things because they're just still so new and yet a coin is being traded on an exchange like Coinbase, like a security right by people or the volume in the movement of it is similar to a shared But like you said, it's it's there's no dividend. There's no interest rate right there. There's there's no it is this legal gray area. But look, this this this executive order was just passed or so you know, we're all in this right now at this moment. The regulation is going to start happening. So I guess it's like check back in a year and see see where this all shakes out, huh? Yeah, I think that's right.

I mean, look, to me it coin kind of has like stock vibes. Like, I wouldn't call it a stock, but it feels stock like, you know, but maybe that's not. I feel like if you're an FCC regulator, you can't be like, well, this has stock vibes, and for this reason, we're going to regulate you. You actually do need to have some reason to get involved So I'm interested to see how this works. And, you know, often it takes the SEC months, sometimes years to catch up with stuff so it might be a minute before we figure out what what's going on with it. Cohen and Ed Cohen, Dow.

But I do find it really interesting because I don't think it's as decentralized as as people maybe expect and it's certainly not autonomous. So I'm I'm kind of wondering if there is a way in which they're they're riding on this very hip word right now, Dow that they're just an organization, you know, and that's that's pretty common actually in cryptocurrency, is that there are a lot of people who are out there running Daos that are neither decentralized or autonomous. It's just it's just a no, just no. And that people with the most holdings, the most AP coins seem to be the founders.

Right. Or these celebrity you know, partners. And they have the most votes and doesn't seem democratic or decentralized, like you say. Right.

I mean, like, you know, if you look at the token distribution, there's 150 million that go to the members, the people who have the NFTS, and there's 150 million that go to UGA labs and then there's 80 million that go to UGA labs as founders, and then there's 140 million that go to launch contributors like Andreessen Horowitz, which by the way, is an investor in UGA labs. Animoca. So at this point it's kind of like, okay, so who actually does have control of this thing? And to me it looks like UGA labs. And the other thing to keep in mind is that when you buy the board a yacht club, merge with your ape coin because it can only be bought with ape coin, or at least the one that came out on on March 28. That was the case Who are you giving your point to? UGA labs. So, you know, all of these proposals are open or were open to be voted on during this merch drop, but people were effectively giving up their votes in order to get hoodies.

So I don't know that decentralized is something that I would say is is true of the ape coin Dow. I think it's fairly centralized and because the voting itself is not on chain. I'm not sure that it's autonomous either.

Still a lot of holes. Still a lot of questions. But Liz, I was listening to you as a guest on the Verge Cast Pod from March of 2021. So over a year ago and some of the folks you were talking to were quite skeptical just about NFTS and that market overall Some language that was used that it you know it's an overheated market and just feels like we don't know where to put our dollars because we bought everything we could during this pandemic towards Amazon and we bought everything we could. What do you think has changed a year later as far as how maybe NFTS are perceived, our understanding of their value of ownership, their robustness as assets of with value? What's the biggest difference now in how we look at NFT as compared to a year ago? Well, I think one of the big things is that you're seeing a slowdown in the NFT markets.

So that's a change. And I don't know what that means in the long term because it might just be like a temporary slowdown and then people are going to go back to like being very excited about these things again. Like the thing about money is that it's not real And so, I mean, it's real enough, right? Like, if I like, you know, instead of giving my my landlord a check at the beginning of the month, I said, hey, money's not real, so I'm not paying you. It's I would be in trouble.

Like I would I would lose my my apartment. But it's rich. So it's real enough, but it's not real the way like a tree is real and independent of our thoughts and feelings about it. And, you know, and so I think one of the things that's true especially of digital assets, it's true in the broader market as well, but it's especially true with the digital assets is that a lot of it has to do with sentiment.

So if you feel like this is real and you feel like this is a good investment, then it's going to be and like Tinkerbell lives as long as everybody claps. Right. And like there are good reasons why you might want this to be real. So like, for instance, let's say your favorite artist isn't, you know, as big as, I don't know, Charlie X, right? It's like some sort of underground person and you know that they're not making enough money off of streams on Spotify to be an artist full time.

So you want to think about ways to fund them. And that's, you know, one of the reasons you see the music industry that's gotten really heavily into NFT is because that is an alternate way of of paying people. And you have like Steve Aoki, who's who's very, very in has the Aoki verse and is, you know, trying to get his fans really into it. And like, I don't know, maybe that is something that we all agree. Like, Hey, there's value in allowing artists and musicians to just do that. And this is a way of paying them that we all feel pretty comfortable with.

And they get a slice every time. You know, we resell the NFT and that's fine. Like, that might be something that we as a society decide, I don't know. But it might also be like a fad where everybody who bought an ape, JB or sorry, everybody who bought some lines of code that say they own an ape jpeg, maybe all of those people are going to feel silly.

And the answer is, I don't know. Like, again, this all has to do with whether whether or not we collectively decide it is real because money is a shared delusion. That's true of all money. Not just cryptocurrency.

And so if we all collectively decide, yeah, this is real, this matter matters, these things count, then it's going to count. And if we all collectively decide and no, then it won't. If you like what you saw and you like what you heard, you can listen to the entire episode of this podcast. Business Casual anywhere you get your podcasts. And please go ahead and subscribe to the Morning Brew YouTube channel and go ahead and click on that alarm bell, that thing right there so you can be alert at any time. There's a new video.

2022-04-22 00:46

Show Video

Other news