The Wolf Den #1069 - Not Your Keys, Not Your Coins
Saylor Takes A Public Beating
Welcome to The Wolf Den! This is where I share the news, my ideas about the market, technical analysis, education and my random musings. The newsletter is released every weekday and is completely FREE. Subscribe!
Trading Alpha Released A Brand New Product!
One of the partners of this newsletter, Trading Alpha, my trusted indicator and trading community, has launched their proprietary Indicator Search Engine for All Markets. This custom Indicator Screener scans crypto, stocks, and forex markets for Trading Alpha indicator setups, eliminating the need for time-consuming manual analysis. It can simultaneously screen for multiple indicators, enhancing confluence and providing advanced analysis capabilities across different markets. This is cutting-edge technology for serious traders.
Make sure to use my link HERE if you plan on giving it a try.
In This Issue:
Not Your Keys, Not Your Coins
Bitcoin Thoughts And Analysis
Altcoin Charts
Legacy Markets
Does Polymarket Know Something?
Paul Tudor Jones Is Bullish On Bitcoin
You Can Now Earn Bitcoin Yield On Dollars
Chris Larsen Donates To Kamala
$$$ Billions For Bitcoin | This Will Make Crypto Go Wild
Not Your Keys, Not Your Coins
"Not your keys, not your coins" is a core tenet of the crypto space.
Generally, this statement is non-controversial—it doesn’t cause much debate. Those who adhere to this principle practice it, while those who don’t still tend to acknowledge its validity to some degree. The events of late 2022, particularly FTX's collapse, underscored the importance of responsible practices in crypto, leading to a more cautious approach among users in how they handle their assets.
Since 2022, times have changed, and I’d like to believe that many of the bad actors have been flushed out of the space.
Overall, I appreciate the phrase; it has a certain resonance and serves as a reminder to keep people's assets safe. Is it a perfect solution? No. Does it work for everyone? No. Will some people lose their coins while managing their own keys? Yes. Is it better than trusting Coinbase, BlackRock, or Fidelity? That ultimately depends on the individual. Transparency matters here because all of you trust this publication.
I’m sharing my opinions, and I don’t expect most of my readers to find them controversial—at least, I hope not. However, a recent statement made by Michael Saylor during a podcast with Madison Reidy did spark some controversy on this topic. The key difference between Michael Saylor and me is that my audience includes a broader range of beliefs, while his closest followers tend to be Bitcoin-only enthusiasts with a specific set of expectations.
I’m going to share the full context of that clip, followed by some opposing opinions, and then my own at the end. I hope this approach provides additional context for your views on custody. Ultimately, we all share the common goal of wanting to keep our coins safe, which is why this discussion is important. For readability, I did not italicize the interview, everything within the lines is not my text!
Madison Reidy: If there is more Bitcoin held with these third-party custodians, what risk does that pose? Having a greater supply held by fewer large institutions—does that increase the risk of seizure and confiscation, like we've seen with gold? And is that not exactly what Bitcoiners don’t want to happen?
Michael Saylor: No, I think it’s the opposite. I think that when Bitcoin is held by a bunch of crypto anarchists who aren’t regulated entities, who don’t acknowledge government, taxes, or reporting requirements, that increases the risk of seizure. If a country in desperation—if China knew there were underground crypto traders with billions of dollars of Bitcoin in their midst that didn’t pay taxes, they’d probably try to shut that down, and that’s what they do.
So, normally, the risk is greater when unregulated private entities are perceived to be holding the asset. When you have regulated public entities like BlackRock, Fidelity, JP Morgan, and State Street Bank holding the asset, well, all the lawmakers and law enforcement arms are invested in those entities, right? So, there’s no way that all the senators and congressmen are going to seize assets from Fidelity, BlackRock, or Vanguard because that’s where all their retirement money is invested.
So, the asset moving from private to public hands and into regulated entities does a bunch of things: it decreases volatility, decreases the risk of loss. It’s like—who do you trust more as a custodian: FTX or Fidelity, or Vanguard or State Street? If you walked down the street and asked, ‘Would you put all your family’s money in an offshore entity without a headquarters, run by five dudes without an auditor, or would you put it with a bank that’s too big to fail in the U.S.?’
At the end of the day, you have the OG crypto community that’s very hardcore Bitcoiners may be firm in their beliefs, but if you look at where all the money is, 99.9% of it is actually in the traditional economy. In the war for the future of money, the battle will be won with money, right? At the end of the day, Bitcoin is capital. Who’s going to decide who the winner or loser is? The people with the capital. And where is the capital? It's with Vanguard, Fidelity, State Street, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley—they’re all regulated entities of sorts. So, when Bitcoin is held by those entities, it becomes regular and normal, and people would no more think about seizing that than they would about seizing a building in the middle of Manhattan or the S&P Spider assets. Why would you do that? That's the capital you built the country on.
Alright, let's take a brief break. This is the upcoming segment that went viral. Consider how your perspective might change if you were only exposed to this brief bit compared to the entire conversation.
Madison Reidy: Well, if you ask why would you do that, consider the Great Depression. People thought their gold was safe in banks until the Executive Order of 1933. So, we're not entirely safe. I know it's kind of a wild thing to suggest might happen again, but history does repeat itself. So, people’s Bitcoin wouldn’t be entirely safe.
Michael Saylor: People say that, but mostly it’s paranoid crypto anarchists who say that, okay? It's a myth and a trope that keeps going on over and over again. First of all, he didn’t really seize the gold. People voluntarily turned in their gold; they didn't go and kick in everybody's door, arrest them, shoot them, and take their gold. That never happened, first of all.
This is the end of the viral clip, and Michael Saylor is in the middle of a thought, so let’s continue.
Second, he didn't seize all the property; he didn't go seize all the buildings owned by wealthy people in New York, nor did he seize all the stock portfolios of wealthy people in New York, right? Gold was the monetary asset backing the dollar. The dollar was literally $20 to the ounce of gold.
The problem was that the country was on the gold standard, and Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to devalue the dollar. He wanted to devalue the currency; he wanted to print more dollars. So, they had to actually do something to devalue the dollar. The way they did it was by putting that executive order in place and then revaluing the dollar to $34 per ounce, a devaluation.
Now, you have to ask yourself: is the United States on the Bitcoin standard? (Maybe we will be soon), but the point really is we’re not. It’s totally not a reasonable comparison. Franklin D. Roosevelt didn’t seize every car, every watch, every piece of real estate, and every piece of equity in the United States because we weren’t on the equity standard, the property standard, the “chicken in every pot” standard, or the grassy lawn standard. We were on the gold standard, and he wanted to devalue on that gold standard.
Today, we’re not on the gold standard, and we’re not on the Bitcoin standard. The U.S. government has no problem printing money; they can print as much as they want, and in fact, every government on Earth— all of them— they're either on their own standard or they're on the dollar standard. So, in this particular case, I don't think we have to worry about Bitcoin held in custody being seized by the government any more than you have to worry about your Apple stock being seized by the government. The government doesn't need to devalue the dollar against Apple stock to print more dollars, either. So it's not really an issue.
Oftentimes, people have these inflammatory tropes or inflammatory memes that they use. I say that because I want you to give me your money, okay? If you don’t trust the bank, then you’ll buy my hardware wallet. If you don’t trust this government, you’ll move to my country and buy a passport from me. If you don’t trust that company, you’ll sell that stock and buy the other stock.
So, there are a lot of these kinds of messaging and ideas that are very inflammatory and meant to actually stampede people into some behavior that is financially beneficial.
That wraps up the Michael Saylor part, now for the counterarguments:
Now for Jameson Lopp’s opinion:
First, I respect all three of these men immensely.
Second, let’s make some clarifications on a couple of things. I went to Wikipedia to do some further reading on Executive Order 6102, which is the executive order that was referred to a couple of times in the interview. I am not a historian, but here’s what Wikipedia has to say on some relevant points.
“Executive Order 6102 is an executive order signed on April 5, 1933, by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt "forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States." The executive order was made under the authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the Emergency Banking Act in March 1933.”
“Prosecutions of US citizens and noncitizens followed the new orders, among which were a few notable cases:”
Here are three examples of arrests related to gold seizures, along with the various charges filed.
Next, I’d like to point out that, to my knowledge, Saylor has never been particularly vocal on the issue of self-custody. I revisited my copy of “The Bullish Case for Bitcoin” by Vijay Boyapati, in which Saylor wrote the foreword. Interestingly, in those four pages, he doesn’t even mention self-custody as a crucial aspect of Bitcoin. Those familiar with Saylor know that he approaches Bitcoin from a different angle—primarily valuing it as a hedge against debasement.
If you believe that self-custody is the core principle of Bitcoin, that's completely valid, and I respect your perspective. However, if your view is that Bitcoin serves other purposes—such as acting as a hedge against inflation, a means of transferring value across borders, an opt-out of an oppressive system, or a store of value similar to digital gold—that's equally fine. We should celebrate the various reasons Bitcoin is championed, not argue over who’s "more right."
Additionally, given Saylor's prominent role in advocating for corporate adoption, he has to work with regulators and trust them, rather than oppose them. While he may still support self-custody—and I believe he does—he also needs to demonstrate that institutions like BlackRock, Fidelity, and Coinbase can be trusted. If Saylor fails in this mission, MicroStrategy risks losing its position as a leader in corporate adoption.
Let’s also remember that OGs advocate for self-custody for their own reasons. It could come down to political beliefs, partnerships, alliances, or business interests—it’s case by case. It’s no secret that popular cold wallets like Ledger and Trezor aren’t without their flaws. And while Jameson Lopp runs Casa—a fantastic business—of course, he wants people to use his platform, just as Saylor is promoting the other side of the coin.
There's also a quiet but persistent suspicion that, years down the road, BlackRock or other major custodians could attempt to fork the Bitcoin chain to seize control of assets. While I acknowledge this as a possibility, I ultimately consider it a conspiracy theory. The chances of such an event occurring, given the pushback it would face from the broader community, seem highly improbable. Some may say I’m naive or ignorant, and if that’s how you feel, more power to you.
Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing.
Long story short, I don’t despise Saylor for what he said, nor do I feel the need to chastise or criticize him—it’s not productive. Ultimately, the debate on self-custody boils down to fundamental beliefs about privacy, ownership, and trust in centralized systems. Some prioritize the security and control of holding their own keys, while others find comfort in trusting established institutions. Both perspectives have their merits, and in the end, it’s about what aligns with your values and risk tolerance.
I don’t think we’re anywhere near a world where a U.S. government seizure of Bitcoin is a real threat. Could it happen down the road? Maybe, but for now, I believe we’re far from that possibility, and there are other, more pressing issues to focus on. That said, I appreciate everyone who’s thinking critically about this topic and sharing their opinions.
Bitcoin is still showing strong signs of life, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a run-up leading into the election. If anything, it's the uncertainty that's holding it back right now.
Bitcoin Thoughts And Analysis
Bitcoin held support at $66,550 beautifully - it had a wick below to grab liquidity before heading back up. The last two daily candles closed and opened on that line.
Things are looking better today.
Legacy Markets
Stocks rose for the first time this week as traders analyzed corporate earnings for insights into the economy. Tesla led the surge with a 17% gain after reporting strong earnings and forecasting up to 30% growth in vehicle sales next year. UPS also jumped 7%, signaling renewed growth in sales and profits, while Boeing fell 2% amid ongoing worker strikes.
Initial jobless claims declined for a second week, with fluctuations linked to hurricane-related disruptions. US business activity expanded in October, driven by demand for services.
The S&P 500 rose 0.2%, and the Nasdaq 100 climbed 0.5%, while the Dow Jones dipped 0.3%. Treasuries remained steady after consecutive days of losses. Analysts suggest potential pullbacks due to uncertainties surrounding the US election and global geopolitical issues.
Corporate earnings highlights included American Airlines raising its profit forecast, Southwest Airlines beating expectations, and Harley-Davidson lowering its full-year forecast. Whirlpool and Lam Research reported strong results, while IBM and Newmont posted disappointing earnings.
Key events this week:
US durable goods, University of Michigan consumer sentiment, Friday
Some of the main moves in markets:
Stocks
The S&P 500 rose 0.2% as of 9:47 a.m. New York time
The Nasdaq 100 rose 0.5%
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 0.3%
The Stoxx Europe 600 rose 0.4%
The MSCI World Index rose 0.3%
Currencies
The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index fell 0.1%
The euro rose 0.2% to $1.0801
The British pound rose 0.4% to $1.2978
The Japanese yen rose 0.3% to 152.26 per dollar
Cryptocurrencies
Bitcoin rose 1.8% to $67,759.51
Ether rose 1% to $2,537.47
Bonds
The yield on 10-year Treasuries declined one basis point to 4.23%
Germany’s 10-year yield declined three basis points to 2.27%
Britain’s 10-year yield advanced six basis points to 4.26%
Commodities
West Texas Intermediate crude rose 1% to $71.51 a barrel
Spot gold rose 0.8% to $2,737.67 an ounce
Does Polymarket Know Something?
I want to be clear: I'm not suggesting that just because Trump has a lead on Polymarket, it automatically indicates manipulation. The concept of manipulation is more nuanced than that. After all, it’s a free market—one that may actually offer a more accurate reflection of broader sentiment.
With 13 days left until Election Day, Trump is showing his largest lead over Kamala since July in the 'Presidential Election Winner 2024' market, holding a 28-point advantage. Over on Kalshi, Trump has reached his highest lead ever, with an 18-point gap. Notably, on Polymarket, Trump is projected to win all the major swing states, including Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Nevada.
Given that the 'Presidential Election Winner 2024' market just surpassed $2 billion in volume late last week, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it hit $3 billion before Election Day, which is wild since Polymarket isn’t available in the U.S. What’s even more striking are Trump’s margins in the swing states: 48 points in Nevada, 43 points in Georgia, and 39 points in North Carolina.
Paul Tudor Jones Is Long Bitcoin
Andrew Ross Sorkin: Given all the things you have been saying, are you off buying gold and Bitcoin?
Paul Tudor Jones: I think all roads lead to inflation. I’m long gold, I'm long Bitcoin. I think commodities are so ridiculously under-owned, so I’m long commodities. I think most young people find their inflation hedges via the NASDAQ. That's also been great. It’s probably some combination—I probably have some basket of gold, Bitcoin, commodities, and NASDAQ. And I own zero fixed income. The playbook to get out of this—you see it in Japan right now. They have 2% inflation, 30 basis points overnight, and they don't want to raise rates. The playbook to get out of this is to inflate your way out.
It was this time last year Druckenmiller said, “I don’t own any Bitcoin, but I should.” The real FOMO kicks in when the world starts to say this more and more and Bitcoin is barreling past $100,000.
You Can Now Earn Bitcoin Yield On Dollars
Financial services company, River, has announced a new “Bitcoin Interest on Cash” product, offering a 3.8% interest rate paid in bitcoin on cash held in their platform, which is FDIC insured up to $250,000. This yield is similar to high-yield savings accounts like those offered by Ally Bank, but with River, you earn bitcoin instead.
River's new Bitcoin Interest on Cash feature has no monthly fees or minimums, and users can withdraw their cash at any time. It's not just appealing to Bitcoin enthusiasts, but also serves as a way to introduce newcomers to Bitcoin. Eventually, I would expect this move to become the norm among other financial services company that want to hold cash or assets like Bitcoin.
Chris Larsen Donates To Kamala
This is absurd, but I have to be fair and say that Chris Larsen, who is in fact the Co-founder & Executive Chairman of Ripple, doesn’t speak for Ripple. It would be pretty ironic if this backfired, but to each their own. What’s even crazier is that Chris Larsen recognizes that the SEC as unhinged, yet he thinks that donating to the same party in charge will actually be productive? It just doesn’t add up.
$$$ Billions For Bitcoin | This Will Make Crypto Go Wild
I’m joined by Andrew Parish from The Arch Public and special guest Jeff Park, Head of Alpha Strategies and Portfolio Manager at Bitwise. Together, we will dive into the latest insights on Bitcoin and crypto ETFs, breaking down why recent developments in the crypto space are set to change the industry forever.
My Recommended Platforms And Tools
Phemex - Exclusive for new users, earn up to 8800 USDT. Also for a limited time, if you mint your soul pass you will pay no gas fees and enjoy VIP benefits. Use MY LINK to get the rewards!
Arch Public - It’s a hedge fund in your pocket. Built for retail traders, designed to outperform Wall Street. Try emotionless algorithmic trading at Arch Public today.
Trading Alpha - Trade With Confidence! My new go-to indicator site and trading community. Use code '10OFF' for a 10% discount.
X - I spend most of my time on X, contributing to CryptoTownHall every weekday morning, sharing random charts, and responding to as many of you as I can.
YouTube - Home of the Wolf Of All Streets Podcast and daily livestreams. Market updates, charts, and analysis! Sit down, strap in, and get ready—we’re going deep
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own and should in no way be interpreted as financial advice. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision. I am not a financial advisor. Nothing contained in this e-mail constitutes or shall be construed as an offering of financial instruments or as investment advice or recommendations of an investment strategy or whether or not to "Buy," "Sell," or "Hold" an investment.
Nice job handling a controversial topic.