<h3>Key takeaways</h3>
<ul>
<li>The host notes Bitcoin closed September positive, giving historically a 67% chance of a positive October averaging a 13.2% gain.</li>
<li>Glassnode data cited shows underwater buyer cohorts with cost bases near $89,000 and $97,000, which the host flags as potential resistance zones.</li>
<li>Five more sovereign entities (Brazil, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan) reportedly added Bitcoin, bringing nation-state holders to 21.</li>
<li>Strategy (MicroStrategy) bought 334 Bitcoin, taking its stack to 848,000 BTC, an all-time high, per the host's reading of its 8-K filing.</li>
<li>The host's "Hoddle model" lists NAV premiums/discounts: MicroStrategy 0.73, Metaplanet 0.68, Semler/"21" 1.02, Marathon 1.39.</li>
</ul>

<h3>Seasonal patterns and chart signals point to a bullish October, the host argues</h3>
<p>The host opens by asking "is October here?" and runs through Bitcoin's monthly seasonality since inception. Having closed September positive, he says there is historically a 67% chance October also closes positive, with an average October gain of 13.2%. He adds that when Bitcoin strings together three or more consecutive green months, it extends into a fourth green month "89% of the time or nine out of 13 historical instances," though he cautions October has only just begun and results aren't locked in.</p>
<p>He also points to his own "optimized trend" model, which he says turned blue (bullish) on the monthly timeframe on September 27 at around $76,000, which he calls "a very good sign," noting that signal typically holds for the duration of a bear or bull phase. He contrasts the length of the recent bear phase with prior cycles, saying "you can just see visually how short it was compared to previous bare markets."</p>
<p><blockquote>"Momentum is aligning with the bulls."</blockquote> — the host</p>

<h3>Overhead resistance from underwater buyers, but long-term holders never went negative</h3>
<p>Citing a Glassnode chart, the host says the market has a cohort of "top buyers" who bought six to twelve months ago with an average cost basis of $89,000, and a one-to-two-year cohort near $97,000. He warns these holders may sell once they reach breakeven, calling it "overhead resistance" and naming his own key level of about $87,200, roughly $1,800 below the $89,000 zone.</p>
<p>He contrasts this with long-term holder (155+ days) MVRV data, saying that unlike 2015, 2018 and 2022, this cycle's long-term holder MVRV never dropped below 1.0 during the bear market, meaning long-term holders stayed in profit throughout. He also discusses Bitcoin ETF flow data from Phil Swift, arguing institutional/retail ETF buyers "chase the rallies" and bought heavily near the cycle top, then sold near the cycle bottom around $60,000 in February 2026, which he says offers "zero excuse not to have bought Bitcoin close to 60K."</p>

<h3>Nation-state accumulation, monthly gainers and proxy valuations</h3>
<p>The host highlights what he calls quiet sovereign adoption, saying Brazil, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan have recently added Bitcoin to balance sheets, bringing the total count of nation-state holders to 21. On monthly performance, he says Solana and MicroStrategy both gained 18% over 30 days, Ethereum gained 10%, and Bitcoin gained 8%, calling this evidence that "higher beta plays continue to outperform."</p>
<p>He reports Strategy (MicroStrategy) bought 334 Bitcoin, taking its holdings to an all-time high of 848,000 BTC, funded via $15.7 million of ATM share issuance and $13 million cash, and criticizes the firm for buying back STRC shares, saying "don't dilute the stock for goodness sake." Using his "Hoddle model," he lists NAV premiums/discounts: MicroStrategy at 0.73 (a 27% discount to Bitcoin NAV in his framing), Metaplanet at 0.68, Semler ("21") at 1.02, Marathon at 1.39, with Cleanspark and Riot also mentioned as accumulators. He flags that Semler's premium had fallen from 1.55 a few weeks prior to 1.17 now, and suggests pair trades—shorting an overheated premium while going long Bitcoin.</p>

InvestAnswers: Bitcoin's monthly trend turns bullish as nation-state count hits 21

The host walks through seasonal odds, overhead resistance near $89,000-$97,000, and fresh sovereign Bitcoin buyers as October trading begins.

Is Uptober Here? 📉➡️📈 Proxies + Nation States Stacking + Resistance Ahead ⚡

<h3>Key takeaways</h3>
<ul>
<li>Bitwise's NEAR ETF (ticker NRR) saw roughly $10 million-plus in daily inflows and $10-20 million in daily volume over its first three days, says Hunter Horsley.</li>
<li>Sal Ternullo says NEAR Intents has processed more than $32 billion in volume, with net revenue now funding token buybacks held in a vault, not burned.</li>
<li>Ternullo discusses a governance proposal to cut NEAR's inflation from 2.5% to 1.6% over two years and floats studying a fixed-supply model.</li>
<li>Horsley argues NEAR, at roughly a $5 billion market cap, looks cheap next to AI platforms with similar traction, which he says trade at far higher valuations.</li>
<li>Both guests say the future favors "many models, many chains," with NEAR positioned as infrastructure connecting fragmented AI models, blockchains, and stablecoins.</li>
</ul>

<h3>Bitwise launches NRR after years of behind-the-scenes NEAR involvement</h3>
<p>Hunter Horsley of Bitwise joined the show alongside Sal Ternullo of Sovereign to discuss Bitwise's newly launched NEAR ETF, ticker NRR. Horsley said Bitwise's relationship with NEAR predates the ETF by over a year, starting with institutional research and valuation coverage, a European ETP, and direct network participation as what he said is currently the fourth-largest validator on NEAR, as well as work on NEAR Intents through an MPC network.</p>
<p>Horsley framed Bitwise's hands-on approach as aligned with client interests: "Bitwise manages something like $16 billion... it uh is long bias meaning um at the highest level the best thing for Bitwise for our clients is that Near or other crypto assets and ecosystems do well." Ternullo praised Bitwise's early research coverage, noting it came when NEAR was trading around $130, well below recent levels he says touched $55 before settling near $5 just before the recording.</p>

<h3>Early ETF demand looks strong relative to other 2026 launches</h3>
<p>Horsley said NRR's first three days brought over $10 million in daily inflows and volumes ranging from $10 million to $20 million a day, which he characterized as extraordinarily strong compared to other single-asset crypto ETFs launched this year, including unnamed ones with larger market caps that saw less volume and fewer inflows. He noted he was still awaiting Friday's results at time of recording.</p>
<p>He attributed the strength partly to timing — citing the Hyperliquid ETF's successful launch even in a bear market as precedent — and partly to growing investor interest in AI narratives connecting to NEAR, plus Bitwise's efforts to raise awareness.</p>

<h3>NEAR Intents volume and buybacks, not burns</h3>
<p>Ternullo described NEAR Intents as a framework where users express a desired outcome and a market of solvers fulfills it, now expanded beyond simple digital-asset swaps to include tokenized equities via Ouno and roughly 400 tokenized equity products. He said the system has processed more than $32 billion in volume, driven largely by human interactions through near.com and B2B wallet partners like Ledger and Zashi.</p>
<p>He clarified that net revenue from Intents funds buybacks of NEAR tokens held in a "permanent capital vehicle," not burns, cautioning that Bitwise's prior report calling this "deflationary" needs correction since the tokens aren't removed via burning. Separately, he mentioned a governance forum proposal to cut inflation from 2.5% to 1.6% over a two-year linear curve, and raised — without committing to — the idea of researching a fixed-supply NEAR.</p>

<h3>NRR's staking feature and the value-capture pitch to mainstream investors</h3>
<p>Horsley said NRR handles staking on behalf of investors, removing a decision point. He argued investors in 2026 have "moved on from the coinmarketcap era" and no longer rank assets by ranking alone; instead they respond to a value-capture story. His pitch to mainstream investors: NEAR was created by "the co-inventor of LLM" and lets both individuals and AI agents move assets across a blockchain while scaling rapidly.</p>
<p>He compared the sector's maturation to early-2000s internet firms shifting from "page views and eyeballs" to metrics like ARPU and retention, saying NEAR shows strength across usage, revenue, and value-capture dimensions.</p>

<h3>Betting on fragmentation across AI models and blockchains</h3>
<p>Both guests argued the future holds many models and many chains rather than one dominant system. Horsley said: "we're probably going to wind up in a world with uh multiple uh L1s um multiple different stable coins," and argued NEAR is positioned as "a simplifying force" letting agents or humans traverse different blockchains and models. Ternullo tied this to Ilia's original vision, predating NEAR's mainnet, that centralized AI intelligence would not produce a "utopian outcome," motivating his decision to found Sovereign.</p>
<p>The host drew a parallel to a conversation with Venice's John, framing a split between "Frontier Labs" chasing one dominant model versus a "biodiversity of models." Ternullo agreed, describing enterprise adoption of tiered model structures — frontier intelligence for some tasks, open-source confidential models (like NEAR AI's private inference) for sensitive data — as a trend he expects to become a "fundamental requirement" within two to three years.</p>

<h3>Privacy as a growing investor and consumer theme</h3>
<p>Horsley questioned the old Silicon Valley assumption that consumers claim to value privacy but don't act on it, suggesting recent anxieties about data feeding into LLMs may be shifting real preferences. Ternullo said there is "empirical data on this now," citing Google search trends showing privacy-related searches at a multiple of past peaks, which he compared to the shape of NEAR Intents' volume growth. Horsley linked this to Bitcoin's original sovereignty thesis, calling privacy "the exact same concept just applied to your information." Neither speaker cited specific figures for the search-trend claim beyond the general comparison.</p>

Bitwise's NEAR ETF draws $50M in first three days as hosts tout AI-crypto convergence thesis

Bitwise CEO Hunter Horsley and Sovereign's Sal Ternullo explain why NEAR's new ETF and AI positioning have investors rethinking the asset's valuation.

NEAR Just Got Its First ETF. What Happens Next?

<h3>Key takeaways</h3>
<ul>
<li>Tom Zschach says Swift Ledger's first live workflow lets banks pay each other cross-border using their own deposit tokens.</li>
<li>Zschach stresses the ledger does not do settlement, custody, or token issuance — it orchestrates transactions between members.</li>
<li>He says settlement can land on central bank money or on chains like Ethereum and Solana, depending on what members agree.</li>
<li>Zschach notes it's been about a year since the ledger was announced in Frankfurt alongside Swift's payment scheme program.</li>
<li>He confirms "some of those rumors are true" about major announcements coming roughly a month out at Money 2020.</li>
</ul>

<h3>What the Swift Ledger does and doesn't do</h3>
<p>Tom Zschach, the former Chief Innovation Officer at Swift, told the host that confusion persists about what the Swift Ledger actually is. He said Swift is a network built on top of which the correspondent banking business model runs, connecting "200 countries" and, per Swift's Javier, "40,000 plus corridors." The ledger, announced a year earlier in Frankfurt alongside a separate payment scheme program, gives banks another option for cross-border payments rather than replacing existing rails.</p>
<p>Zschach was explicit about the limits of the system: <blockquote>"It doesn't do settlement... That's not a custodian... Swift is not going to issue tokens. That's not what they do."</blockquote> Instead, he said, the ledger "orchestrates transactions between two different members and implements a settlement workflow with a tokenized asset regardless of where you want to settle it." He gave an illustrative example where one bank sends a stablecoin and another a tokenized deposit, with settlement potentially happening off-ledger at a central bank like the Federal Reserve or Bank of England, or on a chain such as Ethereum or Solana — Swift itself does not choose, he said; that decision belongs to the members transacting.</p>
<p>He pointed to the first live workflow as evidence of momentum: banks paying each other cross-border using their own deposit tokens, which he said rolled out "just recently" following the Frankfurt announcement. Zschach called the turnaround from announcement to live results "an amazing delivery" for an infrastructure as large as Swift, saying it was done with "no cut corners... no smoking mirrors."</p>

<h3>Partnerships, convergence, and what's next</h3>
<p>Asked about the broader shift, Zschach agreed with a comment he said Swift's head made on stage, that this is no longer about "trading both sides of the spectrum." He argued that TradFi and DeFi are simply converging into "just finance," comparing it to how stablecoins are no longer labeled "crypto" once mainstream. He said Swift remains deliberately neutral, working with partners across wallet providers, settlement chains, and other ecosystem players rather than "picking winners and losers," because no single institution has the resources to build everything itself.</p>
<p>On where the ledger could expand, Zschach said he is not responsible for Swift's strategy but would not be surprised to see it "step into other asset classes," since "you need to have money as the foundation for everything else that's going to be settled." He did not give a timeline for that expansion, leaving it as speculation about Swift's roadmap.</p>
<p>Pressed on rumors of upcoming news tied to his own post-Swift work, Zschach confirmed: <blockquote>"Some of those rumors are true. We are going to be making some big announcements about a month from now at Money 2020."</blockquote> He described gathering momentum from development partners, investors, and "the ecosystem forming," but gave no specifics on what the announcements would cover.</p>

Former Swift CIO Tom Zschach: Swift Ledger live, banks already settling with own deposit tokens

Tom Zschach explains what the Swift Ledger actually does and doesn't do, and teases announcements at Money 2020.

Tom Zschach: The Swift Ledger Is Live And Banks Are Already Using It (Faster Than Anyone Expected)

<h3>Key takeaways</h3>
<ul>
<li>The host argues Tesla and SpaceX are not hype, citing a combined total addressable market of 83 and a half trillion dollars.</li>
<li>He favors buying deep-in-the-money LEAPS (like $100-strike SpaceX contracts) over cash-secured puts, citing up to 754% ROI.</li>
<li>Citing a BlackRock report, he says most USDC stablecoin volume settles on Solana due to its speed and low cost versus Ethereum.</li>
<li>He models Solana's implied price at $1,570 from $995 billion in projected demand, or as high as $8,839 if it matches a $5 trillion Ethereum market cap.</li>
<li>He urges strict device separation between AI agents and brokerage logins to avoid security risks from public Wi-Fi and AI tool access.</li>
</ul>

<h3>Tesla and SpaceX: hype or genuine dominance</h3>
<p>Responding to a Patreon question about whether Tesla and SpaceX are "based on hype and speculation," the host rejects the premise, arguing the two companies lead in cars, self-driving, robotaxis, energy storage, humanoid robots, global communications, and data center buildout. He says the combined total addressable market across the two companies is <strong>83 and a half trillion dollars</strong>, citing examples such as Optimus humanoid robots at $25-30 trillion, SpaceX enterprise applications at $22.7 trillion from its S-1 filing, Tesla robotaxi/Cybercab at $10 trillion, and Starlink direct-to-cell communications at up to $5 trillion.</p>
<p>He acknowledges real risks that could break the thesis, including failures in car sales, FSD, Starlink, Starship, or AI and terrestrial data centers. <blockquote>"I tend to be in the most hated assets anyway and that's kind of my thing because they tend to do the best."</blockquote> — the host.</p>

<h3>Options strategy for SpaceX LEAPS</h3>
<p>Answering a retirement-focused question about SpaceX options, the host says he never uses cash-secured puts except as short-term trades, since they tie up large amounts of capital. He favors buying $100-strike LEAPS expiring December 15, 2028, which he has bought as low as $49-55 and which traded around $69 at the time of recording. He says going in-the-money gives "a lot more bang for the buck" than higher strikes.</p>
<p>He bases this on a Monte Carlo price model, which he says he shared with "Aaron Bernett," projecting SpaceX at <strong>$527</strong> by December 2028. On that basis, LEAPS bought at $50 would return <strong>754%</strong>, roughly 8.5x, versus about 3x for simply holding the stock.</p>

<h3>AI agents, stablecoins and Solana's transaction capacity</h3>
<p>Discussing a BlackRock report referencing Visa, Google, Microsoft, Stripe and Coinbase, the host says USDC volume (<strong>$127 billion</strong>) far exceeds Tether's (<strong>$27 billion</strong>) despite Tether's larger market cap, and that nearly all USDC transactions happen on Solana because of its low cost and roughly 150-millisecond settlement, versus Ethereum's $2-20 fees.</p>
<p>He projects 25 million AI agents within a year, each running 200 transactions a day with 30% settling onchain, implying roughly 1.5 billion onchain transactions daily by September 2027. He estimates Solana, even at 3,000 transactions per second, could only handle <strong>18.43%</strong> of that load today, versus Binance at 1.21%, Tron at 0.8%, Sui at 0.7%, and Ethereum at 0.13%.</p>

<h3>Solana price modeling and a wrap-up on security</h3>
<p>Explaining how Solana transaction growth could translate into price, the host points to a fee-burn mechanism where half of base fees are permanently destroyed, alongside validator and staker rewards. He sums demand drivers—real-world asset tokenization ($525 billion), stablecoin settlement ($150 billion), agentic AI ($270 billion) and consumer use ($50 billion)—for total exogenous demand of <strong>$995 billion</strong>, implying a Solana price of <strong>$1,570</strong> given 69.4% of supply staked. He also calculates that if Ethereum reaches a speculated $40,000 (a $5 trillion market cap) as predicted by Standard Chartered's Jeffrey Kendrick, Solana matching that market cap would imply <strong>$8,839</strong>.</p>
<p>On security, responding to a question about using the same devices for AI agents and brokerage access, he recommends dedicated machines for trading, warns against letting AI agents access brokerage passwords or sessions, and advises against logging into brokerages on public Wi-Fi, citing risks like "evil twin captive portals" and phishing.</p>

InvestAnswers host projects $8,839 Solana and 527 dollar SpaceX by 2028

In a Patreon Q&A, the InvestAnswers host defends Tesla and SpaceX's valuations, lays out his LEAPS options approach, and models how AI agent transactions could drive Solana's price.

AI Economy Alert 🚨8x Options Strategy + Insane Price Targets🤖

<h3>Key takeaways</h3>
<ul>
<li>The trader says he aimed for a $10,000 daily goal, ending the session with $8,100 in profit.</li>
<li>His second trade nearly hit $10,000 unrealized before he locked in only $2,300 as the market reversed.</li>
<li>A later trade during the Asia session resulted in a full loss, putting him down about $1,000 on fees at one point.</li>
<li>He describes risking roughly $2,000 per position and repeatedly reducing risk to breakeven once trades moved in his favor.</li>
<li>Final trades of the day added partial profits of $4,000 and $3,900 (almost $5,900), closing out around 11 p.m.</li>
</ul>

<h3>Setting up the day around Bitcoin's structure</h3>
<p>The trader begins his routine before the New York Stock Exchange opens at 9:30, checking Bitcoin on daily and 4-hour timeframes to decide a directional bias for the session. He identifies key zones where price might react, saying the goal is to "keep my loss small, let my wins run, and see how much profit we can make on the day." He frames his approach as placing smaller trades repeatedly at areas where probability favors his direction.</p>

<p>His first trade, on Solana, is built around a Fibonacci-style setup, entering near a "61.8 ratio" after a five-wave move. He describes risking $2,000 per position with a target of five times that for a $10,000 outcome. The trade stalls near a resistance area, and he reduces risk to breakeven rather than holding through uncertainty.</p>

<h3>A near-$10,000 trade shrinks to $2,300, then a quieter stretch</h3>
<p>After a shift down in the market, he enters a short position near a key lower level and quickly sees a strong move in his favor, at one point sitting on close to $10,000 in unrealized profit after about two hours. He describes the discipline required to stay patient, but the market reverses before he can capture the full gain. He exits for $2,300, remarking that locking in some profit "by around lunchtime is pretty good."</p>

<p>The next few trades are less decisive. A power-hour trade and another setup both get closed at breakeven after reducing risk, and he says he is "still opening myself up to opportunity that I know eventually is going to pay off." He describes stepping away from charts between trades to work on other projects or go to the gym, managing positions from his phone.</p>

<h3>Asia session swings bring a loss, then a late recovery to $8,100</h3>
<p>Entering the Asia session, he takes a trade that goes against him, saying "Asia session opened and pushed volume into Solana on the upside and took us out of our position for a full loss," leaving him down roughly $1,000 on the day in fees. He then identifies a structural shift around the "previous day low," leading to a new short entry that works in his favor; he locks in a partial profit of almost $4,000 before letting the remainder trail.</p>

<p>A final trade near an area he calls a "sweep" rejection adds further gains before he ends the session around 11 p.m., citing fatigue from the later hours. Tallying the day, he lists a breakeven first trade, a $2,300 second trade, three breakeven or losing trades in a row, and two late trades bringing in $4,000 and $5,900 on partial profits. He closes by saying day trading "takes a lot of consistency and a lot of effort," noting he made <strong>$8,100</strong> that day, an amount he says used to take him "two and a half months" to earn.</p>
<blockquote>I was able to make $8,100 today, which used to take me two and a half months to make. — the host</blockquote>

Trader logs seven crypto trades across one session, ending with $8,100 profit

A self-described day trader walks through a full day of Bitcoin and Solana trades, showing wins, breakevens and a loss before closing near his $10,000 goal.

Day In The Life Of A 29 Year Old Millionaire Day Trader In NYC

<h3>Key takeaways</h3>
<ul>
<li>OpenAI's "Sign-In With ChatGPT" lets apps like Notion draw on a user's ChatGPT plan instead of managing their own API costs, the hosts explain.</li>
<li>A New York Times report says Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah pushed Pope Leo's advisers to take AI consciousness seriously; Neil Kosla voiced concern over "AI psychosis" at Anthropic.</li>
<li>Only 2% of US households reportedly pay for AI, a figure the hosts call surprisingly low given bundling with products like cloud storage.</li>
<li>Tesla stock jumped 5% on better-than-expected delivery numbers, even as deliveries fell 2% year-over-year; Coogan praises Autopilot after a 50-minute hands-free drive.</li>
<li>Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery are being folded into a new Skydance brand under David Ellison, which the hosts say creates a bundle that is "disappointing for Netflix."</li>
</ul>

<h3>OpenAI's Sign-In With ChatGPT reframes who pays for inference</h3>
<p>The hosts discuss a Dev Day feature they say got overshadowed by bigger announcements: "Sign-In With ChatGPT," which lets a user authorize an app to run OpenAI model requests against their own ChatGPT plan rather than the developer paying for API calls. They cite Peter Yang's post saying it makes "a bunch of indie apps a lot more viable," using a live language-learning app he had held back from launching due to API costs. A team member named Vignes said he planned to explain more about the feature "in the next couple of days."</p>
<p>The hosts frame Notion as the clearest example: users already pay a Notion subscription, and this lets Notion draw on a user's "chat allowance" instead of its own credits when offering AI features. One host notes the feature currently brings along "OpenAI tokens," not "OpenAI dollars," and speculates it could eventually extend to a fuller billing relationship, citing his own confusing experience with Higsfield where he ended up holding separate "consumer credits and API credits."</p>
<p>They compare this to Apple's App Store subscription model, where cancellation is frictionless, and note Sam Altman tried a similar GPT Store concept three years ago that "languished." One host also mentions OpenAI's new partnership with B10 for enterprise access to open models, and flags AI headshot-generator apps as a compute-intensive use case that could benefit.</p>

<h3>Anthropic's Vatican lobbying and the "is Claude conscious" debate</h3>
<p>The hosts cite a New York Times report saying Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah threatened to walk out of Pope Leo's AI encyclical launch in May after the Pope rejected the idea that machines can be conscious, and that Anthropic's team privately lobbied the Pope's advisers "to take the possibility of model consciousness seriously." They quote Pope Leo: <blockquote>"Algorithms lack the spark of humanity."</blockquote> They also note Paul Graham's reply suggesting the Pope consider AIs trained on visual art as well, and Walter Isaacson's comment that "Popes have been hiring good artists for a long time."</p>
<p>One host quotes investor Neil Kosla's concern: <blockquote>"I'm increasingly concerned about the AI psychosis inside Anthropic."</blockquote> The hosts note Anthropic isn't claiming AI will end the world but is raising consciousness as a real possibility, calling this a strange middle ground. They also cite Byrne Hobart's joking comment about not realizing "we'd solved consciousness," and note Olah himself, per the reporting, took no firm position, saying only that the question is "unintuitive" given everyone operates from "an end of one view."</p>
<p>One host speculates the Vatican outreach coincided with Anthropic allegedly "adding a billion dollars of run rate a day," suggesting commercial momentum may have shaped the company's posture, though this is offered as speculation rather than something sourced to a named person.</p>

<h3>Only 2% of US households reportedly pay for AI</h3>
<p>The hosts cite a statistic, flagged by "Nick" as surprisingly low, that only 2% of US households pay for AI, compared with 25% paying for Sirius XM and 55% paying for cloud storage. They question how the figure is counted, wondering whether it excludes bundled subscriptions like X Premium's Grok access or Google accounts with Gemini included. One host notes Sirius XM did "around eight and a half billion" in revenue last year with a similar market cap, calling the business "robust" despite being "on the way out."</p>

<h3>Tesla deliveries beat expectations as Autopilot wins converts</h3>
<p>The hosts note Tesla stock jumped 5% on a delivery report showing a 2% year-over-year decline but an increase from the prior quarter, with the stock still down 21% for the year as of Thursday's close. One host says he recently took delivery of a Tesla after a roughly two-month wait and had to "spec it" a certain way to reduce lead time, suggesting demand has thinned for some configurations.</p>
<p>He describes using Autopilot for 50 minutes before having to intervene, calling the return to manual driving "the most jarring, brutal experience." Both hosts argue the feature is viral because people experience it and immediately tell others, and suggest other automakers face more trouble than is widely recognized, since executives in that space reportedly "chuckle and laugh" when asked about autonomy timelines, with one calling the Tesla "the best appliance car."</p>

<h3>Paramount becomes Skydance; Ben Affleck talks AI filmmaking</h3>
<p>The hosts discuss David Ellison's first post as the Paramount–Warner Bros. Discovery combination is rebranded Skydance, quoting his statement: <blockquote>"We intend to pursue them with passion, imagination, and willingness to take smart risks."</blockquote> They debate whether HBO will be renamed and call the combined content bundle "extremely compelling," saying it is "disappointing for Netflix" given the breadth of IP and lower-tier catalog content from CBS.</p>
<p>They also play a clip of Ben Affleck describing how he built a video model trained on a "last layer" of cinematic understanding using unfrozen open-model weights, saying he was uncomfortable training directly on his peers' work. They close with a brief segment on the rush to buy ".SI" domains tied to "superintelligence" branding, with one host calling it "corny" and arguing ".com" remains superior for every use case.</p>

OpenAI's Sign-In With ChatGPT sparks app-store debate as Anthropic-Vatican rift over Claude's "soul" surfaces

TBPN hosts John Coogan and Jordi Hays cover OpenAI's new billing feature, a New York Times report on Anthropic lobbying the Vatican over AI consciousness, Tesla's delivery pop, and the Paramount-to-Skydance rebrand.

Sign-In With GPT, Anthropic Vs. the Pope, Paramount Rebrands as Skydance | Diet TBPN

<h3>Key takeaways</h3>
<ul>
<li>Host James and guest Aaron Burnett discuss SpaceX stock hitting a new high, up 6.66%, nearing a key resistance level.</li>
<li>Burnett's models and James's Monte Carlo approach both land near a 2030 valuation range, with James citing $902 and Burnett citing roughly $7 trillion median.</li>
<li>SpaceX launched three rockets in one day, including a crewed mission, and sent Google TPUs to orbit for the first time.</li>
<li>Burnett says Starlink V3 and Starship together create a "double step change" in bandwidth, with 2027 capacity potentially doubling on conservative estimates.</li>
<li>Both agree the biggest bear case is nationalization risk, while reusability of Starship past 10 flights is called the key number to watch.</li>
</ul>

<h3>SpaceX stock breaks out as Starship reaches orbit</h3>
<p>The host opened by noting SpaceX's "stock" (tracked via a chart reference) was up <strong>6.66%</strong>, the highest level since June, and asked whether this marked a breakout above a prior resistance around the "155 level." Aaron Burnett said the move looked like consolidation around a roughly two-trillion valuation mark, with some long-term holders diversifying and taking profit, while the overall trend pointed upward. He said he invests with a multi-year horizon rather than trying to time short-term moves, and confirmed he has been dollar-cost-averaging into a position, including inside a Roth account, calling it "a perfect fit for a Roth."</p>
<p>The host argued Wall Street is "waking up" to what he called the Starship unlock, pointing to the ship's first-ever revenue-generating flight and successful orbital mission that week. Burnett pushed back on a "misnomer" that not reaching orbit previously was some disqualifying milestone, explaining the vehicle had already proven the technical steps over a year earlier and had been choosing not to go to orbit. He said it took "19 seconds of lighting one of the six engines" to shift from suborbital to orbital, framing the achievement as more a matter of timing than a major technical leap.</p>

<h3>Engine issues and the physics of the orbital burn</h3>
<p>Burnett described the ascent using a cannonball analogy: the ship is always falling, but at sufficient speed the ground curves away faster than the vehicle falls, which is what achieves orbit. He said the vehicle only needed "a little bit more of a velocity push" to cross from its usual Indian Ocean splashdown trajectory into orbit. He also addressed in-flight engine issues, noting the newer V3 version of Starship has flown only a few times and that moving between versions typically brings "two steps forward, one step back" as SpaceX works out kinks, which he said explains engine-out events during ascent.</p>
<p>On concerns about fuel tank overheating that reportedly caused an earlier-than-expected return, Burnett said the company is "overly cautious" given the risk of an uncontrolled, reusable vehicle coming down over populated areas, and that extra caution — not technical doubt — explains the conservative approach to pushing toward orbit over many flights.</p>

<h3>Record launch cadence and the Louisiana buildout</h3>
<p>The host cited a claim from "Larry Goldberg, friend of the channel," that SpaceX launched three rockets in one day — two Falcon 9s and a Falcon Heavy — including a crewed mission and roughly 130 satellites, plus an undisclosed cargo for an agency referred to as "the NRO." Burnett called this evidence of SpaceX's multi-pad strategy, noting the new Starbase Louisiana site matters because it allows simultaneous launches rather than relying on rapid turnaround at a single site.</p>
<p>Discussing why SpaceX can build and iterate faster than large legacy programs, Burnett compared it to the Apollo program, where young, highly motivated teams achieved the Moon landing in about a decade. He argued SpaceX benefits from a similarly strong shared mission: <blockquote>"it almost feels a little cultic... everyone's on the same page... I will work six days a week."</blockquote> — Aaron Burnett</p>

<h3>Starlink bandwidth leap and compute ambitions</h3>
<p>The host presented figures showing Falcon 9 V2 batches carrying 2.78 terabytes per second of Starlink capacity versus a recent Starship Starlink launch carrying 26 terabytes per second with capacity for 60 — what he called a "double step change." Burnett agreed, saying one Starship launch is roughly equivalent to "23 launches of a Falcon 9" in bandwidth terms, and that modeling suggests 2027 bandwidth could double on conservative assumptions, with a less conservative case putting satellite launches well above that by end of next year, depending on build cadence.</p>
<p>The host also referenced figures attributed to SpaceX's CFO and Elon Musk regarding compute: roughly 10 gigawatts of additional compute per year by 2028, scaling to 100 gigawatts the following year (assuming space-based data centers), and a terawatt by the mid-2030s. Burnett did not dispute the scale but tied future compute revenue heavily to chip costs, noting SpaceX's own chip fabrication ambitions as a margin opportunity.</p>

<h3>Price targets and valuation models compared</h3>
<p>The host shared his own model output: a 2028 price target roughly <strong>3.61x</strong> from current levels, and a 2030 "goes big" figure of <strong>$902</strong>, built from a sum-of-the-parts model including Elon Web Services (EWS/AI compute), an "LLM and Macro hard" automation business, Starlink, Starlink Direct-to-Cell, X payments/revenue, and NASA (estimated by the host at $120 billion). Burnett said his firm's own 2030 range centered near a $7 trillion valuation and that the host's 2030 numbers landed "right in the middle" of that range, but noted his own model barely incorporated AI compute revenue since it was built in June, before the compute narrative solidified.</p>
<p>Both speakers flagged a pending SpaceX–Tesla merger as a key unknown. Burnett said the strategic logic makes sense but the timing is "really hard to know," since both companies may argue they have more growth to capture independently. He estimated SpaceX alone could reasonably be "a 10 trillion plus company," placing it on a short list with Nvidia and major hyperscalers, while the host cited futurist Peter Diamandis's view that a combined Tesla-SpaceX entity could reach $100 trillion by 2035.</p>

<h3>Risks: reusability, permits, and nationalization</h3>
<p>On technical risk, Burnett said unresolved CO2/H2O ice buildup issues in the Raptor engines could push reliable reusability out to "mid-2027" rather than sooner, but called it manageable given engine-out capability. He downplayed permitting concerns at Starbase Louisiana, saying permits are already being secured and that scale constraints only become relevant near "10,000 launches a year," a threshold tied to lunar and Mars ambitions rather than near-term Starlink or AI compute growth.</p>
<p>Asked for the biggest bear case, Burnett named nationalization as the primary concern, noting that figures "on both sides of the aisle" have floated the idea of nationalizing SpaceX given its dominance over space and AI infrastructure. He also flagged solar storms and Kessler syndrome as lower-probability tail risks. Burnett said his single number to track is Starship reusability: <blockquote>"if it gets anything past 10 reuses per Starship, then you're everything's golden from there."</blockquote> — Aaron Burnett, adding that figure could be reached in a couple of years' time.</p>

<h3>Outlook: cadence, government revenue, and timing the stock</h3>
<p>The host noted a reported figure that 20% of SpaceX's 2025 revenue came from U.S. government contracts, tied to military communications and undisclosed systems; Burnett described Star Shield as a derivative of Starlink carrying sensors and reconnaissance capability, calling defense a growing but historically secondary part of SpaceX's business. On cadence, Burnett said SpaceX is targeting roughly 30 Starlink-carrying Starship launches next year by his firm's conservative estimate, versus Musk's public guidance of "50 to 100."</p>
<p>The host said he expects the next six to nine months to be decisive, as more compute capacity, regular Starship-launched Starlink missions, and a potential S&P 500 inclusion accumulate, after which skepticism about scale becomes harder to sustain. He said his personal target for adding to a position is near $135, close to the IPO price of $151, while Burnett reiterated his preference for the stock's weaker periods as dollar-cost-averaging opportunities.</p>

InvestAnswers and Aaron Burnett model SpaceX toward $902 by 2030 as Starship reaches orbit

A space-finance deep dive argues SpaceX's Starship orbital flight, AI compute buildout and launch cadence justify trillion-dollar valuations well before a rumored Tesla merger.

While You Slept, SpaceX Did THIS 🚀  &amp; Latest Price Targets

<h3>Key takeaways</h3>
<ul>
<li>CZ says Binance paused all withdrawals for one week after a $40 million hack in May 2019.</li>
<li>Trading resumed within hours to keep prices in sync with other exchanges, even as withdrawals stayed frozen.</li>
<li>CZ says every exchange needs a "virtual big red button" that anyone can press to halt everything during a security incident.</li>
<li>He publicly suggested Bybit's Ben Zhou pause withdrawals during its $1.5 billion hack, but Zhou chose not to.</li>
<li>CZ says there's "no right or wrong" in hindsight, since continued withdrawals didn't cause Bybit further problems.</li>
</ul>

<h3>CZ describes Binance's 2019 response to its $40 million hack</h3>
<p>CZ recounts that in May 2019 Binance was hacked for $40 million "in one shot." His first move was to pause all systems. He describes keeping a mental "red button" for security incidents: <blockquote>"you press when when when when a hack when a security incident happens, you press the red button first, and you figure out what Everything stops, right?"</blockquote> He compares this to Toyota's andon cord, saying anyone at an exchange should be able to halt operations, and says Binance had that mechanism in 2019 and likely still does.</p>
<p>Withdrawals stayed paused for a week, while trading resumed after a couple of hours to avoid Binance's prices drifting from other exchanges. During that week, CZ says Binance rebuilt its infrastructure, moving from a server-based to a serverless architecture. He argues that trading disruptions and liquidation issues are "secondary" to the risk of more money flowing out incorrectly.</p>

<h3>CZ on advising Bybit's Ben Zhou differently during its $1.5 billion hack</h3>
<p>CZ says he publicly suggested Ben Zhou pause withdrawals two days after Bybit's $1.5 billion hack, but Zhou did not. Asked whether Zhou was right and he was wrong, CZ says: <blockquote>"I think in this type of situation, there's no right or wrong. It's a judgment call."</blockquote> He notes Zhou had far more internal information and that the outcome was fine since continued withdrawals caused no further problems.</p>
<p>CZ says his intent in speaking publicly was to give Zhou "social credibility" to pause withdrawals if he chose to, reducing community backlash. He adds that Bybit used a third-party wallet provider and that the hack's code had reportedly sat dormant before being activated, but says judging the decision in hindsight is "really subjective."</p>

CZ: "Press the red button first" was his rule during Binance's 2019 $40M hack

CZ explains why Binance froze everything after its 2019 hack and why he publicly urged Bybit to do the same during its $1.5 billion breach.

Hackers Stole $40M From Binance, This Is What The Founder Did - CZ Binance Founder

<h3>Key takeaways</h3>
<ul>
<li>Bitcoin closed its weekly and monthly candle above the May high, which the hosts' quant Michael Nadeau says confirms an "early bull" phase.</li>
<li>The 30-year yield hit 5.64% and the 10-year hit 5.3%, the fastest weekly acceleration the hosts have tracked, even after a cooler-than-expected CPI print.</li>
<li>David reports from Robinhood's Hood Summit: 24/7 trading, earnings prediction markets, crypto perpetuals for US users, and agentic trading are all rolling out.</li>
<li>A $387 million Bitget hack drained hot wallets; funds routed through ThorChain, Wasabi and NEAR Intents, reigniting debate over NEAR's "permissionless but not neutral" stance.</li>
<li>New York sued Polymarket and a federal appeals court sided with Ohio and Tennessee against Kalshi, pushing prediction markets closer to a Supreme Court showdown.</li>
</ul>

<h3>Bitcoin's bearish structure breaks</h3>
<p>Ryan and David open by noting that Bitcoin's weekly and monthly candles both closed above the previous May high, which they say marks the highest price since early January and erases the prior lower-high pattern. Ryan says this gives "potentially a green light, a runway for more bullishness" for the rest of October. David adds that his quant, Michael Nadeau, called this the confirmation of an "early bull" phase after a second weekly close above the 50-week moving average (said to be around 76.8K, with the week's close near 84.5K).</p>
<p>Both caveat that a breakdown is still possible, with David saying "we are in the early bull phase" only if the structure holds. They also flag weakness in several altcoins — Zcash down roughly 20%, Morpho down about 17%, and Uniswap down around 17% — after those tokens posted gains the hosts describe as between 50% and 300% over the prior two to three months. Ryan notes that 96% of the top 50 crypto assets outperformed Bitcoin over the last 30 days, framing the pullback as mean reversion after an altcoin-season spike on Glassnode's index rather than a bearish signal for Bitcoin itself.</p>

<h3>Bond yields spike despite cooler inflation</h3>
<p>The hosts describe a "paradox": CPI came in at 3% annualized versus roughly 3.3% expected, with July's figure revised down, yet yields rose instead of falling. The 30-year yield reached 5.64%, its highest level the hosts date to 2022, and the 10-year reached 5.3%. Ryan cites a tweet from Ben Hunt warning "something in the financial world is going to break," attributing the move not to oil or Iran but to the speed of the yield rise.</p>
<p>David pushes back on the alarm, citing Jim Bianco's view that 5.6% is "a totally normal number" historically and that sub-2% rates were the anomaly. Ryan references Michael Howell's MOVE index — a bond-market volatility gauge — noting its spikiness could signal shrinking global liquidity, which Howell reportedly ties to the next global liquidity cycle beginning only after some crisis. David counters that Bitcoin has held up well despite the spiky bond backdrop, calling that a bullish sign. Ryan also mentions a Kobeissi Letter claim that a methodology change in inflation categorization could have shaved roughly 20 basis points off the CPI print, suggesting markets may not be "buying" the official number.</p>
<p>David lists other pressure points — oil back near $93 a barrel after falling from wartime highs of $90–110, the upcoming midterms, and the unresolved Strait of Hormuz situation — arguing each represents a catalyst that could resolve bullishly over "the next quarter to a year."</p>

<h3>Robinhood's Hood Summit push</h3>
<p>David attended Robinhood's Hood Summit in Houston and reports the firm unveiled 24/7 stock trading (including weekends), earnings-report prediction markets, crypto perpetuals for eligible US users across eight assets (Bitcoin, ETH, Sol, XRP, Doge, Cardano, Link and Hype), AI agentic trading, and a social trading feature resembling the crypto app Fomo. He says Robinhood framed itself explicitly for "day traders, the speculators, the people on margin and leverage," not passive investors.</p>
<p>The perpetuals route through Bitstamp, which Robinhood owns and which holds a CFTC exchange license; David notes Lighter's token fell 20–30% on disappointment that Lighter wasn't chosen as the backend provider, since it lacks a US CFTC license. He speculates Robinhood could eventually route to Lighter if it secures that license, which he thinks "we will know...inside of two months."</p>
<blockquote>"I would like to give an agent like you know couple hundred bucks and just see what happens." — Ryan</blockquote>
<p>On agentic trading, David recounts meeting an attendee who had given a Robinhood AI agent $2,000 to trade on his behalf. Neither host has personally used the feature.</p>

<h3>The Bitget hack and the NEAR Intents debate</h3>
<p>David details a hack of Bitget's hot and warm wallets, with attackers spoofing internal transfer data; private keys were not compromised. Losses totaled about $387 million, which he calls the largest crypto exploit loss so far in 2026. A $464 billion (as stated) protection fund means no users lost funds, and withdrawals resumed after being paused. David says the likely culprit is the Lazarus Group, though unconfirmed.</p>
<p>Stolen funds moved through ThorChain and the Wasabi Bitcoin mixer, and roughly $500,000 attempted to pass through NEAR Intents, which blocked about $53,000 via its "Shield" risk filter. This sparked debate over whether NEAR Intents is truly "permissionless." David notes a separate $3.8 million NEAR Intents exploit that occurred the same week, with Shield limiting further losses and users being made whole. He quotes a NEAR team member's defense:</p>
<blockquote>"Crypto space really has a choice. grow the f up or get sidelined with random regulation." — a NEAR team member (Ilia)</blockquote>
<p>David argues NEAR the blockchain remains permissionless and censorship-resistant, while NEAR Intents, an application layer, carries more discretion — a distinction he says critics are conflating. He also notes Base's B20 token standard added a "seize function" for stolen assets, which he frames as appropriate for tokenized-equity use cases rather than a retreat from crypto-native "cypherpunk" systems like Tornado Cash.</p>

<h3>NEAR ETF launch and prediction market lawsuits</h3>
<p>The hosts note Bitwise launched a NEAR ETF (ticker NRR) this week, with over half a percent of total NEAR supply flowing in on day one. Ryan says Bitwise is marketing NEAR at the "intersection of crypto and AI," highlighting NEAR Intents, quantum resistance, and revenue-funded buybacks.</p>
<p>On prediction markets, New York filed a lawsuit against Polymarket alleging it runs an unlicensed gambling business, seeking to halt its New York operations and financial penalties, including payments to users who participated. Separately, a US appeals court ruled that Ohio and Tennessee can regulate Kalshi's event contracts under state gambling laws, while Kalshi previously won in the Third Circuit covering New Jersey, whose attorney general has already asked the Supreme Court for review. Ryan says the split across circuits makes Supreme Court review "pretty inevitable." Coinbase, meanwhile, received CFTC approval for Coinbase Clearing LLC, giving it exchange, broker and clearing-house licenses to offer fully collateralized derivatives including prediction markets, mirroring Robinhood's earlier move away from Kalshi.</p>

<h3>Vitalik's "cryptographic world computer" and AI agents vs. banks</h3>
<p>David summarizes a post from Vitalik Buterin arguing Ethereum is becoming less a blockchain to be reprocessed and more a "cryptographic world computer" for verification, enabled by ZK proof technology. The vision includes guaranteed inclusion/censorship resistance, base-layer privacy, quantum safety, 4-to-8-second latency, and light nodes that verify rather than trust. Ryan says he found the post "simultaneously incredibly bullish and also bearish," criticizing its lack of concrete use cases:</p>
<blockquote>"World computer for what? For what? What are we building it for?" — Ryan</blockquote>
<p>Ryan argues the clearest use case remains Bitcoin-style store of value and associated DeFi, which the post doesn't emphasize. David notes a response from Barnaby at ETH Labs agreeing the vision is bullish but insisting valuable state must remain on Ethereum's L1 rather than settle elsewhere.</p>
<p>Closing out, the hosts discuss a Financial Times-sourced claim, relayed by an Apollo chief economist, that AI assistants (such as Muse, Instinct, or OpenAI's newly released "Dot") could trigger bank run dynamics by advising users to move savings into higher-yielding stablecoins or apps. Ryan calls this "bad for rent extractors" but good for consumers, predicting banks will likely lobby Congress against such agents.</p>

Market Feed