#793: China Is Funding The War On Data Centers with Sam Lyman

SPEAKER_1 (0:07)

You've had a dynamic where money has become freer than free.

Sam Lyman (0:10)

When you talk about a Fed just going nuts, all the central banks going nuts.

SPEAKER_1 (0:16)

So it's all acting like safe haven.

I believe that in a world where central bankers are tripping over themselves to devalue their currency, Bitcoin wins. In the world of fiat currencies, Bitcoin is the victor. I mean, that's part of the bold case for Bitcoin. If you're not paying attention, you probably should be. Probably should be.

Marty Bent (0:36)

Sam Lyman, welcome to the show, sir.

Sam Lyman (0:39)

Marty, great to be here.

Marty Bent (0:41)

Well, I appreciate you coming here. It's been a busy week for you. Testifying on the Hill, you got Clarity Act not making it through cloture.

Got a lot of stuff going on in the world of AI, the effect of altruism trying to ruin the, the party and there's a ton of talk about how are you feeling? Are you okay? How's your week been?

Sam Lyman (1:04)

It's been a whirlwind. Definitely, it seems like as the pace of AI development accelerates, so are things at BPI and in Washington. But it's been a wild, fun ride and we're excited for what's ahead.

Marty Bent (1:17)

Yeah, I think for the purposes of this show and our core audience, which are Bitcoiners, maybe we start on clarity. But I think throughout the conversation, we'll touch on AI, many facets of it, data center build out, data center dividends, the propaganda that is being waged against American citizens by foreign actors. I think we should touch on the effective altruists first. But I think starting with clarity, what is the vibe on the Hill based off of this week, the bill not making it past the cloture vote, and I guess the reaction from the regulatory agencies. It seems to me that the ball is moving forward despite this bill not getting passed.

Sam Lyman (2:03)

Yeah. It's a vibe of general disappointment. I think after August recess, there was optimism that they could get clarity across the finish line. The president and the White House working with Senate Republicans had made a number of concessions along the ethics front that really answered about 80 percent of all concerns Democrats had as far as the ethics issues go.

However, that wasn't enough at the end of the day. It seems like even though there were some indications that Democrats would support it, the final vote came out pretty much along party lines. That was disappointing because it seemed like a good bipartisan compromise. I think if the same bill had been presented a couple months ago, it may have passed, but because we're so close to the midterm elections now, I think the Democratic caucus was more inclined to vote against it, so as not to hand Trump a win so close to the election. But it's disappointing.

There's a good draft in place if we ever want to resurrect it. But I don't see any movement happening anytime this year.

Marty Bent (3:10)

I saw an interview, because there were some Republicans that voted against it. I think I saw Josh Halley give an interview, and his argument was that he had a bunch of farmers coming to him, so they were worried that they weren't going to be able to get credit financing from their local community banks because of stablecoins, drawing deposits so that users could get the yield. I was like, is that really the case? And I think this particular stablecoin issue, I'm interested to get your opinion whether or not you think it's a legitimate concern or just some political posturing because if you look at what Fidelity did last week or the week before, it looks like they launched their own stablecoin. There's nothing within clarity or genius that precludes that banks can't get in this game either, correct?

Sam Lyman (3:59)

Yeah. And that's what was frustrating about this last week. When we were testifying on the hill about AI and data centers, Code Pink was in full force, but also in full force were the bank lobbyists on the other side. We were on the House side and over on the Senate side, the bank lobbyists were going to different offices, pushing against clarity. And that stablecoin issue seemed to be a sticking point with a lot of offices. And from my viewpoint, it was a trafice high up at the end of the day.

In my personal point of view, stablecoins are an opportunity for community banks to get back in the game, to use stablecoins, launch their own stablecoins, to innovate in such a way that they're not going up against the bigger banks in the way that they've been trying to compete with bigger banks for the last decade or so.