THE CEO OF WALL STREET MANAGEMENT IS IN OPEN HOLD: BET ON THE FINGER AND THE BTC, THE MIDDLE ZONE IS THE WORST OPTION

Collapse & Compiled: Deep tide TechFlow

Guest:Anthony Popgliano, Founder and CEO

Moderator:John Popliano, Pop Investments Associate

Podcast source:Anthony Popgliano

Original title:I just revealed My Current Portfolio..

Date broadcast:24 June 2026

Summary of highlights

Anthony Popliano and John Popliano are again coming together for the current period, deep-separation of Mag 7, a web-wide bubble over AI capital spending, and why bottom-up inflation data are far safer and more controlled than media headlines。

The present guest is CEO Anthony Popliano, founder and founder of the Environmental Capital Management, who has long been active in the field of encrypted investment, with podcasts, one of the highest financial podcasts in North America。

In addition, we will reset Antony’s current state-of-the-art portfolio, with the sole access to the true political chess of the new Fed Chairman Kevin Walsh behind the interest rate resolution, and further deconstruct why Bitcoin’s “high volatility” is not just a risk, but the ultimate dividend at its core。

Summary of outstanding views

MAG 7 THE TRUE LOGIC BEHIND THE ECHO

• "MG 7 WAS SOLD, THE CENTRAL REASON BEING THAT THEY WERE ESSENTIALLY LONG-TERM ASSETS AND THEREFORE VERY SENSITIVE TO INFLATION."
• "FOR MAG 7, THESE AI COMPANIES DON'T SUDDENLY EXPLODE, THEY DON'T TURN ZERO."
• "IF INFLATION RECEDES IN THE THIRD AND FOURTH QUARTERS, THE MG 7 VALUATION MULTIPLIER IS LIKELY TO EXPAND AGAIN."
• "Google's valuation is cheaper now than Apple, but growing faster. Why? The central reason is market concerns about AI capital spending. Now there's a good opportunity for you to buy the best businesses in the world with lower valuations."
• "Many value investors have continued to lose over the years because they are too committed to measuring today ' s businesses against the framework of the past. Of course you should respect history, but you can't just say, "These companies are too expensive" with old data, and then say, 15 years in a row."
• " It is likely that a company will start by saying that $10 billion will be spent on capital in the next two years, with the result that the actual expenditure will be only $60 billion. The $6 billion remains extremely high, but it is 40 per cent less than the market originally feared. Now the market is too obfuscated about inflation, which I think has been mispricing."

AI CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND ROI REPRICING

• "Now the real problem is at Token cost. Go talk to a bunch of CEOs and find everybody saying the same thing: we spent too much money on Token, but we didn't know where Roi was."
• "Everyone's turning to the same goal: with less token, get the same output."
• "What are the bottlenecks that limit the spread of this technology? Electricity, data centres, chips."
• "I also saw the news two days ago that a company had adjusted the working hours of its employees to 1 a.m. to 10 a.m., one reason being that they thought it would be cheaper to call models, lower system loads and more accurate to answer."

Methods of investment: away from the middle zone

• "If you sum up the way you invest, I think there are two ways. The first is to buy a large index, which is itself a very good strategy. The second route is to vote for those highly asymmetrical opportunities. I think the worst part is the middle zone. You shouldn't have put the money in medium-sized companies, with only medium-growth, with a return image that is flat."
• "The two most interesting technologies in the world today are Bitcoin and AI."
• "I hold Tesla. I believe it would be very valuable if Elon were to create a monopoly on human robots and autopilots."
• "AS SOON AS HE CAN USE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, MACHINE LEARNING, COMPUTER VISUALIZATION TO GIVE HARDWARE THIS ABILITY, HE WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE THE PHYSICAL ENTRANCE IN THE DIRECTION OF "PHYSICO AI," WHICH I THINK WOULD BE EXTREMELY VALUABLE."
• "What direction do I want to be exposed? I'll hold some cash for a long time, and I'll hold Bitcoin."
• " Anduril ' s model is for a group of start-up companies to make technological breakthroughs and, once the technology has been validated, it will end up buying these drone companies. It's very good at M&As, and there's a strong B.D. team that can quickly push back the technology to commercial contracts. In other words, it's a platform for "buy technology, then commercialize technology."

His actual portfolio

• "In the private market, I hold many software-type AI companies, such as Reflit, Loveable, Micro One, which are very powerful in their own vertical areas; in the open market, I concentrate on physics AI and robots."
• "WHETHER IT'S PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, WHETHER IT'S SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE, I HAVE A RELATIVELY COMPLETE SET OF AI OPENINGS."
• "I don't hold Tesla because of the car, but because I believe Elon would be extremely valuable if he had a monopoly on human robots and autopilots."
• "He will eventually merge SpaceX with Tesla, and probably before 2030. Once this happens, he'll consolidate the most important projects in his hands into a giant complex."

Bitcoin enters a new phase

• " Unhappy is essentially a gap between expectations and reality. So you can't set an insane expectation for Bitcoin. You'd be surprised if you put 25% to 30%, and it did better."
• "The Government will continue to print money, and Bitcoin ' s core investment logic is not undermined. The change is that it has now entered into different stages of the race."
• "former Bitcoin was like playing high school basketball, and you were the few most prominent player on the field. It's more like playing college basketball now. All players are stronger, the gap is not as exaggerated as before, but the quality of the game is higher."
• " The diaspora is usually more emotional, and institutions are usually less emotional. I know the Internet's mood is bad, but it's a part of the bottom line, in terms of market structure."

MAG 7 SALES AND AI CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

Anthony Popgliano:

A lot of people start worrying about Bitcoin's fluctuations, and I think it's all wrong. Instead, I prefer that what I hold goes through a phase that is unpopular to the market, and I do not want to hold assets that are always hot, because once an asset remains in the market's pet seat, it means that it is too popular, too crowded, and its returns are often arbitrated. On the contrary, cyclically spoiled assets often mean that they are more symmetrical and have higher potential returns in the future, so volatility itself is important。

John will interview me today on Kevin Warsh, the Fed, inflation expectations, interest rates, AI capital expenditure disputes, MAG 7, Standard 500, Bitcoin, SpaceX, and many other topics. I will also make myself clear about the investment framework now in open and private markets, and specifically about some of the assets that I have put into the portfolio。

John Popliano: Let's start with the first topic. Did you think this was a valuation revaluation, or did the market start rethinking the whole AI transaction logic

Anthony Popgliano:

i think it's a good idea;THE CENTRAL REASON THAT MAG 7 WAS SOLD WAS THAT THEY WERE INHERENTLY LONG-TERM ASSETS AND THEREFORE VERY SENSITIVE TO INFLATION。These assets were sold first, after the markets feared that the war in Iran would push up energy prices and that inflation would resume。

I told you two things over and over in 2025。First, tariffs will not lead to sustained inflation. Secondly, as long as the war in Iran is not a long-standing conflict that has lasted for many years, it has brought only short-term price shocks。We have indeed seen such short-term impulses at the energy end, but it will not turn into long-term inflation. The larger picture is that there are many structural forces of deflation in the United States economy。

Of course, someone would see inflation back on the line 3% and yell, "Inflation is out of control again." I don't see it that way. Many people's understanding of inflation has been overshadowed by the extremes of 9 per cent or more in the previous years, as if high inflation would be repeated. But if you look back at history, inflation goes up nine percent and more than a few events in a person's life. If I remember correctly, the last time inflation in the United States was over 9 per cent was in the 1970s, even before I was born. In other words, only once in my life。

That high inflation was, of course, serious, but it was very easy to understand. In 2020, the large-scale printing of United States banknotes and interest rates were set to zero, with high inflation almost inevitable. But that kind of man-made manipulation is not the same thing as the price disturbances caused by the Iranian war, customs duties。

IF YOU LOOK AT MAG 7, THERE ARE TWO LEVELS OF CONCERN IN THE MARKET。The first is that if inflation continues to rise, these long-lived, interest-rate-sensitive assets are subject to valuation compression and stock price reversals. That logic is fine. The second level of concern is the fear that AI will spend too much capital, that free cash flows will decline after these companies are madly investing in CapEx, and that future cash will be less available to shareholders, and that corporate valuations will fall。

But I think two things will happen next。First, inflation will not be as high as the market would have imagined。Now we can see signs. In the most recent round of inflation data, 60 per cent of the increase came from energy, that is, energy prices are pushing up. As long as energy prices fall, inflation will follow. Now that oil prices have fallen below $80, what do you think of inflation if they return to $60? I'm not sure I'm 100% sure "inflation is at its peak," but I think it's very close. Whether it's already there, or if it's in May, June, my judgment isINFLATION WILL BE LOWER IN THE THIRD AND FOURTH QUARTERS THAN IN THE SECOND QUARTER. AND IF THAT'S TRUE, THEN THE MG 7 VALUATION MULTIPLIER WILL EXPAND AGAIN。

THE OTHER PART IS AI CAPITAL SPENDINGThere are two key questions to my mind。First, what we think will exist in the future is real or not? Secondly, can these capital expenditures ultimately yield returnsIF DEMAND EXISTS, THE RETURNS MAY CERTAINLY EXIST, AS SOMEONE WILL ALWAYS USE THE INFRASTRUCTURE. IS THERE A NEED? SIMPLE, ARE YOU USING AI TODAY MORE FREQUENTLY THAN A YEAR AGO? OF COURSE IT'S HIGHER。

But recently the market and the media have begun to discuss another thing: are we doing this in AI Token's way? Is it really worth it for an enterprise to use the power and energy consumed by models? I feel very deeply about this. A lot of people know we're making a product called CFO Sylvia. In doing this product, we began to find a real problem: the cost is running up. Because the users themselves can generate queries, if you do not have a sufficiently smart Token management mechanism, expenditures are theoretically no upper limit。

When you start making the product, the group's main concern is to make the product first. When the product runsYou only find the real problem at Token cost。So what? We have to start making Token more efficient。

We made many very specific adjustments. For example, some page users are remodeling as soon as they're refreshed, which is completely unnecessary and simply stopped, and Token's consumption comes down immediately. There are also functions that are cyclical and continuous call models, which, while they look cool, are precisely the top consumer of Token. So we cut off the function and watch if the user complains. No one complains, then they don't recover. A great deal of Token was saved。

We have since adjusted some structures to start looking more seriously at cash costs. At the time, I thought it was our own problem, and I wanted to solve my company's problems first. And then I went to talk to a bunch of CEOs, and everyone said the same thing: we spent too much money on Token, but we didn't even know where Roi was。

So, everyone started to turn to the same goal:With less token, get the same output。That's why I was on Twitter all the time saying that the blind pursuit of Token and the "who calls more models" in the company would not last much longer. The world will eventually go back to efficiency, effectiveness, ROI, the real landfall indicators。

And that's where I like private models like OpenAI, Anthropic, Grok. You'll see, clients like CFO Sylvia, or any corporate customer, are asking, "I want to use Token less, but get the same results." This means that individual customers are becoming more efficient; but at the same time, the overall serviceable market is expanding and product adoption rates are increasing, so that the total revenues of these model companies may still be very high. To me, this is the signal that the product will find a match in the market。As long as the open source model has not eaten them all, these companies are now doing a very good business。

The question then becomes, what are the bottlenecks that limit the spread of this technologyElectricity, data centres, chipsI don't know. You'll find that constraints are in these places。I also saw news two days ago of companies adjusting their employees ' working hours to 1 a.m. to 10 a.m., one of the reasons being that they thought it would be cheaper to use models, lower system loads, and more accurate answers。I don't think most companies would do that, but at least that means that you've already started to think very seriously about the efficiency of modeling。

If the demand for such technology persists, that means that we still do not have enough data centres, electricity and chips today, and that demand competition in this direction will persist。

SO, THOSE WHO ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE RETURN ON AI CAPITAL SPENDING CAN, OF COURSE, ASK A LONG-TERM QUESTION: WILL THE FUTURE BE OVER-BUILDING? WILL, AND ANY CYCLE MAY END UP OVER-BUILDING, A HISTORICAL PATTERN THAT IS DIFFICULT TO CONTROL PRECISELY. BUT AT LEAST IN THE SHORT TERM, I CAN'T SEE IT AT ALL. WHAT I SEE IS THAT THERE IS A STRONG DEMAND FOR SOFTWARE, A STRONG DEMAND FOR SPECIALIZED WORK STREAMS, A STRONG DEMAND FOR DATA CENTRES, ELECTRICITY, CHIPS AND EVEN COMPANIES THAT ARE ALREADY DISCUSSING ORBITAL DATA CENTRES。

SO I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE MARKET'S ANXIETY ABOUT THIS. BACK TO MAG 7, IN PARTICULAR, A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE STARING AT THE COMPANY'S "EXPECTED COST," BUT IT WASN'T REALISTIC. JUST AS INCOME IS NOT EXPECTED TO BE EQUAL TO REAL REVENUE RECOGNITION, CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IS NOT EXPECTED TO BE EQUAL TO ACTUAL SPENDING AT THE END。

It is likely that one company will start by saying that $10 billion will be spent on capital in the next two years, with the result that real spending will be only $60 billion. The $6 billion remains extremely high, but it is 40 per cent less than the market originally feared. Now the market is too fixated on inflation, which I think has been mispricing。AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU'RE ALSO OVER-CONVINCING THOSE AI CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INDICATORS. INSTEAD, I FELT THAT THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY SPENT IN THE END WOULD PROBABLY BE LESS THAN WHAT THE MARKET IS WORRIED ABOUT TODAY。

So you go back to the firm in MAG 7 Google, for example, has recently fallen stock prices, which is interesting。Google's valuation is cheaper now than Apple, but it's growing faster. Why? The central reason is market concerns about AI capital spending. If you really look at the data and look at the basics of the business, I think there's now a good opportunity for you to buy the world's best businesses with lower valuations。

YOU LOOK AT THEIR EARNINGS AND OTHER VALUATION INDICATORS, WHICH HAVE FALLEN MARKEDLY OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, AND MANY COMPANIES ARE NOW LOCATED IN VALUATION RANGES THAT ARE NOT DISPROPORTIONATE TO MANY INVESTORS. AS LONG AS AI CAPITAL EXPENDITURE DOES NOT END UP BEING A REAL PROBLEM, THESE ENTERPRISES ARE WORTH CONFIGURING。

So I think we need to calm down and not be scared。AT LEAST FOR MAG 7, THESE AI COMPANIES DON'T SUDDENLY EXPLODE, THEY DON'T TURN ZERO。More importantly, you have to ask yourself a question:DID THE COMPANY YOU SAW TODAY REALLY CHANGE WHEN COMPARED TO THREE WEEKS AGO? MAG 7 HAS INCREASED BY 18% OVER THE PAST YEAR。IF YOU LOOK AT THE HEADLINES, YOU CAN'T FEEL IT AT ALL. THE MEDIA GIVES PEOPLE THE FEELING THAT THE MAG 7 STORY IS OVER AS IF THE WHOLE LOGIC HAD COLLAPSED. IT'S TRUE THAT THEY'VE BEEN A LOT BEHIND SINCE THIS YEAR, WITH THE STANDARD 500 GOING UP 9% THIS YEAR, AND ANOTHER 493 GOING UP ABOUT 13% FOR STOCKS, WHILE MAG 7 IS ALMOST FLAT OR SLIGHTLY DOWN. SOUNDS LIKE "MG 7 CAN'T."。

but if  THE LONG-TERM VALUE OF MAG 7 REMAINSSHOULDN'T YOU BE MORE INTERESTED? ALL THE OTHER STOCKS HAVE GONE UP, AND THESE BIG COMPANIES HAVEN'T MOVED MUCH OVER THE PAST SIX MONTHS. YOU CAN STILL BUY THE SAME BUSINESS FOR SIX MONTHS AFTER YOU GET ANOTHER SIX MONTHS OF GROWTH AND PROFIT CERTIFICATION. THIS IS ACTUALLY THE OPPORTUNITY THAT MAG 7 OFFERS YOU RIGHT NOW。

OF COURSE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN I HAVE TO PRESS THE WHOLE COMBINATION INTO MAG 7. THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT. BUT IF YOU'RE A VALUE INVESTOR, YOU'RE INTO BIG TECHNOLOGY, OR YOU'RE ABOUT INDEXATION, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT MAG 7. ON THE CONTRARY, I THINK IT IS BECOMING MORE ATTRACTIVE。

I ALSO FEEL THAT MUCH OF THE CONCERN NOW IS ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE TOO BORED. WE WERE IN A ROUND OF INTERGENERATIONAL CATTLE MARKETS, AND MANY PEOPLE FELT THAT THERE WAS NOTHING NEW TO TELL, AND THEN THEY STARTED TO INVENT, AND THEY BEGAN TO THINK ABOUT ALL KINDS OF POSSIBLE MISTAKES. RISK MANAGEMENT, OF COURSE, IS THE WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT, BUT I'D RATHER FOCUS ON PROBLEMS THAT ALREADY EXIST AND THAT HAVE BEEN PROVEN THAN WORRY ABOUT THE LIKES OF "RAIN, SQUIRRELS OUT AND A PEANUT OUT OF A TREE." AI CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IS NOT A PROBLEM AT THIS TIME. THE FUTURE MAY BECOME A PROBLEM, BUT IT IS NOT TODAY。

John Popgliano: If it is not a problem now, how do we measure success or failure? Will it depend on the growth of users, income growth, profit margins, free cash flows? What criteria should companies use to judge that AI capital expenditure is worthless

Anthony Popgliano:

PUT AI CAPITAL SPENDING ASIDE FOR THE FIRST TIME AND LOOK AT A MORE BASIC FACT: THE PROFIT MARGIN OF THE STANDARD 500 ENTERPRISES HAS INCREASED BY 58 PER CENT SINCE 2011. IN OTHER WORDS, IN MORE THAN A DECADE, THE QUALITY OF THE PROFITS OF THESE COMPANIES HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY. THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN WORTHY OF HIGHER VALUATIONS BECAUSE THEY HAD BECOME BETTER COMPANIES。

A lot of people ignore a huge time switchThe business world has moved from a simulation to a digital age. These companies have intellectual property rights, sell digital products, operate more efficiently and have better business models, so that the value of the enterprise should be higher。

But a lot of people use historical valuations to scare themselves and say, "Look at the history." "Look at the Internet bubble." But at the time of the Internet bubble, you wanted to drive from one side of the city to the other, and you had to print MapQuest's route on paper. That's a world without iPhone, without al. It would be unreasonable for you to take 2026 valuations compared to 1992。

I went to the San Francisco office a while ago and sat with Sylvia's engineers. I asked for a request, and they just put the problem in Claude. Engineers certainly know the bottom structure, the database, the file system, and how to fix it, but in the end, they look like they have magic. The world is not the same as before。

That's why I saidMany value investors continue to lose over the years because they are too committed to measuring today's businesses against the framework of the past. Of course you should respect history, but you can't just say "these companies are too expensive" with old data, and then say 15 years in a row。

So there's the problem. Are you going to wait for the market to drop 20% and jump out and say, "You see, I told you it was overrated," or are you just gonna get in the car and join the intergenerational bulls? I observed that the world's best investors were involved. Whether Warren Buffett or the other top investors you can think of, they realize that these are real solutions, real money, real businesses that can grow, and that they should be configured。

The way to measure success is simply: do enterprises generate profits on a sustainable basis? The answer is yes, and many. That's why they're valuable. People are always worried about free cash flow, but remember that the profit margin of the Standard 500 has risen by 58 per cent since 2011. Will it continue to rise? I think it will, 100%. These businesses are getting better and worth more and more like old wine。

It is therefore better to acknowledge that these enterprises are evolving rather than being outside the field. You don't have to criticize Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Andy Jasty or Sergei all day long, saying they're all wrong. The truth is, they do a lot of things right。

Large stock and asymmetrical opportunities

John Popliano: Very good. And when you look at these MAG 7 companies, I think most investors are willing to agree that in 10 years they're probably worth more than today. But in reality, there are encrypted assets on the market and many other directions. How do you manage the short- and long-term configuration

Anthony Popgliano:

I don't care much about short-term fluctuations。The short term, not just by day, by week, but even by month. I prefer buying after telling myself this thing I'm gonna take 10 years. That's my basic time frame。

In this time frame, I prefer to focus on one thing: how to make more money and get more available capital. As long as I buy an asset and take it for a long time, I'll continue to make money. When I get the new money, I'll decide whether to put it in the new opportunities。

Of course, that doesn't mean I'm really gonna hold every mark for 10 years. If the core logic changes, or if there is a problem with the investment assumptions, I will adjust the mix. But in general, I don't trade much。

To sum up the investment pattern, I think there are roughly two paths。The first route is to buy large indices。I can't remember the exact number, but I remember that for the last 10 years, the annualized return of Nasraq was about 18 percent, probably a little higher. The return has been exaggerated. A 10-year compound of 18 to 20 percent of the world's assets, and not many people can win it for long. SoThe investment index is itself a very good strategy. The second route is to vote for those highly asymmetrical opportunities。

I think the worst part is the middle zone. You shouldn't have put the money on medium-sized companies, with only medium-growth, with a mediocre return image。Because such assets have neither the cash flow, resilience and business durability of the bulk, nor the asymmetric return of a small opportunity from vulnerability to explosion。

So..I like barbell configuration. I don't like being in the middleI don't know. For meThe two most interesting technologies in the world today are Bitcoin and AI。Of course, both technologies are penetrating many other industries. In finance, for example, you can see that Bitcoin is being embedded in more and more product structures. BlackRock even shows IBIT ETF and related products directly on the official web page, which is already one of the most mainstream signals。

At the same time, look at AI. Take SpaceX, for example, and make the largest IPO in history. It's extremely hot. So, SpaceX, what is it? It's a space company? AI? Or something

Of course, you can say that it's almost monopolistic in space launch, and it's valuable; it's valuable to use Starlink to transfer Internet services from space to the ground; it's also valuable to talk about the orbital data centre story. But if you look back at its IPO Roadwork material, there's a page devoted to the market for services. In addition to the traditional operations of rocket launch, satellite Internet, they put in company-level AI in a very large volume. I can't remember the exact number, as if the corporate AI made up the vast majority of the TAM. In other words, SpaceX is actually an AI company. That is why it was given that valuation by the market。

It also subsequently completed, or at least advanced, the acquisition agreement for Cursor, and XAI, and entered into a number of new contracts. I remember that they had signed at least three contracts in the past three weeks, each of which corresponded to hundreds of millions of dollars a month of calculator business. So you'll find that this company suddenly has an additional calculation that didn't exist two years ago, and that it's probably already doing billions of dollars or even a higher income-run rate。

This goes back to the problem of AI capital expenditure ROI. What is the value of these inputs for XAI and SpaceX? Of course there is. So from a combination point of view, I would ask myself:What direction do I want to be exposed? I'll hold some cash for a long time and I'll hold Bitcoin。Beyond that, I want to be exposed to where growth and innovation really take place. And in my opinion, most of those places have to do with artificial intelligence。

That doesn't mean you can only play software. Hardware and electricity are also important aspects。Like I'm holding Tesla. Why? Because I believe it would be very valuable if Elon had a monopoly on human robots and autopilots. I also believe that he will eventually merge SpaceX and Tesla, and probably before 2030。ONCE THIS HAPPENS, HE WILL CONSOLIDATE THE MOST IMPORTANT PROJECTS IN HIS HANDS INTO A GIANT COMPLEX. AND THE BOTTOM OF THIS COMPLEX IS WHAT GIVES HARDWARE THE ABILITY TO LOOK AND THINK. AND AS LONG AS HE CAN USE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, MACHINE LEARNING, COMPUTER VISUALIZATION TO GIVE HARDWARE THAT ABILITY, HE'S TAKING THE PHYSICAL ENTRANCE IN THE DIRECTION OF "AI," WHICH I THINK WOULD BE EXTREMELY VALUABLE。

I'm also holding Robbo Strategy, a closed, publicly traded fund, with many private robot companies. Why do I think it's funny? Because it makes the theme "Physical AI + Robots" a private mapping tool that can be configured in the open market. Tesla gave me open market openings, Robbo Strategy gave me more private robot asset openings, and together, they were a systematic accusation of physics AI and robotic themes. I think it's gonna be a great opportunity。

Masayoshi Son recently said that physics AI is the next trillion-dollar class of opportunity. You look at the technology and applications that are now being developed, and I think that's a good idea。

Another direction I find very interesting is the combination of defence technology and related technologies. Like I've been openly saying I own Anduril's shares. Anduril's business model is special. The hard part of the drone industry is that teams that can really produce technology are often not very good at commercializing technology and growing companies。Anduril's model is for a group of start-up companies to make technological breakthroughs and, once the technology has been validated, it will end up buying these drone companies. It's very good at M&As, and there's a strong B.D. team that can quickly push back the technology to commercial contracts。In other wordsIt's a platform for "buy technology, then commercialize technology."。AND I LIKE IT BECAUSE IT'S FALLING AGAIN ON THE SAME THEME: DEFENSE, AI, ROBOTICS, MACHINE LEARNING, ALL OF WHICH ARE LOADED INTO DRONES. MOREOVER, THEY ARE NOW ADVANCING NOT ONLY AERIAL DRONES, BUT EVEN GROUND AND SURFACE VEHICLES。

So you'll see, there's a very clear line in my combination. In the private market, I have many software-type AI companies, such as Reflit, Loveable, Micro One, which are very powerful in their own vertical field; in the open market, I concentrate on physics AI and robots. So I have a relatively complete set of AI exposures, both public and private, software and hardware。

Of course, Bitcoin remains one of my core beliefs. I believe that Bitcoin will continue to act as a counterweight to the federal government’s unlimited printing of currency, distortions in monetary policy, and uncontrolled fiscal policy. As long as this logic remains, the United States Treasury will continue to expand, the dollar will continue to be diluted, and Bitcoin will perform well in the long run。

Those who panic because of Bitcoin fluctuations, I feel completely wrong. I like what I have going through "not liked." I do not want to hold ever-hot assets, because that means that it is crowded, and when it is crowded, returns are often arbitrated. On the contrary, assets that are sometimes spoiled and lost often have higher potential for future returns. So volatility is not a flaw to me, it's a characteristic that I want。

You see what I just mentioned, Tesla, Robbo Strategy, Anduril, Bitcoin, they're more volatile than holding only Walmart. But that's what I wantWhat I want is thematic fluctuations, and I want to put them in a combination and hold a big theme in both open and private markets。

SpaceX etc. AI Open and Portfolio

John Popgliano: Are these configurations more consumer-oriented or more "sell shovel" infrastructure

Anthony Popgliano:

Take Tesla, for example, and many people will understand it as a consumer company for auto-driving cars and human robots. But in my opinion, it's more like a shovel company。

Why do you say that? Because I think Tesla is really valuable, not the hardware itself. Hardware is just the channel through which it realizes value. Its deeper value lies in computer visualization, machine learning, artificial intelligence models, real-world data, and how these models and data can be combined into workflows and then hardware to execute actions。

If you look at it from that perspective, it's actually very close to infrastructure, because what you really hold is model capacity itself. And that's why OpenAI and Anthropic companies are embedded in so many products。

A lot of people say "sell shovels" and think of something more traditional and lower than "models". The question is, how many of the model revenues actually do not come from purely consumer scenes? Very much. So Tesla, in my eyes, is a shovel company, except that the market, because it deals directly with consumers, mistook it for a simple consumer company. I don't see it that way。

Kevin Walsh and the Fed

John Popliano: Let's change the subject and talk about Kevin Walsh. Do you think it's going to drop this year? The market ' s judgement of the recent conference is now prevaricated。

Anthony Popgliano:

Then we'll push it from the principle of first sex。At least three conditions must be met for interest rate reductions to occur. First, inflation is lower. Secondly, the Fed Chairman himself would like to believe that interest rates should be lower. Third, the economy needs to be able to afford lower interest rates。

These three things are connected. If inflation comes down, it usually means that the economy can withstand lower interest rates; and if inflation comes down and the economy can handle it, then eventually it will require someone with judgement and enforcement will to push the button。

My judgment is that some time in 2026, we'll have a drop-off. I know that there are people in the market who feel that they might even increase interest rates next, but back to the core of my judgment: inflation will not be as high as you all expect, nor as long as you fear。

There's a crucial distinction. I don't think America's going to be cheap again, but I think it's two things about affordability and inflation. Inflation is the economic concept that central bankers and professional investors care about; affordability is what ordinary Americans really care about. Ordinary people don't care if the price rises at 2% or 3%, they only care about going to the supermarket, looking at the bills, feeling that they don't have enough money to spend, and life is getting harder and harder。

So you can't tell ordinary people that "the purchasing power of the dollar has been 30 percent lost in the last five years" while consoling him, "but inflation is only 2 percent." Investors and central bank officials would be happy to hear it, because it means that inflation is controlled, the economy is good and interest rates can be lowered in the future. But ordinary people don't care about that. They care about affordability, not the definition of inflation in the academic sense。

Well, I don't think so if we go back to the "inflation is not a problem." And see if the American economy can afford lower interest rates, I think. The reason is simple: American consumers are now very resilient, consumption data are good, stock markets are rising and household wealth is expanding. Of course, real wage performance was preceded by some pressure, which needs to be repaired; this part of the restoration would have been gradual with the fall in energy prices and the end of the Iranian war。

If by the third quarter inflation figures really start going down, Kevin Walsh is the kind of guy who's ready to do it. He's not the only decision maker, FOMC, but my judgment is that as long as inflation data start to go down, they push the button and give a drop。

I don't think there's gonna be three successive cuts in that radicality, but it's totally possible to cut interest rates at a time. It's more like sending a signal to the market: we're willing to move。

What would change my mind? If inflation continues to hold high, or if the United States economy is significantly weaker, I will adjust my judgment. But I can't see them now. So I think that some form of interest rate reduction before the end of this year is an event of probability. The projected market rate will also be revalued as data changes。

Of course, if the interest rate stays the same, I don't think that's a bad idea. I do not think that the current level of interest rates is causing substantial harm to the United States economy. But it would be too early and unwise, and possibly even create many new problems, if interest were to increase in such cases. It is my position that I prefer to lower the interest rate, but that it is acceptable to remain unchanged. I guess I'll give a 60% probability of a "end-of-year cut."。

John Popliano:

Do you think he's more like, "What do you have to do?" Or do you think he'll look at the data for a few months? Because, interestingly, the same set of data, different people come to different conclusions. For example, if you look at credit card default rates, you might think consumers aren't that strong。

Anthony Popgliano:

That's a credit card problem, not a consumer problem. That's a key distinction。

John Popliano:

If I remember correctly, the average US credit card rate is almost 23%。

Anthony Popgliano:

If you can't pay off your credit card every month, it'll basically be crushed by interest, because interest rates are too high. So it's really "consumer's gone"? Not necessarily. Consumption spending in the United States is still very strong。

People would say that a high credit card default rate is a consumption problem. I don't see it that way. You can ask the other way around: If the credit card rate is only 5%, will the default rate be so high? Probably not。

I also do not support the Government's imposition of caps on credit card rates, as many credit card companies would directly reduce the number of letters of credit if the Government intervened. For these companies, over 20 per cent interest rates are the result of their calculations based on risk-pricing models, and they price credit based on their own mathematical models。

But back to Warsh. If you look carefully at his statement after the launch, the statement and the whole meeting, I will describe it as a "discovery at the economic level". What do you mean? He didn't move the interest rate, he said "at the same rate," but he was in fact reshaping the way the Fed operated。

He had formed a working group to adjust the system of indicators for measuring inflation and had decided not to give forward-looking guidance while clearly expressing his disagreement with past practices. Don't underestimate these moves, even if Jerome Powell does one of them, it'll be the top story for a couple of days. If Powell suddenly says, "We're not giving forward guidance anymore," the market will blow。

But now that leadership changes have taken place, the new ones have natural space to change a lot, and Warsh has instead made these changes without moving interest rates. It's like walking balance. He didn't touch interest rates, so he changed the space for greater adjustment on other dimensions. If he comes up, he may not be able to push these reforms simultaneously。

So he and his colleagues chose not to touch interest rates, to look at data and to push decisions back, but to change everything within their purview. He lays the foundations, shapes the culture, the environment, and even I guess he does some personnel optimization to ensure that key positions are held by those he believes are best placed to regulate US monetary policy。

And to be honest, I don't think he talks about anything crazy. I know that some people do not like it or agree, but in my view logic makes sense. For example, he said that we had to look at inflation with indicators that would not be disturbed by short-term prices; we could not always try to predict the future, or we would be trapped by our own guidance. That sounds reasonable to me。

SO OVERALL, I THINK HE'S STARTING PRETTY WELL. IF IT'S 10, I'LL PROBABLY GIVE IT 8 OR 8.5, NOT FULL, BUT DEFINITELY NOT NEAR THE PASS LINE, ALMOST B+。

Bitcoin

John Popliano: Let's finally talk about Bitcoin. What are your pessimism and optimism scenarios for the next 10 years

Anthony Popgliano:

Peter Schiff has recently admitted on national television that he doesn't think Bitcoin will be zero. You can see him as "the last one who still stands for zero," and if he doesn't say that anymore, then most people have accepted at least one thing:Bitcoin to zero, very low probability。

Of course it won't fall? Yes, absolutely. But I think that Bitcoin's last really important wall has been broken, that is, it's adopted by institutions, and since this is over, your understanding of it will change slowly。

A lot of people used to like Bitcoin because it was shiny, asymmetrical and volatile, like a king's asset in the cowboy age. But now it's not exactly like that anymore. So some friends around me are buying Bitcoin now, and they're not that active, because they're like, "What about Bitcoin? 30% a year? I might as well throw something else, maybe make more."

But at the same time, many institutional investors I know would say, "Are you saying that this asset is likely to rise by 30 per cent a year in the next 10 years and is a relatively more mature asset? Then I'm interested."

In other words, the volatility rate has been reduced from a very high level in the past, around 80, to today, between 35 and 40, which is more attractive to large pools。

So in terms of the rise, I don't think you're going to see that 10 times, 20 times the level of SuperCow anymore, but you're going to get an asset that's going to increase. My benchmark figure is that for the next 10 years, Bitcoin's annualized return is about 25 to 30 percent. This is not as exaggerated as it was in the past, but still far better than most of the benchmarks in the stock market。

Think about it, if an asset can last 10 consecutive years 25 to 30 percent, how many people can? Not many. So I think it's gonna be great。

But I always remind you:Unhappy is essentially a gap between expectations and reality. So you can't set an insane expectation for Bitcoin. And if you put your expectations in 25 to 30 percent, and it does better, you'll be surprised; but if you expect it to increase by 100 percent every year, then you're disappointed。

So the key is to maintain rational expectations. I think it will still be good, will continue to be used and will continue to climb slowly and firmly。The government will continue to print money, and Bitcoin's core investment logic is not undermined. The change is that it has now entered into different stages of the game。

Before Bitcoin was like playing high school basketball, you were the few most prominent players on the field. It's more like playing college basketball now. All players are stronger, the gap is not as dramatic as it used to be, but the quality of the game is higher and more impressive。At a later stage, it will enter the NBA, which may be the era of full access to sovereign wealth funds. We haven't come that far yet, but it's like college basketball, even a big team like Duke。

John Popliano:Do you think this bear market is different than 2022? Because I have a subjective feeling that it's worse now than before, but the agency's enthusiasm for Bitcoin may have been higher。

Anthony Popgliano:

Bitcoin's emotions are really bad in the Internet。

John Popliano:

Maybe it's because we used to live in Miami, we're in New York, so we're different, but I do feel different this time。

Anthony Popgliano:

Now, the Internet has a bad mood. I have seen people who have known each other for many years attacking each other, saying exaggerating words, with people falling apart and leaving the market directly. But in the institutional world, you hardly see it。

They may not continue to add more money to Bitcoin, but the overall situation is much cooler and more disciplined. They have investment committees, risk management and more data-driven processes. So one general conclusion:The diaspora is usually more emotional, and institutions are usually less emotional. Of course, there are also people in the institution, and there are emotions, but to varying degrees。

So I'd rather describe the current situation as: the world of the Internet has a bad diaspora, but the institutional mood is not bad. I don't think the agency is in a state of fanaticism, and the market is full of bubbles. They are also continuing to build technologies, are working on Bitcoin-related funds, are working on hosting solutions and are acquiring teams。

Franklin Templeton, for example, has been moving lately. And for example, OkX and ICE have just launched a series of products. You'll find things are moving forward。

So when people say that "the investor is in bad mood", they tend to use Internet opinion as proxy variables. But it's not just the Internet anymore. In the past, almost everything in Bitcoin happened on the Internet, and I could even look at the atmosphere on the Internet and judge Bitcoin as rising or falling that day. But not now, because there's a whole new player group in the field。

Maybe today the market has become 50, 50, half of the important information and influence is on the Internet, and half of it has moved to the institutional world. Don't forget, the old structure was 100-0, and the agency was almost blank. What about 10 more years? Would it be 80 to 20, 90 to 10? Absolutely possible。

This is an indication of the continued rise in the importance of institutions, with more capital in their hands, while some individual investors are surrendering, leaving and turning to something else。

So I know that the Internet is not good, and I don't like to see friends arguing with each other, but it's a common part of the bottom line, in part, in terms of market structures. Are we done? I don't know. But we have, indeed, fallen a lot, and there are many indications that the bottom may not be too far away or even present. It's up to the market。