In short: Talkington holds crypto and sees a better setup (24:45–25:18). Bitcoin at ~85,791, its highest since January; quarter-to-date Ethereum +66% and Bitcoin similar, both still down for the year but above the 50- and 200-day. Expects backfilling, but "setting up for 2027 both securities to me look way more constructive than they did three months ago."
Bitcoin is at its highest since January, and Talkington, who holds crypto, says both Bitcoin and Ethereum are back above their long-term trend lines. She expects some pullback after the fast rise, but thinks both are set up much better for 2027 than they were three months ago.
In short: "I do think that Bitcoin at some point is going to zero. It's an active war against a sovereign state." He also dismisses it as a payment tool: ~750,000 trades a day, which Visa does every minute, makes it "kind of worthless" as a transactional tool.
Bassman thinks Bitcoin "at some point is going to zero." His reasoning is political: a private currency is "an active war against a sovereign state," and governments don't lose that fight. He also rejects it as a way to pay for things: the Bitcoin network handles about 750,000 transactions a day, which Visa processes in about a minute. He contrasts it with US-dollar stablecoins, tokens backed by Treasury bills, which he likes because they create more demand for US government debt.
44:43stablecoin that's in some other currency. So, what do you think about this idea of stablecoin statecraft as policy? Is it something that we should care about? Just to make the big comment here, I do think that Bitcoin at some point is going to zero. It's an active war against a sovereign state. And by the way, Bitcoin can do what, 750,000 trades a day.
In short: Crypto sits alongside gold and commodities in the debasement sleeve, one of "the things that cannot be devalued." It's a category mention; he doesn't name a coin.
Crypto gets a brief mention as part of the same debasement basket as gold and commodities, an asset that "cannot be devalued" by a central bank. He names the category, not a specific coin; Bitcoin is used here as the proxy.
47:36So gold, commodities, crypto. And then at the sector level, I go back to a portfolio we launched about four years ago, which was this holy trinity idea: healthcare, energy, financials. It's done superbly since we launched it, and this summer I'm proud to announce that these are the top three sectors.
In short: Weiss after the Senate crypto cloture vote failed. "There's no there there in my view. I'm yet to see a business case… that makes sense… despite the decade they've been talking about them." Banks are coming for share with tokens and stablecoins, so "it's going to remain a trading vehicle. And I think the bias is lower" while Trump's crypto gains make candidates wary. Wapner framed it around Coinbase, Robinhood and Strategy; Weiss's answer covers the whole complex.
A Senate vote needed to move a crypto bill forward failed, and money flowed out of crypto. Weiss has never seen a real-world use that justifies the hype, and he thinks banks issuing their own digital tokens and stablecoins will take the useful parts. In his view that leaves Bitcoin as something people trade rather than use, with prices more likely to drift down.
In short: "The bottom was put in on the 26th of June… pragmatically crypto is probably back" — an inverted head-and-shoulders reversal that came early because of fiat/dollar debasement; may dip for the right shoulder. But he is not a believer ("not your liberty freedom token") and expects Bitcoin dominance to fall sharply, so alts should outperform it.
Hunt thinks Bitcoin hit its low on June 26 and has turned back up, helped by the falling purchasing power of the dollar. He is not a Bitcoin idealist — he sees crypto as an on-ramp to a surveilled digital system — but trades it pragmatically, and expects other coins to rise faster than Bitcoin, shrinking Bitcoin's share of the whole crypto market.
57:56on-ramp and starts the conditioning towards a digital dystopia. But pragmatically it's been beneficial to own for those that made hundreds of millions on it. has been beneficial to trade for me and in periods own and I do think that it is the bottom was put in on the 26th of June. So pragmatically crypto is probably back.
In short: Credited as the origin ("without Bitcoin… there's no blockchain"), and its 2008 birth is the first modern driver of the reset. Colin relays the skeptic's case from their podcast: "you can't anchor the entire economy on hard assets" of limited volume, which is why "every regime that relied on some hard asset… was ultimately brought to an end."
Bitcoin gets credit as the starting point. "Without Bitcoin… there's no blockchain," and its 2008 birth, right after the financial crisis, is the first of the modern "drivers" of the financial reset.
As a monetary anchor, though, the conversation leans skeptical. Colin relays the argument of their podcast's first guest: a productive economy grows faster than any fixed-supply "hard asset," so tying money to one makes borrowing punitive and chokes growth. That, he says, is why the gold standard and Bretton Woods both ended. The same logic cuts against a fixed-supply digital asset as the basis of an economy. No price view is given, so it is Neutral.
28:28So that's one explanation. The fact that the US had spent so much and was refusing to assume the consequences of that. The other is more generic. But it goes back to the conversations Marieke we've had about inflation and hard assets etc. So one of our interviewees, because Currency of Power is also a podcast and the very first interview actually was Mac Green whom you know — and we asked him about his skepticism about Bitcoin and so difficult to do justice to the whole thesis which is
In short: His preferred home for new money: from a $1M gain "I'll buy 5% gold. I'd buy 10% Bitcoin." As Bessent's 2030 plan arrives, "you're slowly living in this digital box where everything you do is monitored and tracked… I should probably have some Bitcoin." He adds: "there is no use case for Bitcoin," but "you will understand and the price will be higher."
Bitcoin is the original cryptocurrency: a fixed-supply digital asset that no government or company controls. Tucker is blunt that it has no everyday use and "it's not going to be used" for payments. Stablecoins will do that job.
His reason to own it is the other side of the stablecoin build-out. If more and more of your money runs on bank- and government-supervised digital rails, "you're slowly living in this digital box where everything you do is monitored and tracked." Bitcoin is the one widely held digital asset outside that box. He expects people to reach that conclusion slowly and the price to rise as they do.
The sizing is concrete. From a $1 million windfall he would put 5% into gold and 10% into Bitcoin, twice as much. He compares it to gold when he wrote Why Gold? Why Now?: people didn't understand it then, "and the price will be higher."
24:31I'd buy 10% Bitcoin. Because what's going to happen is that as this 2030 plan comes in, as the plan that Bessent's telling you about comes in, you're going to slowly realize that Bitcoin is really, really interesting and you're going to feel like you're slowly living in this digital box where everything you do is monitored and tracked and you're going to be like this is freaking me out a little bit and I should probably have some Bitcoin because Bitcoin is the most interesting digital currency there is. I
In short: "One of the best leading indicators for everything I've used for the last decade": it just reached "a decent resistance level and I think it's heading back downward." If it stays below 80 (thousand), "what led everything up is leading everything back down" — gold's pump-and-dump this year followed Bitcoin's.
McGlone treats Bitcoin less as an investment and more as an early-warning light for risky assets: over the last decade it has tended to turn before everything else. It rallied into a key resistance level (a price where selling has repeatedly stopped it) and he thinks it is turning down again.
If it stays below about 80,000, he reads it as the asset "that led everything up is leading everything back down." He also notes that gold's surge and slump this year followed the same pattern Bitcoin set a year earlier.
28:11I can't think of, you know, at the moment, the main macros that matter. And the key thing also, I look at one of the best leading indicators for everything I've used for the last decade or so is Bitcoin, and it's just broke up to a decent resistance level and I think it's heading back downward. So I'm looking at that as a decent leading indicator.
In short: Bill-financed "Treasury QE" is money printing, which is why "the gold price and to some extent bitcoin are going up"; after any liquidity crisis central banks re-liquefy and "Bitcoin will shoot higher," and it "continues to rise probably as well" over the long run.
Bitcoin sits in the same bucket as gold for him: a hedge against governments creating more money. His crisis playbook is that when funding markets seize up, central banks rush in with cash; once that "re-liquefication" starts, the assets that react fastest to extra money — gold and Bitcoin — jump first. Over the long run, as liquidity keeps rising with debt, he expects Bitcoin to keep rising too.
27:40It just doesn't work. You cannot afford austerity. Governments have got to keep spending, which means debt goes up, which means liquidity has to rise with debt. Liquidity is fungible. So it basically rises in the long term, and that's why gold, which is the perfect monetary hedge, goes up, and why Bitcoin continues to rise probably as well.
In short: The one named security he takes a position on, and the position is to own none of it inside the framework: "I think you should leave it out altogether." The objection is behavioural, not valuation — a sixth, high-volatility sleeve is the one you check constantly, "and then you're going to do something dumb." If you already hold it, the mental accounting is "half of it to be gold and half of it to be stocks." He also uses his own 2021 experience as the exhibit: it ran from 10,000 to 40,000 and "you know how often I was checking it? Every 5 minutes."
Bitcoin is the largest cryptocurrency, and the question put to him was what someone with a big crypto position should do inside a five-sleeve portfolio.
His answer is to own none of it in the framework: "I think you should leave it out altogether." Notice what the objection is not. He makes no claim that Bitcoin is worthless, overvalued, or going to fall. He owned it himself in 2021. The argument is entirely about behaviour: a portfolio is supposed to be boring enough that you do not look at it, and a sixth sleeve that moves several percent a day is the one you would check constantly. "Anything that's volatile, you have to check like 10 times a day and then you're going to do something dumb."
The evidence he offers is his own conduct rather than a chart. When Bitcoin ran from 10,000 to 40,000 in a month or two, "you know how often I was checking it? Every 5 minutes." That is the failure the whole book is built to prevent, so the asset that most reliably causes it is excluded even though it has produced huge returns.
If you already hold a lot of it, he gives a workable compromise rather than telling you to sell: treat it in your own accounting as "half of it to be gold and half of it to be stocks" — half a hard asset that does well when currencies are distrusted, half a risk asset that does well when people feel confident — and count it toward those two sleeves.
38:59You could take a couple of percent of your gold exposure and put it in crypto. You could take a couple of percent of your stocks exposure and put it in crypto. I think you should do neither. I think you should leave it out altogether. And here's the reason, right? If you have stocks, bonds, gold, cash, real estate, and crypto, guess what you're going to be looking at all the time? Crypto.
In short: Excluded again, but with the concession stated this time: challenged that crypto improved the portfolio, he agrees — "in 2019, if you included Bitcoin, it increased the Sharpe of the portfolio" — and leaves it out anyway. "If you had six asset classes… guess which one you're going to be staring at every day?… Even if it was only 2% of the portfolio… because it's so volatile." The disqualifier is the attention it takes, not the risk-adjusted return: "if you include something that's like an 80-vol in the portfolio, it's going to increase your stress even if it's a tiny part."
Bitcoin is the largest cryptocurrency, and the question is whether it deserves a slice of a five-part portfolio. His answer is no — but the interesting part is the argument he concedes on the way.
The standard case for adding it is that it improved the portfolio's risk-adjusted return. The Sharpe ratio measures how much return you get for each unit of price swing, and Bitcoin's gains were large enough that even a small slice raised it. Dillian agrees outright: "in 2019, if you included Bitcoin, it increased the Sharpe of the portfolio." On the measure he uses to justify the entire book, crypto passed.
He excludes it anyway, because the thing he is really managing is not in the numbers — it is how often you look. "If you had six asset classes… guess which one you're going to be staring at every day? You're going to be staring at the Bitcoin. Even if it was only 2% of the portfolio." His shorthand for an asset that moves roughly 80% a year is "an 80-vol," and the objection is simply that "it's going to increase your stress even if it's a tiny part of the portfolio."
So this is a rare case of a strategist overriding his own optimiser on behavioural grounds. If you already own crypto, his position elsewhere is unchanged: count half of it as gold and half as stocks rather than selling.
42:23In 2019, if you included Bitcoin, it increased the Sharpe of the portfolio. And then I said, well, look, if you had six asset classes, if you had stocks, bonds, gold, cash, real estate, and Bitcoin, guess which one you're going to be staring at every day? You're going to be staring at the Bitcoin.
In short: A permanent 5% sleeve of his new 60/40. Incrementum runs two funds that combine gold and Bitcoin — "which gives you excellent risk numbers, excellent Sharpe ratios. It works really well combining the both." He owns both and rejects the tribalism on either side.
Bitcoin is a permanent 5% slice of the portfolio he recommends — small, but deliberate. Incrementum runs two funds that hold gold and Bitcoin together, and his argument is statistical rather than tribal: the two don't move in lockstep, so blending them produces better returns for the amount of risk taken (a higher "Sharpe ratio") than either alone.
He is pointed about the tribalism: "many people hate Bitcoin in the gold scene and many people hate gold in the Bitcoin scene." He owns both, for overlapping reasons — both are assets no government can print more of.
50:35— Yes. 10% performance gold which is mining equities and also silver. 10% commodities. And 5% Bitcoin. So we've got two funds actually that combine gold and Bitcoin which gives you excellent risk numbers, excellent Sharpe ratios. It works really well combining the both.
In short: Asked in an interview what he thinks of it: "I'm not partial to a lot of the other cryptocurrencies but I think Bitcoin has established itself as an asset class that can be probably used to protect purchasing power. I'm more partial to gold just because it has a 5,000-year history… However, I'm not going to sit here and be antagonistic towards Bitcoin." Admitted to the scarcity bucket, ranked below gold.
Asked in an interview what he makes of Bitcoin, Polomny gives a deliberately even answer. He is not interested in cryptocurrencies generally, but he thinks Bitcoin "has established itself as an asset class that can probably be used to protect purchasing power" — meaning it belongs in the same conceptual bucket as gold: something a government cannot create more of by decree.
He still ranks gold above it, and the reason is time rather than technology: gold has "a 5,000-year history of doing exactly what it's doing now," while Bitcoin's track record is measured in years. That is a statement about evidence, not about design.
The wider point is the one he actually wants you to take away. As the debt spiral accelerates toward what he expects will be a currency crisis and a monetary reordering, "you want to own scarcity" — and scarcity is a broad category that includes land, royalty streams and businesses with assets that cannot be reproduced by fiat. Bitcoin qualifies for the bucket; it just isn't his first choice within it.
25:22used to protect purchasing power. I'm more partial to gold just because it has a 5,000-year history of doing exactly what it's doing now. However, I'm not going to sit here and be antagonistic towards Bitcoin. The view that I have is that going forward, especially now as we accelerate this final debt spiral, which is going to lead to eventually a currency crisis and a reordering of the monetary system of the world, hopefully towards gold.
In short: A historical call, not a current one. Polomny's Bitcoin content here is the origin story of the newsletter: seven or eight years ago his firefighter brother's station rang him about Bitcoin after a big run and "I'm like, 'This is the shoe shine boy moment' — Rockefeller was famous for selling before the crash in 29 cuz shoe shine boy was giving him stock tips. He's like, 'When everybody's in, I'm out.'" That episode is why he restarted publishing. The outright negative view in this conversation is the host's: "I've been very negative towards that… where's the value, what is actually being generated… the thing implodes on itself. It's a ponzi." Polomny does not endorse that framing and does not restate a current stance; compare his 8.29.26 position, which admits Bitcoin to the scarcity bucket below gold.
3:04And I'm like, "This is the shoe shine boy moment." Rockefeller was famous for selling in before the crash in 29 cuz shoe shine boy was giving him stock tips. He's like, "When everybody's in, I'm out." So, anyways, I tried to warn them of this. And so, I said, "You know what? I'm going to crank this thing back up.
In short: "This is a crypto winter… I'm not a fan in the short-term." From ~63,000 he expects a challenge of the prior lows near 57, "probably undercut that and get down to probably 52. Probably a maximum of 40,000." Monthly momentum "still very negative," liquidity falling as long rates rise, positioning "not ideal," and the Clarity Act "probably unlikely to be signed before the midterm election." He expects the bottom "in about 2 months" and then "a pretty sharp rally between now and next summer… this probably continues into 2028" — that sell-off "is really something you want to buy into."
Newton calls this "a crypto winter" and is explicit that the pain is not finished. Bitcoin has roughly halved from about 127,000 since last October, and the bounce off the June lows "has been very uninspiring." He expects a retest of the prior lows near 57,000, an undercut to roughly 52,000, and possibly as low as 40,000.
Four supports are missing at once. Momentum measured monthly is "still very negative." Liquidity — the amount of money sloshing around the financial system, which Bitcoin historically tracks — is tightening as long-term interest rates rise, "almost the opposite" of what it needs. Positioning and enthusiasm have drained away to other speculations ("now they're buying memory stocks"). And the regulatory catalyst, the Clarity Act, is "probably unlikely to be signed before the midterm election."
But the call is a timing call, not a rejection. He puts the bottom "in about 2 months," followed by "a pretty sharp rally between now and next summer… this probably continues into 2028." He frames the drawdown as ordinary — these happen "every 4 years… 2022 or 2018, 2014" — and says the flush is what you want to buy: for someone with a 2–3 year horizon "sure you can own crypto here," but on a one-month view "it's probably better to hold off."
31:45So, we sort of — Sorry, go ahead. — Can you quantify a steep sell-off? — Yeah, I think Bitcoin at currently at 63,000, would pull back to challenge the prior lows, which is near 57, I guess, and probably undercut that and get down to probably 52. Probably a maximum of 40,000 is what I'm thinking, and for Ethereum, it probably goes from 1885 to probably about 1,500.
In short: Two-sided by design: "the chances that Bitcoin moves substantially lower are very high from here in the near term over the next couple of months" (down 50% from the October high; the 4-year cycle bottoms ~late 2026), but "I am very bullish on Bitcoin for the long term," with the next cycle rally running to about September 2029. He doesn't trade it — buys "literally every single day," dollar-cost-averaging to a 5% allocation as an asymmetric bet ("worst case scenario, which I think is actually the most likely scenario, is that it goes to zero and I lose 5%").
Brown holds two views at once and is careful to separate them. Over the next few months he thinks Bitcoin goes meaningfully lower — it's already down about half from its October-2025 high, the forced sellers haven't finished selling, and by his cycle work it hasn't yet reached the season when it usually bottoms. Over the next few years he is a bull: if the pattern holds, the low lands around the end of 2026 and the next big advance runs to roughly September 2029.
What he actually does with that is the useful part. He doesn't trade it. He buys a fixed small amount every single day — "dollar-cost averaging," which just means buying on a schedule so you get an average price instead of betting on one entry — and caps the position at 5% of his portfolio. His justification is not confidence; it's arithmetic. He says the single most likely outcome is that Bitcoin goes to zero and he loses that 5%. But a 5% position can only ever cost him 5%, while if Bitcoin ends up used as money it has to rise many multiples. That lopsided payoff — small fixed downside, very large possible upside — is what "asymmetric bet" means, and it's the whole reason for the 5%.
11:46And then going from there, Bitcoin would have a really nice rally up until about September of 2029 in the next phase of its big bull market, which is why I am very bullish on Bitcoin for the long term here. I think the chances that Bitcoin moves substantially lower are very high from here in the near term over the next couple of months.
In short: A one-line self-reference, not a fresh case: buying oil here "feels deeply irresponsible (sorta like my long bitcoin trade here for me — do the hard trade)." Confirms the Jul-8 tactical bitcoin trade is still on and is filed under the same discipline — the uncomfortable trade nobody wants.
In short: "I started buying bitcoin upside on Monday" — an explicit trade, sized as such (not a long-term holding): "only the chart matters," selling looks exhausted, BTC held up while the Nasdaq fell -1.8% and even as Saylor sold, with a possible weak-USD/dovish-Fed rolldown tailwind. Sized small — "do the hard trade"; still "an accident waiting to happen."
This is a trade, not an investment — Paulo goes out of his way to say so, twice. He normally has no time for bitcoin's various stories (digital gold, debasement hedge, ponzi — "it can be any or all of those"); to him it's purely a flow asset: money flows in, the price goes up, and that's it, so "only the chart matters." He shorted it last September; now he's buying upside because selling looks exhausted and, tellingly, bitcoin stopped going down even on days when risk assets (the Nasdaq) were hit and even when Michael Saylor was selling. He sized it small ("do the hard trade") and expects it ultimately to "not work" — this is a short-leash tactical bet on a possible weaker-dollar, easier-Fed tailwind, explicitly not a long-term holding and not financial advice.
In short: "Another asset that's doing nothing for the past several years" — tracked the software-sector ETF tick-for-tick (speculation on software = speculation on Bitcoin), both rolled over together from Sept into spring 2026, and Bitcoin "kept falling." A speculation gauge, not an endorsement.
Gundlach treats Bitcoin as a thermometer for speculation, not an investment thesis. He notes it has "done nothing for several years" and moved almost identically to the software-sector ETF — meaning the same speculative money chases both. When that speculative tide went out (from autumn 2025 into spring 2026), software and Bitcoin fell together, and Bitcoin kept dropping. The takeaway is about the mood of the market — risk appetite cooling — rather than a call on the coin itself.
41:04I just thought this was a very interesting slide in the way that these patterns have completely reversed themselves. This is kind of curious. This is Bitcoin, another asset that's doing nothing for the past several years and the software sector ETF. And they tracked each other very closely during the later part of 2024 for basically all of 2025 and then still for the first quarter of 2026. It's kind of strange.
In short: Paired with software as a risk barometer — but here Bitcoin "looks a little less convincing." Worth tracking as a gauge of speculative risk appetite rather than a conviction call.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.