Luke: [00:00:00] You’re listening to a new episode of The Brave Technologist, and this one features Sam Lyman, who’s the head of research at the Bitcoin Policy Institute. Sam’s been a guest with us before when he was in his r- old role at Riot Platforms, the leading digital assets and AI infrastructure company, and has since been the senior advisor and chief speechwriter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Sam holds a master’s in public policy from Princeton University, and in this episode, we discuss why the current administration is sending strong signals that it wants Bitcoin and digital assets to succeed, and how that marks a major shift from prior administrations, the rise of freedom tech and how Bitcoin and stable coins bypass capital controls to expand access to economic liberty worldwide, how policymakers see emerging tech as a vehicle for spreading democratic values, and what Bitcoin’s role can look like in an AI economy, and why even in the face of future political shifts, the era of extreme anti-crypto sentiment is likely over.

And now for this week’s episode of The Brave Technologist.[00:01:00]

Sam, welcome back to The Brave Technologist. How you doing, man?

Sam: Thanks, Luke. Doing great. It’s great to be with you again.

Luke: Yeah. You’ve probably been on one of the most interesting journeys that I can think of from any of our guests in between appearances here. I think when we spoke last, you were working on research and policy work, and then, you found your way over to the work for the Department of Treasury, right?

As a senior advisor there and, and head speechwriter, at kind of this really pivotal moment in time for, crypto and Bitcoin in general, where we have, the executive orders that were signed by the administration that, thawed out a lot of, the freeze, so to speak, and then, GENIUS Act, and now Clarity, and all these things that are actually, getting legislative, attention and progress.

They don’t really talk about how this impacts the Treasury side very much, but it’s super important, right? And I’m just kinda curious, from being inside the room at Treasury during this, historic moment in time, what did you kinda see up close from that point of view, that most people on the outside probably didn’t [00:02:00] see?

Sam: It’s a great question. I saw up close and personal just how much this administration is committed to ensuring that Bitcoin, digital assets, and emerging tech generally succeeds. It’s high priority within the building. I saw people working on the strategic Bitcoin reserve, wrestling with questions as regards how to custody that reserve, what are the best options, to do so in a legal way that comports with existing regulations.

I also saw an openness to new ideas in regards to custodying the Bitcoin reserve, , how to make digital assets work for the United States, how to leverage these technologies in such a way that we can advance our national interests both at home and abroad. It was the clearest difference from the last administration, which was famous for Gary Gensler and the siege that Gary Gensler imposed on the industry.

Th-this current administration couldn’t be any more different. They recognize that crypto, Bitcoin, AI, [00:03:00] these things are all a reality, and once we accept that reality, the next question becomes: How can we use these new tools of technology in such a way that we can, expand freedom abroad and expand freedom right here in the United States?

Luke: That’s awesome. Yeah, ‘cause I think that… A- and it’s a really interesting perspective too, because I feel like, , as far as the general public’s concerned, not everybody has time to track everything that’s happening in DC, and the stuff that does get out there is so noisy and hyperbolic that, a lot of , the gears , and all that type of, activity is, is basically, out of sight, right?

And when people do see that are paying attention to these areas is basically, what seems almost, competitive energy between, banking lobbies and Congress around things like the CLARITY Act but what jumped out at me s- seeing them bring you on board and then seeing some of the other folks that have been from the crypto space that are kind of gotten more involved and in the room, is that, i- it seems like what you’re looking at this, , or the Treasury Department’s looking at this, they’re looking at it from a bunch of different [00:04:00] angles of, like, how can crypto and digital assets be like a strategic element in part of, security and finance and all of these things.

Is that fair? And Do you think that the Treasury Department, has a better understanding around crypto and the benefits it, that it can… And the cons or whatever that we can leverage as a nation than people might, ex- expect or, or guess?

Sam: 100%. I think two things. Number one, my being hired by the administration is probably the strongest signal you can get that this administration is pro-Bitcoin. I, uh, in the last admin, they wouldn’t have let me within 100 feet of that building Right … in terms of getting a job, because I was so pro-digital assets.

And while I was at Riot Platforms, a Bitcoin miner, I defended Bitcoin mining and the role it has to play in our economic and national security. The last admin wasn’t having any of that. They were trying to ban Bitcoin. They were trying to push a lot of digital asset innovation offshore. They were even trying to clamp down on AI innovation as well.

Luke: The [00:05:00] Brave Technologist is brought to you by the Brave Search API. Access billions of indexed web results from a simple API call with the Brave Search API. Join the leading names in AI and tech using the Brave Search API to power agenic search, keep LLMs current with real-time data, train foundational models, and bring the best of the web directly to the leading edge.

Get started today at brave.com/api.

Sam: But the fact that they hired not only me as a Bitcoiner, but several other Bitcoiners in the Treasury Department and other executive agencies, I think is a really good example that this administration wanted that expertise that comes with people who’ve worked in the digital asset space in the past.

And they want the expertise because they recognize that as with any new technology, there’s a double-edged use case to it. It can be used for good, but can also be used for bad. So the question for a policymaker is: how can we use this new technology to promote good for our country and mitigate the bad that other, countries are to do with it?

And so stablecoins, I think, [00:06:00] is a really good example of that. Within the Treasury building, there was a lot of excitement around stablecoins and the potential they have to increase demand for U.S. Treasuries. The Treasury Department is always trying to, ensure that the U.S. debt markets are healthy and strong.

And on the low end of the debt curve, s- U.S. dollar-based stablecoins do that in an incredibly efficient, just an incredibly effective way. And so Secretary Bessent, he liked stablecoins, and he, talked about the potential they have to increase that demand for U.S. debt and to be a new dollar instrument that can shore up demand for U.S.

debt and U.S. dollars abroad.

Luke: Yeah. And that was the other thing, too, that really jumped out at me, as a strong signal is, sometimes you’ll see, especially in the political side of things, people will make strategic hires, or even in startup where people make strategic hires or, or big tech that make these strategic hires, and they kind of put them on a shelf.

But, like, these role– the role that you stepped in was, like, n- it was a pretty major role, right? As [00:07:00] far as, being in the room and kind of influencing, the discussion, right? From your research perspective, but it was also on the communication side, right? Was that kind of… seemed interesting in that you were both, advising and then also helping with, speech writing and things like that, too.

Is that fair h-how I’m summing that up, , or is that w-what you were kind of doing there?

Sam: Yeah, I think that’s a, a good description. My title was senior advisor and chief speechwriter. Mm-hmm. So my main responsibility was speechwriting. , Speechwriting is an interesting role within government because you have, both a communications role, but also a role that is effectively policymaking.

You’re articulating the policy in real time, and oftentimes, the way the policy is articulated, ends up influencing the direction that the policy goes. And so it was a little bit of both. And my favorite thing to work on while I was there was, of course, the digital asset issues. And so, yeah, it was a little bit of both.

Luke: Yeah. And I think y-y-you touched on it a minute ago too, where you talked about kind of like how stable coins are, able to , help [00:08:00] out with the, shoring up the treasury market or add value there, for, securing that side of things. But also like when we start to look at how AI is becoming kind of like a national security issue, and then the ability for like Bitcoin a-as a strategic asset, in addition to what stable coins can do for, treasuries, by peop- And just so people understand, right?

So when people use stable coins, those stable coins are backed by… That dollar has to be backed, by something real, right? So they back it typically with treasuries or, or other products that are, dollar-based, right? So there’s that value. But how does Bitcoin , from your point of view, right?

‘Cause obviously like you’re a citizen now. So like you’re outside of the bubble but you’ve been in the room at this really important time. How are you seeing Bitcoin and AI and kind of these strategic elements around security and,, and just as an asset, of strategic value?

Like how do you see those playing in together in this space that we’re in now?

Sam: Yeah. So I see Bitcoin, stable coins, and AI being the trifecta of human freedom technology. Let me explain that. These [00:09:00] technologies are inherently American in the way that they can expand freedom abroad and how they can empower human beings and individuals in any country across the world.

And when you recognize that AI, stable coins, and Bitcoin are essentially freedom tech, that gives the United States an opportunity to use these technologies to export those values abroad, to export the values of individual liberty and entrepreneurship in countries across the world. So what’s interesting about stable coins and Bitcoin in particular is that they’re a great way to route around capital controls in other countries, particularly autocratic countries.

I think it’s really telling that China banned both Bitcoin and stable coins. It recognized that these two digital assets were perhaps the greatest threat to its capital con-controls within the country. And China uses capital controls to keep money inside the state. If they lose those capital controls, the Chinese elite will move money outside the country.

In fact, the bull run of twenty [00:10:00] fifteen through twenty seventeen was significantly driven by Chinese elite who were moving their wealth out of the country through Bitcoin. So the Bitcoin ban that took place in China in twenty twenty-one was honestly a long time coming because the CCP had its eyes on Bitcoin for a long time and recognized the threat that it posed to their regime.

Of course, in addition to banning Bitcoin, they also banned stable coins too because for the very same reason, you can use stable coins to circumvent capital controls. Now, AI is an incredible technology for human freedom if wielded properly, and I think that’s what’s oftentimes missing in the debate over AI as a national security tool It’s telling that the CCP puts strict limits on the development of AI within its own country.

Of course, they want to accelerate AI development, but the models that they’ve trained are trained to actually tamp down on any kind of ideology or ideas that go against CCP, uh, CCP [00:11:00] ideology, that go against socialism, that in any way threaten the regime. And those are the kinds of models that they want to export to the rest of the world.

By contrast, the models that are being trained right here in the United States, you can say whatever you want about the CCP, you can say whatever you want about communist ideology, they’re open in their orientation. And the last thing that Beijing wants is for its own people to get ahold of American-trained models that can defy the regime.

It’s really hard to censor an AI model in the same way you can censor a website. It’s just a lot more complicated. And so the CCP sees the kind of AI we’re developing here in the United States as a threat to its information control, and it sees everything we’re doing with stable coins and Bitcoin as a threat to its capital control.

So these three technologies are a tremendous threat to the two primary choke points that the CCP uses to control its people, money and information. And that’s why it’s incumbent on policymakers to recognize that both AI and digital assets can be used to [00:12:00] promote essentially American values and freedom abroad.

Luke: It’s super interesting too when you think about it, because given those factors , from the Chinese side, like where on the other end of the spectrum too, with all the great things that stable coins and Bitcoin and AI can bring, there are other kinds of concerns on this side too, like around privacy, right?

And around sovereignty. Like you have a sovereignty, but if everything’s on chain, and people can, scan that and all that., I’m really curious, both in your current role and, and in your time in the administration, was privacy something that was really factored into all of this?

Sam: Privacy wasn’t as much of a topic within the United States Treasury Department when I was there, but that’s not to say it wasn’t a priority. Just so much of the work I was doing when I was there focused on macroeconomics with trade. I was there just a couple days after Liberation Day And so it was managing just, tariff implementation, of course, the one big beautiful bill in tax.

But there honestly wasn’t as much discussion about privacy, even though, [00:13:00] uh, I’m confident that it was a priority within the building. It just wasn’t something I worked on as much.

Luke: What a wild time too when you think about it. Not only did you have a lot of this warm-up on the crypto side, but also the whole tariff, topic was hitting right as you were going in there too.

Yep. That’s super interesting. You have the China example too and, recently, with this whole thing with Iran, people were talking about how, people were asking for oil payments in crypto. What are the advantages of something like that happening?

Sam: It’s a mixed bag. I think a lot of people think that Iran has been using Bitcoin in its oil payments, but heretofore there hasn’t been significant on-chain evidence to show that- Hmm

they’ve used Bitcoin significantly for those oil payments. However, there’s been a lot of on-chain evidence to show that they’ve been using, US dollar stable coins, or at least more on-chain evidence for that. You also saw just last week that the United States Treasury Department seized about $344 million worth of stable coins that the IRGC was using to move [00:14:00] capital around the country.

So stable coins are a mixed bag for, our adversaries. I think a lot of times they recognize that there’s a really significant chance that their wallets, can be identified and that their funds can be frozen if Tether or Circle works with the United States government. But they see the frozen stable coins, as sort of a cost of doing business.

So we know, for example, that- $344 million worth of stablecoins were essentially frozen last week by the Treasury Department, but there’s probably a significant amount of stablecoins that were able to be successfully moved by Iranian interests within the country through stablecoins. The $344 million was just sort of a cost of doing business.

So we do see that cryptocurrency has been, again, a, it’s a dual use technology, so it’s been used by both bad guys and good guys within the country of Iran. You’ve also seen the citizens lean on Bitcoin significantly as a lifeboat. Their native currency, the rial, has cratered over the last year- Mm-hmm … as sanctions have [00:15:00] really, picked up on the country.

And so because of that, a lot of them have moved their wealth into Bitcoin and stablecoins because it’s been their way of protecting themselves against their own fiat currency losing a, a significant amount of its value over the last year.

Luke: Even within the crypto space, there tends to be this contention between, people that think that, okay, we’ll use Bitcoin for everything, and then other folks that obviously are seeing how stablecoins are getting adopted.

How do you see the stablecoin and Bitcoin relationship, going forward now that we’re out of the abstract now, right? These are actually being used now at the, this world stage, right?

Sam: Yeah. I definitely see stablecoins as, and Bitcoin as being complementary technologies. In fact, stablecoins were designed to be exactly that. When Tether was first built, the idea was it would make it easier to onboard into Bitcoin investments, and off board when you want to as well. It’s telling that the greatest, the strongest trading pair for Bitcoin to this day is actually US dollar [00:16:00] Tether, USDT.

Right. So we definitely see that these are two technologies that go hand-in-hand in, in almost literal way. And because of that, this is the irony, I think. A lot of people thought that Bitcoin would challenge the dollar. In reality, it’s actually just increased the dollar’s use case because here you have a new asset class is, that’s worth over a trillion dollars, and it’s mostly traded using either US dollars or US dollar instruments like Tether.

And so I do see those two technologies, stablecoins and Bitcoin, as being symbiotic in a way, perfectly complementary.

Luke: Yeah, that’s awesome. We’re kind of hitting a stage where agents are like, the buzz, and you’re seeing everything from, agents in your chat prompt to browser-level agents to system-level agents and which have really started to take off.

As we move to the space that’s more agentic and autonomous, are there other ways that you see, crypto or Bitcoin in particular or any of them, like playing a different role that people might not necessarily be thinking about [00:17:00] right now,

Sam: yeah. We believe that Bitcoin will play a significant role in the agentic economy. We had that exact question, what role will Bitcoin have in an economy where you have AI agents potentially doing millions of transactions every day? And so we did a study. We, uh, used a number of different frontier AI models, the big ones, of course, Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, and we asked them.

We, first of all, we c- implemented a blank slate experiment here, where we erased any previous data that would bias these LLMs in any, any way, and we asked them: What money would you use as an AI agent, in this new economy that’s emerging? And the results that we received were really profound. We saw that AI agents prefer stable coins for payments, but they prefer Bitcoin for savings.

And I think that’s the model that you see within the Bitcoin community itself. A lot of the Bitcoin OGs save in Bitcoin but oftentimes spend in stable coins. And I think they’re really the right end [00:18:00] of the bell curve, on a lot of things, and it’s telling that reasoning from first principles, a lot of these frontier AI models came to the same conclusion that, a native cryptocurrency like Bitcoin is incredibly useful for agentic saving, and stable coins are incredibly useful for agentic payments.

And so I think you’re gonna see the whole digital asset ecosystem grow commensurate with the growth of the agentic economy, and Bitcoin’s gonna play a pretty significant role in savings. At least according to our study, I think we’re gonna see that play out. And, the evidence will mount more and more in the coming years as that economy def- Develops

Luke: What an interesting study too, and methodology and approach on that.

Because, yeah, it is interesting, people like to think of these things in monolith and, zero sum types of scenarios that when realistically, like what we are seeing now is just a bigger example of how, , stable coins found market fit in the early days, right? You were saying earlier where, oh yeah, we have to have a way to pair…

USD itself isn’t great, in a [00:19:00] DeFi environment, let’s use these stable coins. And then now it’s like a serious tool for like world governments to be using and considering and all of that. It’s just interesting time. And speaking on that, we’ve seen regulatory… Like we’ve had Hester Peirce on a couple times.

We had her on when, when during the Gensler era, and then we had her on, now, and it’s seeing her go from the voice of dissent to leading a crypto task force is like quite a sea change. But, where do you see, the current state with regulation and then, going forward, right?

What’s your take on that, having been in the room, been in the swamp, so to speak, been around all these different agencies and stuff?

Sam: Yeah. I think there’s potential of a regression if the White House changes hands and you have a president who is anti Digital assets. There’s definitely potential of that happening, but I don’t think we’ll ever go back to days that were as dark as the Gary Gensler era.

That was just an unprecedented time in the history [00:20:00] of US technology policy. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an administration that was so hostile to an emerging technology as the last administration. In the meantime, since the Gensler era to the present day, you’ve seen a lot of capitulation on the part of lawmakers who were very anti-crypto.

A lot of them have come around for two reasons. Either, A, they had a, come to Jesus moment with the technology. They realized its use cases and the potential it has to expand freedom both at home and abroad, or they recognize, number two, the electoral downsides of being opposed to this technology. I think people oftentimes overlook just how consequential the digital asset vote was for the Trump campaign in twenty twenty-four and how much it moved the needle in a pretty significant way.

Because of that, I think you’re gonna see a lot less hostility against digital assets, even in an administration where the other party is in control. I think more and more you’ll see digital assets become a bipartisan [00:21:00] issue, but that’s not to say that there won’t be holdou-holdouts, and there won’t be, potentially lawmakers and policymakers who are very much opposed to crypto for whatever reason.

Elizabeth Warren, in spite of everyone around h-her laying down their arms and abandoning the crypto army, she is like that- … Japanese soldier from World War II who- Yeah, that’s it … lives in the jungle for twenty years, and they come back and find him, and he doesn’t realize the war is over, so he attacks the people who he– who found him.

I think that’s Elizabeth Warren in a way when it comes to digital assets. She’s still just as opposed as she’s ever been. I think obviously she represents sort of the more extreme side of things, though. And I think you’ll still continue to have Elizabeth Warrens, but for the most part, people are coming around.

Even people who were very much opposed before are starting to at least move towards a more neutral stance. So I could see some regression happening, but I don’t ever see us going back to the days of Gary Gensler. But even in spite of all of that, I don’t think the digital asset industry should rest on its laurels.

No. That’s why it’s so critical that we [00:22:00] pass legislation instead of making regulatory fixes, because regulatory fixes can often be reversed on day one of a new administration, but legislation can’t be overturned. And so that’s why it’s important that we pass the Clarity Act. That will give us a crypto market structure framework, and the Parity Act or something similar to the Parity Act, which will, bring a lot of clarity to questions of crypto taxes.

Luke: Yeah, I think that’s a great point too at the end there. Because you’ve seen this happen time and time again where a new administration comes in and whatever things were freed up off an executive order just get reversed right away. And, and there’s some serious issues, that are in– covered by clarity or at least parts of it around, self-custody and development and things like that, that don’t get as much attention as, yield does, for example, but are super critical, to get into legislation to just, help people.

It’s hard to develop when you’ve got this kind of weight overhead o-on, “Oh my gosh, am I gonna be seen as kind of a broker-dealer for just making software?” [00:23:00] Or, Roman Storm still dealing with his court case and all that stuff. And, it is a, a interesting dynamic because at the same time too, the, people– I feel like a lot of people are getting exposed to the political, space in a way that they haven’t had to deal with it before, where, engineers and tech people tend to think pretty like straight line, “Okay, cool.

We’re here. Let’s get this thing over.” And at the same time you’ve got, some banking lobbies that are opposed to certain issues, while at the same time people see that they’re hiring people, right? To, work on stable coins and integrating these things. So it’s a lot for people to process.

If we ever had to go back to Gensler era, I think that the industry, having gone through that, could season it, but I think it would just be miserable. Who knows what the opportunity cost that was blown, over the past four to six– I don’t think anybody’s calculated that or if it’s even calculable.

Wh-when you’re at the Bitcoin Policy Institute, just to shift gears a little bit, right? Like, how much of your guys’ work is focused around, emerging areas like AI and crypto like you’ve covered here?

And then how [00:24:00] much of it is around also informing, policymakers and other folks like in governments then? Or are they at the point where they’re pretty well informed from your point of view? Oh,

Sam: there’s a lot of informing that needs to be done still. I would imagine. Yeah. Lot, lots of education to do on that front.

Obviously being the Bitcoin Bal- Policy Institute, Bitcoin is our bread and butter, but we’re also focused very much on stable coins and AI because these are two two technologies that are complementary to Bitcoin. And so because of that- You have a lot of Bitcoin miners who are transitioning into AI, for example.

And the exact same fight that played out, where it was the government versus Bitcoin miners back in twenty twenty-one through twenty twenty-three, is again playing out today between the government and AI data centers. Interesting. Interestingly, it’s a lot of the same players too. Riot Platforms- Yeah … where I worked before Treasury, continues to do Bitcoin mining, but it does a lot of AI HPC work as well, and you see that with other big Bitcoin miners like [00:25:00] Marathon, for example, and CleanSpark.

A lot of them are getting into the AI HPC game because they have really good access to energy, and they know these issues in a way that other technology companies don’t. But the issue is you have senators like Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are adamant that we need to impose a federal ban on the construction of all new AI data centers.

This is actual legislation that they’ve introduced that’s picking up steam within Congress. W- it’s an insanity to think that as a country that behooves us in any way, that not only puts our national security at risk, it puts our economic security at risk. And it was really telling this last week with Bernie Sanders, this goes to your question of is there more informing to do?

There’s so much more informing to do. Right. Bernie Sanders hosted two Chinese nationals at the US Capitol Building, making the case that we need to slow down AI research here in the United [00:26:00] States. If it looks like an I- like a PSYOP and it smells like a PSYOP- … it’s probably a PSYOP. And that’s-

Luke: In a time where we’re seeing a lot of, job security questions, right?

Everyone’s talking about, we’re at a point of plows getting replaced with tractors and all that kind of thing. But with technology where look, you build a data center, there’s a lot of, local economic benefit that you get for trades and other things like that that will get elevated from this in a way that they haven’t been in a long time.

And it just seems like there’s just informing i, is, is so key, right? Because there’s just also so much FUD out there about water consumption, all this weird– these things where you’re like, “Wait a minute, this is not a black and white thing,” and I feel like people can sense that a little bit more than before, but that’s a really good point, like around, yeah, the PSYOP side of it.

It’s just spooky.

Sam: Yeah, very spooky. In the water FUD, for example, we saw that exact same thing play out with Bitcoin mining. Right. And you’re a hundred percent right. Yeah, it was the exact same thing. I remember there were multiple hit pieces on it. A lot of those hit [00:27:00] pieces– What I say in this situation is always follow the money.

A lot of the hit pieces on Bitcoin back in the day were actually coming from, another digital asset company that sees itself as a rival to Bitcoin. I’ll just leave out which digital asset company that was. But I think a lot-

Luke: Without running the risk of mobilizing an entire army of people against you, I think that’s a wise move.

Sam: Very well put. Very well put. And so we, we just followed the money, though, and I think that’s what people need to do when looking at the case against AI data centers. Follow the money. In the case of this moratorium on AI data centers, there’s a lot of NGOs out there who are, getting people riled up against a-AI data centers, supporting this moratorium.

And if you follow the money trail, a lot of them are funded by interests that are either CCP adjacent or have some connection to the CCP, or at least have their interests very much aligned with the CCP, whether that’s because of money or just because of their politics. But [00:28:00] people just need to follow the money here.

What I’ve seen with the an-animosity against AI data centers, has not been organic. I think a lot of it appears to be astroturfed, and, we need to expose any potential foreign influence that might be pushing this anti-AI agenda. Now, that’s not to say that AI safety is not something that we need to pay close attention to, and it’s not to say that we don’t need regulation for AI.

We do need sensible regulation that I think balances AI safety as well as competitiveness, and also ensures that the AI we develop will expand opportunities for American workers in the long term. That’s absolutely key.

Luke: Yeah. What are those concerns, areas that, the legitimate ones that come to mind, around where we might think about things like regulation or there might be, real risks from your point of view around what AI, can do in the near term that people might not be thinking of?

Sam: There’s this debate going on right now [00:29:00] between how AI should be regulated, whether we want a 50-state patchwork of AI regulation, or we want some kind of federal framework that allows AI companies to develop and train their models in such a way where they don’t have to change things depending on the state they’re operating in.

I believe that people who are more on the decelerationist side of the AI debate, who are, in my opinion, overly concerned about issues as regards AI safety, they’re pushing the 50-state patchwork, which is unworkable for a lot of companies. Oh, yeah. I think you, you need some kind of clarity if you are an American AI company trying to establish your business here in the United States, and you shouldn’t have to, change the way your company operates depending on what state your customer is in.

There needs to be some kind of uniform framework there that just makes things easier for AI entrepreneurs in the United States. And this is something that I try to emphasize as much as possible when it comes to the AI [00:30:00] safety debate. A hundred percent, we need AI safety. We need to make sure that this technology works for us.

But what people don’t understand is that there isn’t this choice between AI and no AI. Mm-hmm. It’s a choice between American AI or Chinese AI. And which do you want? Do you want an AI that is open, that is pro-human, that is privacy-centered, that puts American workers first, or do you want an AI that is closed, that- Divulges our data to a foreign power that’s surveilled by that same foreign power, and that is ideological in its orientation.

Because those are the two choices, whether we want an American AI or Chinese AI. One of these countries is gonna win the AI race. We just need to make sure that it’s the United States, because we need an open and free AI that ultimately will benefit workers the most over the long term, and give our country the greatest economic adv- advantage to ensure that working families here in the United States can continue to [00:31:00] succeed.

If we cede that race to China, there’s a lot of really negative implications, not only for the United States, but the whole world, and what it would mean for human freedom and access to, information. And it’s something that I think we need to understand the AI debate, from that lens. It’s not no AI or AI.

It’s either we get Chinese AI or American AI. And I don’t know about you, Luke, but I do know about you. We both want the latter. We want that American AI. Well, and

Luke: I mean- Who wouldn’t want

Sam: that?

Luke: Just seeing lessons can be learned here from how not to do it by looking at how, crypto regulation has rolled out.

People think that crypto’s, not as regul- it’s very regulated, right? If I, as a startup, going into the crypto space, if I wanna do anything where I have to worry about KYC, AML, or dealing with dollars, I’m not– I don’t have one set of policy I have to work with. I have to work with getting licensed in every single state because they all have different licenses.

So really, with AI’s ability to transform the economy and then the job [00:32:00] workforce, the focus should be on how we can, harden, the employment environment for everyday Americans, with AI. But what you’re gonna end up happening is employing a lot more lawyers, because you’re gonna have to deal with regulations in 50 different states around AI, and it’s gonna be an absolute…

No one can afford that. We should be learning those lessons that we’ve seen play out literally today in crypto, where you’re like, “Oh, God, I can’t afford… It’s gonna be, like, six, $10 million just to get the licensing, so I can actually accept dollars to exchange them into crypto. It’s not even worth it,” right?

So people will just straight up abandon the whole vertical because they can’t even get past the operating cost to get it off the ground.

Sam: And it’s just right there.

Luke: And so it’s a really good point, I think, around, having one unified policy, and it also can g- become a standard that other countries can adopt.

I think we saw that with parts of GDPR and other things like that, where, if you have a standard bearer out there, even if it’s de facto, people will adopt the strong points just because they kinda have to anyway. But with AI, it seems, ultra-critical because the… One, it’s moving so quickly, and two, it’s [00:33:00] just, has this, the transformational power that, we’re seeing play out right now

Sam: Right.

And I think to realize the full potential of artificial intelligence, that 50-state patchwork is an incredible obstacle because exactly like you’re saying, Luke, that creates a regulatory moat that only big AI companies can cross. Mm-hmm. Uh, they are able to afford the lawyers, and they’re able to bear the compliance burden that comes with having a 50-state patchwork.

AI is incredible leverage. I think you’re gonna see more and more AI unicorns out there that are companies of just a f- handful of people because AI gives people incredible leverage, I think more leverage than any other technology prior has been able to do. But they’ll only be able to use that leverage if we have a federal framework in place that gives continuity to AI developers.

If we have the 50-state patchwork, it’s just not gonna work.

Luke: Yeah. And it seems just so backwards, too, where, we’re dealing with global systems here, right? Where, the liberating part about the [00:34:00] technology is that it connects us all together no matter where we’re at. The idea that we have to, treat it like a local, at a, such a local level or even a state level, state by state is just kind of silly.

Nobody’s developing the technology that way, right? Everybody’s developing- … it to connect the world together. We should be thinking more broadly with how these things are in ways that they can work on a global scale. I might just be too far into the current situation with crypto and, trying to get compliance to work but that’s just hardening , my own viewpoint on it.

This has been a super interesting conversation. But, we have a couple rapid-fire questions if you’re open for that.

Sam: Yeah. Let’s do it.

Luke: A- awesome. What do you think the most overrated narrative is in crypto right now?

Sam: Hmm. Most overrated narrative in crypto.

I’m gonna have to… I- it’s tough because it’s a bear market, and so I feel like- … all narratives are underrated.

Luke: Right. Fair. Fair. Fair.

Sam: Here’s one, though. I will say quantum- Mm … is [00:35:00] a topic that divides a lot of people. I think there’s interest on the part of other digital assets to say that quantum is tomorrow because their particular digital asset is closer to becoming quantum-proof than Bitcoin, for example.

Right. The way I see it, quantum is most likely an inevitability However, the challenge that quantum poses to Bitcoin is neither imminent or insurmountable. It’s definitely something that the Bitcoin community needs to prepare for, but there are, different movements in place to prepare for exactly that.

So I’d say that the quantum fund narrative is overrated . I agree. And it’s something that needs to be re-rated, and I think it’s starting to be re-rated. A perfect example of that is the fact that, the Google paper about quantum breaking cryptography, was released just a little over a month ago, and since that time, Bitcoin’s price has appreciated.

So Right. If that weren’t priced in, [00:36:00] I think you would have seen, different price action over the last thirty-one days than we’ve actually seen. So I think that particular narrative has been overrated, but it’s starting to be, rated in a way that reflects market realities.

Luke: That makes sense. It’s one of those things where, it’s such a big risk that, we’re all cooked if it comes to fruition, not just Bitcoin, right? It’s like an EMP strike or something. Okay. What’s a belief you have that most policymakers would disagree

Sam: with? Hmm. These are good rapid-fire questions.

Yeah. I feel like I, I should just be answering them like that, but i- it’s making me think. So a belief I have that other policymakers might disagree with. I think that AI is an incredible tool for national security, and we touched on that earlier. I think once we recognize the threat that China feels from our own AI, the more inclined we’ll be to develop our AI models that are open and free and that [00:37:00] can pierce the informational information controls in autocratic regimes.

I think both AI and digital assets are very much underrated in their ability to export American values abroad, which is why it’s frustrating to see a lot of policymakers, present a united fr- front against these technologies because these technologies advance American interests when wielded properly overseas.

Luke: No, mate, that is great. And then what do you see coming that most people don’t see yet?

Sam: Hmm.

I could be wrong on this, but- … I believe that AI can actually produce a more human economy. If AI automates a lot of the white office or the white-collar grunt work that people are used to, what it means is that they have more time to do things that require what only [00:38:00] humans have, which is free agency.

They have more time to do things that only humans can do, such as start a family. They have more time to use AI in ways to start their own business. So I- I’m actually more optimistic about what AI will do for our economy and for our culture than a lot of doomers out there. Of course, we’ll see how it all develops, but that’s my intuition, is that this technology could actually be incredibly positive for humanity, and it could actually make our economy more human in the end.

Because it increases the premium of being a human being, of being able to do things only human beings can do when a lot of work that we do, which is i- inhuman, such as spreadsheets, I don’t think filling in spreadsheets is something that anyone would describe as the peak of human existence. It’s that kind of work that AI will automate away, and I think that will actually improve, working lives for a lot of Americans out [00:39:00] there.

Luke: Man, I can’t think of a better high note to end on than that one. A bit of optimism there, especially in the perspective of somebody that’s gone to DC, been in the middle of that mess, and then made it out of it still as an optimist. I gotta congratulate you for that. And I think it, it’s awesome.

And also, Sam, dude, I really appreciate you making the time. It’s been a really great conversation. There, there’s probably, I don’t know, maybe one or two other people in the world that’s had this kind of level of perspective and vantage point that you’ve had in the past two years, being where you’ve been.

I’m really glad to see that you’ve made it through and you’re r- back to working, to influence, from a different level. And that we- we’re lucky to have you in the space, man. Really appreciate it. Thanks. And now that you have moved too, where can people follow along, that wanna follow what you’re working on these days?

Sam: Yeah. My work at the Bitcoin Policy Institute, you can follow most closely at my Twitter account. That’s @SamLyman, S-A-M-L-Y-M-A-N, 33. So @SamLyman33.

Luke: [00:40:00] Awesome. Well, Sam, really appreciate you making the time. Again, thanks for coming back on the podcast and love to have you back again to see what you’re cooking on in the future.

Sam: Yeah. That’d be great. Thanks, Luke. It’s great being on.

Luke: Likewise. All right. Thanks for listening to the Brave Technologist Podcast. To never miss an episode, make sure you hit follow in your podcast app. If you haven’t already made the switch to the Brave browser, you can download it for free today at brave.com and start using Brave Search, which enables you to search the web privately.

Brave also shields you from the ads, trackers, and other creepy stuff following you across the web.