Teeka Tiwari’s “Hall of Fame” trade… You can’t drive a semi on a bicycle path… This professor says $1.7 trillion could flood into cryptos… In the mailbag: Is there a line between free speech and hate speech?

It’s last year all over again…

Yesterday, we told you how you can use cryptocurrencies to boost your financial privacy online.

And we promised to take a deeper dive into how you can judge the long-term health of the crypto market.

It’s why I (Chris) caught up with world-renowned cryptocurrency expert and Legacy Research cofounder Teeka Tiwari.

Teeka has just returned from a string of meetings with hedge fund managers, people who run family offices, venture capitalists, and crypto insiders in Zurich, Moscow, and Sicily.

And as he reported back to paid-up subscribers of our Palm Beach Confidential advisory (if you’re signed up, catch up here) he came back convinced that the next major leg-up in the crypto market is imminent.

Now, if you’re a crypto enthusiast, you may have heard Teeka lay out his investment case already…

But if you’re part of the 92% of Americans who’ve never dabbled in cryptos, today’s dispatch will show you the size of the opportunity you’re missing.

You see, Teeka believes we’re about to see an explosion in the price of bitcoin, the world’s most valuable cryptocurrency, that will rival last year’s nearly 981% gain.

This pales in comparison to the gains Teeka has racked up for his readers already…

Teeka first added bitcoin (BTC) to the Palm Beach Confidential model portfolio in April 2016.

Since then, it’s up 1,619%. That’s enough to turn every $10,000 stake into $171,900.

Or take Teeka’s top-performing pick so far…

In February 2017, he recommended a start-up crypto project out of China called NEO (NEO).

It allows you to run computer applications online without any chance of fraud, censorship, or third-party interference.

Since Teeka added NEO to the model portfolio, it’s up 19,161%.

That’s enough to turn every $10,000 stake into $1,926,100.

That’s not to say it’s been a smooth ride all the way…

Since Teeka made his first crypto recommendation, his model portfolio has dropped 80-85% more than five times.

And as he reminds his readers all the time, that kind of volatility will continue until the crypto market goes mainstream.

It’s why Teeka has learned to ignore the short-term ups and downs in prices and focus instead on what really matters over the long run. Teeka…

When you’re analyzing early-stage tech, you can’t let price be your only barometer. If you panic sell every time a speculative asset like bitcoin takes a plunge, you’re never going to make real money.

A much better metric to look at is the rate of adoption. Are more people using the technology? This is the important question you need to be asking… not what price it’s trading at today.

And the big story here is the buildout of institutional infrastructure that will allow a flood of new capital to enter the market…

By one estimate, there’s $1.7 trillion looking for a home in cryptos…

Pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, endowments, foundations, mutual funds, and insurance funds control about $131 trillion of global wealth.

A recent paper by Jim Kyung-Soo Liew, an assistant professor of finance at Johns Hopkins University, estimates that the ideal allocation to cryptos for these investors is 1.3% of their overall portfolios.

First, this helps them diversify away from stocks and bonds. Second, it gives them a chance to significantly boost their returns without taking on too much risk.

Right now, that allocation is virtually zero because professional money managers are wary of buying cryptocurrencies on the online exchanges individual investors use today.

And as Teeka puts it, “You can’t put a semi on a bicycle path”…

But if we get the necessary infrastructure buildout… and even just 1.3% of global wealth flows into cryptos… that means a $1.7 trillion (1.3% of $131 trillion) boost to the crypto market.

And given that the combined market value of all traded cryptocurrencies is $229 billion, that translates into a 742% increase.

In November, a critical piece of infrastructure goes online…

The Intercontinental Exchange owns the New York Stock Exchange and 23 other exchanges around the world.

And in November, it will launch a platform called Bakkt that will allow deep-pocketed money managers to buy, sell, trade, and store bitcoin and other cryptos on a large scale. Teeka:

What the Intercontinental Exchange will do is offer the first institutionally trusted exchange on the market. And that’s huge. Its Bakkt platform will provide custody and trading services. In other words, it will stand there in the middle to guarantee the trades.

These are all the things that institutions need in order to feel comfortable about investing into a new asset class.

It’s why Teeka recommends you buy some bitcoin before these institutions pile in.

For more on how to do that, check out this guide Teeka and his team put together. It shows you where to buy and store bitcoin, as well as where to trade it for other cryptos.

Just keep in mind that bitcoin is volatile. So don’t invest money you can’t afford to lose. It takes only a small stake to make a killing in the rally Teeka sees coming.

Do you want to hear Teeka lay out the future of cryptos… in person?

Maybe you want to chat him up over a cup of coffee… or while sharing a bottle of wine. Or would you rather hear what our other analysts have to say?

Well, you can do just that…

Teeka – and the rest of our crypto experts at Legacy Research – will be at the first annual Legacy Investment Summit at the Fairmont Southampton in Bermuda on October 17-19.

They’ll give presentations… participate in roundtable discussions… and mingle with you at the many breakfasts, coffee breaks, lunches, and cocktail hours we have scheduled.

Not only that… Glenn Beck – Teeka’s co-host on the hit online briefing, “The Great Crypto Conspiracy of 2018” – will deliver the keynote address.

To find out how you can meet Teeka and the rest of the Legacy Research team at this landmark event… essentially for free… read on here.

Finally, in the mailbag: Is there a line between free speech and hate speech?

That was our question at the end of Monday’s Daily Cut. Here’s what you had to say…

Very simply, no. You’re either free to speak your opinions, or you’re not. If you don’t like someone’s opinions, then don’t listen, turn it off, change channels, but don’t limit one’s freedom to air their views.

What this world needs is more tolerance and compassion. You must understand that when the media (and this includes YouTube) and Google, Facebook, etc., starts restricting speech and the masses accept it, there will be a time when there is NO free speech. Don’t let this happen. Don’t be stupid. Stand up for your rights. All of them.

– Charlotte E.

There is some kind of line that is legitimate. One may not shout “fire” in a crowded theater. It can be argued that that is not hate, but what kind of feeling is behind a so-called prank that might well end in a crowd of deaths? We live now, in a world where there are dangers that are far worse than “fires”. Those things need to be examined and addressed.

But as for saying unkind things, ugly epithets, nasty name-calling, obscenities personally directed at individuals – these are obviously hate speech, but we all have the right to use them. Either I am free to speak (if I do not threaten the health or safety of others), or I am not. Free speech says I am. There is no further compromise.

What we need to do, as a population, is think before we speak, as we were taught in kindergarten – and develop a sensitivity to the feelings and reputations of others. Schools must once again teach courtesy, as they did in the 1930s, when I was a child in school. When one thinks about it, it becomes apparent and obvious that true courtesy is the answer to most problems of human behavior.

– Carol H.

It would be wonderful if every human being was courteous and polite to every other human being, but this will never happen in the real world. Anyone who tries to regulate speech has nefarious ulterior motives that will damage the naïve and gullible idiots, who support controlled speech, millions of times more destructively than any form of “hate speech.”

These “useful idiots” need to wake up and take an honest look at reality while they still have the power to protect themselves. If they don’t, they will regret their stupidity for the rest of their short little tragic lives!

– Stephen M.

The way to fight falsehoods, “hate speech” (whatever that is), etc., is with the truth, NOT by shutting down or shouting down those we consider to be lying or hateful. Unfortunately for our mainstream media, much of what they promote has only a passing acquaintance with the truth.

I would much prefer to have all opinions, evidence, and perspectives available to consider, and use my own capacity for logic and analysis to get as close to truth as I can. When others, whether the government, media, social media, etc., start deciding that some opinions, ideas, and evidence should not be allowed in the public domain, I become very fearful. Of course, it might be a good thing for Americans to begin to wonder, as those under Communism did some 40 years ago, “What are they not telling us now?”

– Gordon F.

People that I generally disagree with have pointed out that hate speech is perhaps the one form of speech that needs First Amendment protection. It’s fine to think ill of people who hold certain views that you find offensive, but that does not give you the right to shut them up.

– Bob Z.

I am of the opinion that all hate speech laws are patently unconstitutional. Any other conversation is moot. We don’t have a constitutional protection against getting our feelings hurt. As long as I am not advocating the overthrow of the government – which is not an all-bad idea – or advocating violence against a person or group, I should be free to say whatever I choose, regardless of how offensive it is. Diversity of ideas is the only one that counts.

– Rick H.

If the line between hate speech and free speech was very clear, perhaps a valid argument could be made that the former should be restricted. The problem, however, is that the line is not at all clear, with one person’s hate speech being another’s free speech, which makes the matter extremely difficult to judge fairly.

Then there are the problems of who gets to decide, and how to prevent bracket creep. Given these problems, my answer is that all the Alex Joneses should be free to babble on, and we should simply sharpen our wits so we’ll recognize them for what they are and reject their stupidities.

For those who really object to him, instead of calling on someone to muzzle him, why don’t they get their own pulpit and refute him publicly from it? That way anyone not sure whether to take Jones seriously would get both sides of any issue and could freely make up their own mind.

– Al R.

I am a First Amendment absolutist. There is no speech or thought that should be monitored or censored. How is it that people have forgotten that if there is a channel or program they dislike that they can simply turn the channel or turn off the program?

We don’t need a government or social platform to protect us from speech with which we may not like or disagree with. In an “open and free” society, it is our individual responsibility to be the protectors of speech and thought, and in the same vein, we are all reporters, journalists, and editorialists.

– Tom B.

My father used to say, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.” I think he was a wise man. In today’s world of more and more govt. meddling, isn’t it about time to defend the Constitution we were founded on? Is it not time to step out of the shadow of the government we have slowly allowed ourselves to be dominated by and say enough is enough?

Open your eyes and look at the freedoms that have been taken from you, while you sat undecided until it was too late. Free speech is just the next one on the chopping block. What’s next? Just like lemmings at the cliff edge, you have to make a choice: Do I roll over and accept the dictates forced on me, or do I choose to “not go quietly into that good night”?

– Rick H.

Did your fellow readers hit the mark? Or do you have a different take on the question of free speech vs. hate speech? Share it with us at [email protected].



Chris Lowe
September 5, 2018
Lisbon, Portugal

P.S. As we hit send on today’s dispatch, a story is breaking that the Department of Justice will be looking into allegations that Facebook, Google, and Twitter are “intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas.”

This theme we’ve been exploring here at The Daily Cut of Silicon Valley censorship is big… and it’s going to get bigger. Keep an eye out for more on that in future updates.