Anthony Pompliano: Bitcoin Will Be on U.S. Balance Sheet in ‘Next 10, 15 Years’ and Investing in Solana for Less Than a Dollar

Anthony
Pompliano,
CEO
of
Professional
Capital
Management
spoke
with
CoinDesk’s
Jennifer
Sanasie.
The
following
is
a
lightly
edited
transcript
of
their


interview.

Anthony
Pompliano:
Thanks
so
much
for
having
me.

Yeah,
so
I
don’t
really
think
just
about
the
crypto
market.
I
think
kind
of
more
broadly
about
finance
in
general
and
all
asset
markets.
Our
portfolio
really
is,
crypto
is
a
dominant
percentage,
more
than
50%.
But,
we
also
have
large
allocations
to
Osage
venture
capital.
And
then
we’ve
got
some
real
estate.
And
then
increasingly,
we’re
doing
more
and
more
stuff
in
the
public
markets
as
well.
On
the
crypto
side,
I
would
say
that,
you
know,
the
majority
of
it
is
in
Bitcoin.
It’s
a
position
that
we’ve
held
for
a
long
time.
We’ve
added
to
it
throughout
the
years
and
it’s
something
that
we
kind
of
look
at
as
a
20,
30
plus
year
investment.
We
don’t
really
trade
at
all.
We
don’t
think
about
possibly
selling
based
on
price
levels.
It
really
is
just
kind
of
buy,
hold
a
great
asset
forever
and
then
hopefully
I
give
it
to
my
grandkids.
The
second
biggest
position
in
the
portfolio
is
Solana.
That’s
a
relatively
new
thing.
We
started
putting
that
position
on
back
around
45,
48
dollars
I
think
last
year.and
then
added
to
it
on
the
way
up
pretty
consistently.
And
that’s
grown
substantially
as
position
size
and
now
second
largest.
And,
then
I
would
say
that
other
things
in
crypto
that
we’re
really
excited
about,
we
sold
a
company
earlier
this
year
called
Reflexivity
Research
to
a
publicly
traded
company
called
DeFi
Technologies.
DeFi
Technologies
does
ETPs
across
Europe
for
kind
of
the
long
tail
of
crypto
assets.

JS:
You
mentioned
Sol
there,
most
of
the
folks
who
come
on
this
show
have
their
two
biggest
crypto
allocations
as
Bitcoin
and
Ether.
But
you
just
said
you
have
Sol
as
your
second
biggest.
I
know
that
you’re
bullish
on
Sol.
Talk
to
me
a
little
bit
about
your
investment
thesis
when
it
comes
to
Solana
over
Ether.

AP:
Yeah,
I
mean,
you
know
my
experience
with
Solana
really
was
we
were
LPs
in
Multicoin’s
Fund
I
and
Multicoin
Fund
I
invested
in
Solana.
I
think
that
they
did
it
at
less
than
a
dollar,
like
a
couple
of
pennies.
And
so
there
was
this
explosive
move
in
the
bull
market
of
kind
2020
and
2021.
Those
guys
did
a
fantastic
job,
I
think,
of
managing
that
position,
capturing
a
lot
of
profits
there.
And
then,
you
know,
when
they
were
giving
us
kind
of
in-kind
distributions,

And
so,
if
that
was
to
occur,
then
you
could
expect
the
price
of
the
sol
token
to
go
up
more
than
the
ether
token.
And
that
really
was,
you
know,
kind
of
the
analysis.
And
so,
you
know,
as
I’ve
shared
previously,
I
sold
any
of
the
ether
that
I
personally
held
kind
of
around
the
end
of
last
year,
beginning
of
this
year,
somewhere,
wherever
sol
was
trading
at,
you
know,
70
early
$70,
$73,
something
like
that.
And
so
far
its
played
out.
And
you
know,
I
continue
to
believe
that
the
Solana
activity
numbers
and
you
know,
kind
of
various
macro
factors
will
allow
that
asset
specifically
to
continue
to
perform
quite
attractively.
And
so
we’re
just
holding

JS:
Anthony,
what’s
the
worst
investment
you’ve
ever
made?

And,
some
of
the
legislation
that
could
be
passed.
We’ve
seen
multiple
bills
around
accounting
rules
and
things
like
that
that
aren’t
necessarily
the
SEC
or
the
CFTC.
That
list
may
expand
from
five
or
less
to
maybe
there’s
like
25
things
that
could
be
done.
And
so
I
do
think
the
bulk
of
a
lot
of
the
things
people
want
done
are
actually
in
the
legislative
process,
not
necessarily
from
the
regulators.
Although
the
call
three
to
five
things
that
people
want
the
regulators
to
do
are
really,
really
important
as
well.

And
so
really
what
we’re
talking
about
here
is
a
regime
shift
or
a
mentality
shift,
not
just
around
regulation,
but
also
from
the
political
class
in
general.
And
if
you
go
around
the
world,
you’ve
seen
this
happen
before.
People
kind
of
ignore
it,
then
they
fight
it,
and
eventually,
the
industry
wins.
And
so
I
think
that’s
what
ultimately
is
going
to
happen
here
in
the
United
States
is
we’re
kind
of
coming
off
of
the
fighting
phase,
and
we’re
starting
into
the
winning
phase
for
the
industry.

JS:
I
want
to
broaden
the
conversation
out
and
talk
about
areas
outside
of
the
United
States.
I
know
you
tweeted
recently
that
governments
all
over
the
world
are
probably
talking
about
how
Bitcoin
might
benefit
them
after
the
weekend’s
remarks.
But
do
think
that
governments
are
watching
what’s
happening
here
with
the
election
and
starting
to
think
about
how
their
policies
might
impact
crypto
innovation
there
and
maybe
how
they
can
start
holding
Bitcoin
in
their
reserves?

AP:
I
definitely
think
that
governments
around
the
world
watch
the
United
States,
right,
for
nothing
else
than
to
be
informed,
but
possibly
even
to
copy.
And
you
see
this
with
central
banks
are
a
great
example.
The
ECB
said
for
a
while,
we’re
not
going
to
raise
rates,
we’re
not
going
to
raise
rates.
And
then
they
sort
of
raised
the
rates
after
the
US
did
it.
And
so
I
think
that
the
United
States
is
the
leader
on
the
global
stage,
especially
in
the
financial
markets.
People
look
to
us
for
guidance
and
leadership.
And
if
you
are
a
president
somewhere
in
the
world,
and
you
hear
that
two
of
the
three
leading
presidential
candidates
are
talking
about
a
strategic
stockpile
of
Bitcoin
for
the
US,
you
start
asking
your
team,
what
is
our
Bitcoin
strategy?
What
should
we
do?
Should
we
go
buy
some
before
them?
If
they
buy
that
Bitcoin,
the
price
is
going
to
go
up.
It’s
going
to
be
more
expensive
for
us
to
buy
it
later.
And
so
this
global
game
theory
between
governments
ends
up
playing
out.
And
I
think
ultimately
presidents
around
the
world
are
saying
to
themselves,
you
know,
I’m
not
going
to
sit
back
and
just
be
the
follower
all
the
time.

Maybe
we
should
actually
be
a
leader
on
our
own.
And
so,
you
know,
whether
that
actually
occurs
or
not
remains
to
be
seen.
But,
you
one
of
the
funny
things
to
me
is
if
you
are
a
country
and
you
want
to
create
a
strategic
stockpile,
then
you
should
buy
the
Bitcoin
and
then
tell
people
you
did
it.
You
should
not
tell
them
you’re
going
to
buy
it
and
then
go
buy
it
because
you’re,
yeah,
you’re
likely
to
affect
the
price
in
a
negative
way.

JS:
Makes
sense.
How
likely
do
you
think
it
is
the
US
has
a
strategic
stockpile
of
Bitcoin
in
the
near
future?

AP:
Well,
the
United
States
already
has
210,000
Bitcoin
give
or
take
in
its
possession.
It’s
had
many
more
over
the
years,
but
their
kind
of
strategy
has
been
to
sell
that
and
get
cash.
And
so
does
the
U.S.
government
hold
Bitcoin
today?
Yes.
Is
it
a
strategic
stockpile?
I
don’t
think
that’s
how
they
view
it.
But
I
do
think
that,
I
don’t
know,
over
the
next
10,
15
years,
for
sure,
the
United
States
will
have
some
Bitcoin
on
its
balance
sheet
or
kind
of
in
a
strategic
stockpile.
I
think
the
question
really
just
becomes,
how
aggressive
are
we
in
that?

And
then
also
what
is
possible,
you
know,
obviously
RFK
came
out
and
said
that
the
United
States
should
buy
4
million
Bitcoin.
I
don’t
think
that’s
mathematically
possible
given
how
illiquid
the
market
is,
the
trend
of
that
illiquidity,
and
then
also
the
amount
of
capital
that
would
be
needed
in
order
to
buy
that
Bitcoin
over,
you
know,
call
it
a
15,
20
year
period.
It
just
would
become,
you
know,
very
difficult
to
see
a
world
where
we
could
spend
that
much
money
to
do
it.
And
so
it’s
more
likely
that,
you
know,
it’s
a
smaller
number
but
it’s
something
that
I
definitely
think
will
occur
at
some
point.

JS:
It’s
interesting
you
bring
up
the
fact
that
you
don’t
think
that’s
mathematically
possible.
And
it
brings
me
to
this
question.
Do
you
think
that
the
politicians
are
talking
about
Bitcoin
to
get
the
attention
of
the
industry
with
no…real
plan
to
act
to
the
drastic
measures
that
they
are
speaking
about.
Because
like
you
said,
in
a
lot
of
these
cases,
it’s
not
mathematically
possible
or
it
doesn’t
actually
make
sense
to
address
the
massive
growing
number
of
debt
in
the
country.

AP:
Yeah,
mean,
four
million
is
probably
not
possible.
One
million
probably
is,
right?
So
we’re
still
talking
directionally
the
same
thing.
It’s
just
that
the
magnitude
or
the
size
ends
up
being
a
little
bit
different.
On
top
of
that,
look,
politicians
are
politicians,
right?
And
part
of
what
they
are
supposed
to
do
is
they
are
supposed
to
represent
the
will
of
the
people.
One
of
the
things
that
most
people
get
kind
of
incorrect
is
that
they’re
like,
I’m
trying
to
evaluate
the
politician
based
on
what
they
believe.
Well,
actually
the
politicians
supposed
to
represent
what
we
believe
as
the
people
and
so
you
know
the
negative
view
of
that
is
they’re
pandering
they’re
basically
saying
what
we,
you
know,
they
think
we
want
to
hear
and
then
they’re
going
to
get
an
office
do
whatever
they
want.
The
positive
view
of
it
is
no,
they’re
listening
to
their
constituency
and
their
constituency
is
telling
them,
I
want
you
to
be
pro-Bitcoin.
So
the
smart
ones
are
saying
I’m
pro-
Bitcoin.
so,
you
know,
regardless,
yes,
their
campaign
promises,
promises
is
doing
a
lot
of
heavy
lifting
in
that
sentence.
And
so
do
they
have
to
fulfill
the
promises?
Not
necessarily.
But
I
do
think
that
there’s
a
lot
of
people
who
are
going
to
go
into
the
ballot
box
and
they’re
going
to
say,
well,
I
have
two
candidates
that
I’m
voting
for
three
candidates
that
I’m
going
to
evaluate
the
promises
of
today.

And
one
of
them
is
promising
me
something
I
like
and
the
other
is
promising
me
something
I
don’t
like
regardless
of
what
they’re
going
to
do.
I
can
only
evaluate
the
promises
today.
And
so
obviously
I’m
going
to
go
for
the
person
who’s
promising
me
a
positive
thing.
And
so
it’s
this
weird
thing
where,
you
know,
people
always
get
hung
up
on
like,
the
politician
do
what
they
promised?
Well,
you
you
should
expect
that
they
probably
aren’t
going
to
do
a
hundred
percent
of
what
they
promised.
And,
one
of
the
things
I
always
point
to
is
how
many
presidents
have
talked
about,
you
know,
releasing
some
sort
of
information.

The
JFK
assassination
files,
I
think
Trump
had
said,
hey,
I’m
going
to
release
this
information,
gets
in
the
office,
doesn’t
do
it.
And
from
people
I
know
that
were
kind
of
close
to
the
administration,
he
basically
learned
new
information
and
then
decided
against
it.
And
so
if
that
is
true
and
that’s
how
it
played
out,
well,
we
don’t
know
what
that
information
is.
And
so
how
do
we
evaluate?
Maybe
if
we
had
that
information,
we’d
also
agree
not
to
release
it.
And
so
it
becomes
this
weird
dynamic
where
constituents
and
the
population
want
to
critique
politicians,
but
we
don’t
have
all
the
information
they
have.
And
so
that
doesn’t
mean
we
should
trust
them,
right?
We
should
be
actually
be
very
kind
of
skeptical
of
the
promises
they
make
and
the
things
that
they
say
they’re
going
to
do.
But
I
do
think
that
also
sometimes
we
should
understand,
you
know,
if
we
had
all
of
the
information,
we
actually
may
make
the
same
decisions,
which
is
kind
of
a
little
bit
weird,
given
how
I
think
much
disdain
most
people
have
for
kind
of
political
class.

JS:
I
think
those
are
all
great
points
to
make
ahead
of
the
election
in
November
now.
I
know
we
only
have
a
few
minutes
left
and
I
really
have
been
waiting
to
ask
you
this
question
because
I
know
you’re
a
former
army
sergeant
and
it’s
not
uncommon
to
come
across
former
military
who
are
now
founders
or
operating
at
high
levels
in
venture
capital.
And
I
was
curious
to
get
your
thoughts
on
what
you
think
it
is
about
people
with
military
experience
that
makes
them
such
successful
founders
and
CEOs.

AP:
Well,
I
mean,
you
the
military
does
a
fantastic
job,
I
think,
breaking
people
down
and
then
rebuilding
them
to
be
one
leaders,
but
also
to
thrive
in
kind
of
chaotic,
uncertain
environments.
Right.
And
if
you
think
of
the
stakes
when
they’re
doing
that
training.
It
tends
to
be
life
or
death.
And
so
when
you
kind
of
take
that
and
bring
it
to
something
like
the
business
world,
you
need
leadership.
You
need
to
be
able
to
understand
and
be
resilient
and
thrive
in
that
uncertain
environment.
But
the
stakes
are
much
lower.
And
so
I
think
that
people
have
been
exposed
to
some
of
the
extreme
stresses
of
military
or
kind
combat
deployments.
They
end
up
actually
thriving
even
more
in
a
much
more
relaxed
environment
of
the
business
world
where
the
stress
is
kind
of
a
different
type
of
stress.

And
so,
you
know,
it
I
think
is
a
very
natural
progression
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
business
is
just
leading
people
to
accomplish
something.
And
there’s
a
lot
of
similarities
to
what
the
military
is
doing
in
the
same
way.

JS:
When
you’re
looking
at
businesses
to
invest
in,
do
you
look
at
the
founders
and
the
experiences
they’ve
had
in
the
past?
Maybe
it’s
not
military
experience,
but
do
you
look
for
extraordinary
experiences
in
founders
when
you’re
thinking
about
investing
in
their
companies?

AP:
We’re
looking
for
winners
and
winning
can
come
in
many
different
forms.
But
when
you’re
evaluating
a
founder,
you
want
to
find
someone
who
is
going
to
be
able
to
get
the
job
done.
In
that,
depending
on
the
industry,
depending
on
the
stage
of
the
company,
depending
on
a
lot
of
the
competitive
components
to
what
they’re
doing,
can
be
very,
very
different.
Sometimes
you
need
somebody
who
is
very
type
A
personality,
somebody
who
has
a
long
track
record
of
success.
But
then
other
times,
you
actually
need
somebody
who
is
much
more
kind
of
introverted,
much
younger,
much
more
technical,
and
frankly,
is
too
naive
to
understand
what
they’re
trying
to
do
is
possible.
And
so
really
understanding,
what
is
the
task
at
hand
and
what
is
the
type
of
person
who’s
most
likely
to
be
successful
here.
It’s
a
case
by
case
scenario.

JS:
All
right,
we
got
one
minute
left.
got
to
ask
you,
I’ve
asked
you
what
your
worst
investment
you
ever
made
was.
What’s
the
best?

AP:
Probably
investing
in
my
family.
you
know,
if,
I
kept
the
scorecard
of
all
the
financial
investments,
you
know,
I
probably
would,
would
be
pretty
proud
of
that.
But
frankly,
all
of
the
financial
investments
don’t
stack
up
to,
kind
of
just
investing
in,
you
know,
human
relationships
and,
making
sure
that
you’re
happy
every
day.
And,
you
know,
if
you
can
remember
that,
all
of
the
investing
is
just
a
game
that
we
play
on
the
internet.
It’s
a
lot
easier
to
not
get
too
excited
when
things
are
going
well
and
not
get
too
down
when
things
aren’t
going
well.