Happy Bitcoin Tuesday, freaks.

It's your host, Odell, here for another civil dispatch.

The show focused on interactive, Bitcoin and Freedom Tech discussion.

Well, actually, it hasn't been too interactive lately, but actionable Bitcoin and Freedom Tech discussion.

I have a great show lined up today.

Right now, the time is it's December 16.

It is seventeen hundred UTC.

The current block height is nine two eight one four nine.

The current Bitcoin price is $87,700.

SaaS per dollar is $1,140.

And I should have this uploaded to y'all, within a few hours after, we finish up here.

As always, dispatch is a 100% audience funded.

We have no ads or sponsors.

It is brought to you guys by viewers like you who support the show with Bitcoin donations.

The two largest zaps of last week was stimmy 40 h p w said mandibles and Bitcoin standard is a great meme because it accurately and succinctly describes all of human history and psychology.

That zap was 21,000.

And the second largest one was from ride or die freak mav 21 with 10,000 sats.

He said great rip.

Easiest way to interact with the show is is through Nostr.

I really like Primal App.

I'm involved in building it out.

But any Nostr app works.

All relevant links are at silldispatch.com.

Share with your friends and family.

Really does go a long way.

Anyway, Freaks, great show lined up.

I have, someone who has become a a good friend, in the tangential Bitcoin space.

We have Anjan here.

He's focused on building out.

He's a professional journalist or an independent professional journalist by career, and he's focused on building out what I like to call the open sets for independent journalism.

It's called the Stringer Foundation.

How's it going, Anjan?

Welcome to the show.

Hey, Odell.

It's great to be here, and, thank you for having me on the show.

I'm excited to speak about journalism and Bitcoin, Nostra, and how these worlds intersect.

So me and Anjan first met in 2021 at an HRF event in Miami.

That was a fascinating conversation down our our our friendship since then.

Anjan, why don't you give them a little context?

Give the freaks a little bit of context, of of your background Sure.

Of your history.

I'm I'm a war reporter.

I report on conflict and dictatorship.

Grew up in India.

I studied at Yale, studied mathematics, had a job as a quant as a mathematician at Goldman Sachs, and turned that down, bought a one way ticket to Kinshasa because I'd read in the New York Times a little article that four million people had died.

Now the number is six million.

And I didn't understand why that story wasn't on the front page.

So went down the rabbit hole.

And twenty years later, I've covered, you know, multiple wars, multiple dictatorships.

And now, working in Mexico where, I cover environmental conflict.

I feel it's a great conflict of our time.

I spoke about it at on TED's main stage last year, and, philanthropist came up to me and said, hey.

Listen.

We're really inspired.

How can we have 50 of you around the world?

How can we have young people be in touch with you?

Would you start a foundation?

And so here we are with the Stringer Foundation, which, you know, scales up courageous journalism and supports journalists like myself around the world who are working under pressure, under attack with with, very little institutional support.

Love it.

Yeah.

Freaks, you might have caught Anjan laughing there.

The original conversation we had was I was drinking, and Anjan was drinking on the rooftop.

I you had a drink in your hand.

Right?

I'm sure I did.

Yeah.

On the rooftop of some, like, swanky Miami hotel in 2021.

And he comes up to me, and he's like, just so you work in Bitcoin.

I was like, yeah.

I work in Bitcoin.

And he's like, so, what do you say to people who are like, Bitcoin is used by criminals and terrorists and whatnot?

And then I gave him a lengthy answer.

It started, like, this long conversation, maybe, like, fifteen, twenty minutes into it.

I turned to him.

I was like, so what do you do for a living?

And he goes, I'm a journalist, and my just heart just, like, completely stopped.

But, anyway, he never wrote a he never wrote a, trash piece that took my comments out of context and went after my character.

So shout out, Anjan.

Thank you, man.

No.

I I'm I'm grateful for the openness and the friendship we've shared since then.

Yeah.

I remember that rooftop conversation well.

I told Anjan now before I ever I get asked that question a lot.

Now before I ever answer that question, I ask people what they do for a living before I answer.

And we reconnected.

Yeah.

We reconnected in Nashville this year, another HRF event, and Matt was like, I remember you.

And I told him what I was doing, and he said straight away, he was like, this is open sets for independent journalism.

And, and I was like, wow.

That's such a succinct, incredible way of, of of summarizing what we do.

So I wanna before we get into the Stringer Foundation, because, I mean, I think, you know, free speech and and quality information is something that is very dear to my heart.

And I think there's a lot of overlap here with Bitcoin and Nasr.

But before we get there, just a little bit on the on your history war reporting because I find that fascinating.

Obviously, there's still there's, you know, many conflicts around the world, right now.

And, you you know, I mean, very recently, we had we have Thailand and Cambodia, and then, obviously, the big one for the last few years has been Ukraine and Russia.

It feels very different.

Like, when I was growing up, like, the standard war reporting was, you know, like, CNN reporter or Reuters reporter, like, in Baghdad or something with, like, big cameras and a whole production operation going on and then pharmaceutical ads in between and stuff.

But now because of, like, social media, everything's just getting streamed directly raw.

What are your what are your what are your thoughts on, like, this new era of war reporting and the issues with it, the benefits of it?

I don't know.

It's it's weird.

Like, I don't like, never before in humanity has someone, like, opened up x or something and just seem like a GoPro from some, like, random 20 year old in Russia.

Yeah.

I think it's really exciting.

I think, you know, and it it's we're seeing we're living in a time where I think there's a growing distrust of media organizations and institutions, and people are leaning into and moving towards and trusting individuals.

And that's partly because those individuals, like you say, can connect directly with audiences.

It's unmediated.

There's no editorial oversight in between, which has its plus and minuses.

But, I think it's a really exciting time for journalists and what journalism is, what forms journalism can take.

You know, I take a really broad view of what journalism did.

I what journalism is, what how how it's defined.

I did a I did a PhD in in journalism, and, one of the things I came up, came out at was every culture has its own way of doing journalism.

Wherever there's power and a concentration of power, there's an abuse of power, and you need journalism.

And I define journalism as any public media that holds the abuse of power accountable.

In The Middle East, journalism takes a form of public poetry.

In Iran, it takes a form of rap and music.

In some countries, visual art.

Some places, rumors, oral stories.

And I think we're at a very unique and powerful and beautiful moment where we're starting to consider these other forms, that are not the traditional western kind of journalistic article that's written in a confrontational tone.

And I'm very excited for to bring all of these creators, whom I would call journalists, you know, under one umbrella, support them, and support free speech and, you know, holding accountable perpetrators of violence and abuses of power, which is what I've done most of my career, but holding accountable these perpetrators around the world, you know, enabling and empowering all these people.

Yeah.

I mean, that seems like a very important mission.

I mean so but there's, like, there's I just wanna break this down for a second because there's to me, there's two different aspects here.

Right?

So we're we're seeing the fall in credibility of these large media organizations.

Right?

Like, no I mean, very very few people in my peer group are getting their news from CNN.

Right?

And so so we've seen we've seen a rise in independent journalists, which is kind of a broad stroke pattern because, you know, there's different levels to it and how people take it.

You know?

But but they're they're they're usually just one person.

They're usually just one person, and they've built up a reputation, and and people want to hear their thoughts on different things.

Right?

And maybe they're submitting maybe they're publishing to Substack or TikTok or x or YouTube or whatever, but it's usually like a one man operation.

Maybe they have a small production team or something.

But then you also have people that are are not journalists, like the raw footage stuff.

Right?

Like, I'm I like, some 18 year old conscript in Ukraine that's just wearing a GoPro and uploading it to Telegram.

So so I guess my question just to just to I I just wanna drill in a little bit more here.

Like, where does the relation like, how do you view that situation in comparison to the greater journalism, like, landscape?

Right?

Like, the I feel like most of the footage I'm watching or I'm seeing is not from a, quote, unquote, independent journalist or a large media organization.

Right?

It's like this raw footage that maybe then gets syndicated out.

Yeah.

I think, you know, the difference between that raw live streamer and, a journalist, I would say, are two things.

One, a journalist you know, a streamer or someone giving you raw footage is more likely and open to providing their opinion.

And a a a a a journalist and, you know, it might be subjective, and a journalist would try to stick to the facts, what facts that they can verify.

And the second thing is, which is very important, I think, is a journalist will try if they're criticizing someone, they'll try to speak to the other side.

They'll try to give them a a shout.

They'll try to give them a call.

They'll reach out to them and at least say they were declined to comment or something like that.

And I feel like those two things that you're just based on facts and you're, trying to get the other side of the story, at least trying.

If you if you if you can't, that's okay, but you're trying.

That sort of distinguishes the journalists from the raw footage.

And I think the journalists are empowered by the people you're describing, you know, the transcript who's uploading footage.

I'm you know, to your point about independent journalists, I'm a one man show.

I have been for twenty years.

I, you know, follow my nose.

My strength is that met much of the mainstream media misses stories, doesn't wanna report it.

There's all kinds of complex politics and geopolitics involved, but I can follow my nose, and I can go and get the story that I think is important.

And if one media outlet won't publish it, I can find somebody else.

And that's the strength of the stringer.

That's the strength of the independent journalist.

They'll find somebody with a huge audience, with a huge distribution platform that will publish the story.

And, and that's how I've kind of, you know, went to Congo when I was 22, uncovered, you know, mass graves there, spoke spoke to perpetrators of violence, warlords, who then subsequently went to The Hague, and I testified there.

But I really tried to get a human side of the story, their side of the story behind the front line.

And this kind of philosophy of independence of trying to figure out for myself what's going on in the world.

Is Russia at fault?

Is Ukraine at fault?

You know?

What what's actually happening?

That's what I pride myself on.

My independence is my, is my most valuable asset.

So, Amit, on on on your personal in in your in your personal capacity as a journalist lately, like, what is your what is your preferred publishing mechanism?

How do you is it Substack?

Or No.

I I mean, I don't have a Substack.

I, what gives me a kick is getting underreported stories into mainstream media.

So convincing a curator at TED to, you know, allow me to speak about indigenous environmental defenders in Mexico when most of their talks are about AI.

Convincing the New York Times or BBC to publish a story about, you know, the frontline or remote frontline in Congo.

And so they give you a byline in that situation?

Like, if you're in BBC, it's like you write the piece and then you or you're you're submitting it to them?

Yep.

I get a byline.

They pay me, usually a pittance.

You know?

Usually, the New York Times or BBC will pay me, like, $500 for a story.

That's pretty good.

It doesn't cover the gas bill.

It's it's like a joke.

And and more than that, you know, not only do I not get much money for this, when I'm in danger, I don't know who to call.

You know?

There's nobody to call.

There's nobody really protecting me.

Nobody who has my back.

I'm kind of on my own.

And there are thousands of us around the world who are really committed to getting these stories, independent stories without support.

And part of that support, it's double edged sword.

We don't wanna be bought.

We can't be bought by anyone.

We can't be influenced by anyone.

That's our our source of pride.

But the flip side of that means that we don't get support when we need it.

Yeah.

Right.

Because the support comes with strings attached.

I mean, on that note, on the on the pittance of ethical journalism, the pittance of, of, financial incentive for ethical journalism, I wanna pull on that string a little bit because, I mean, I feel like the early days of the Internet, now a lot of people said and, people still say it.

I you hear it all the time, especially with, like, the Joe Rogan's and stuff that, you know, corporate media is pay to play, independent media fixes this.

But I'll use Joe as an example, and I have a lot of respect for Joe and what he's built.

But, like, Joe will say that with a straight face, and then he'll have ten minutes of really just shitty ads on his show.

And and and so what I've seen is if you actually follow the financial incentives, independent media doesn't really solve any of the core issues of corporate media.

Like, it's still it's still, you know, engagement bait clicks are what drives everything, and then funneling that attention basically into the highest bidder, is what makes the most money.

From your perspective, you know, like, a a way to distill it the way I think about it is is like influencer swap.

Like, the people that have the most the largest audiences on x or TikTok or whatever are not ethical journalists.

They are people that maybe are calling themselves journalists.

Maybe they're not calling themselves journalists, but they're reporting basically clickbait news with their own bias and spin to it because they know their audience will be more likely to share it and click it and and raise them or whatever, play to their fears.

How do we how do you solve that?

Is it even solvable?

I think, you know, the media has been decimated.

The media is generally in crisis.

The media has been decimated by digital trends.

Even major news organizations, their revenues have been shocked.

Their influence has decreased, shortly.

Media ownership has become highly concentrated.

Authoritarianism is on the rise.

They're attacking journalists.

Corporate lawyers are now, you know, going after journalists, using slap lawsuits.

It's a really, really hard time to be a journalist.

And to top it all, you know, these revenue streams are so meager.

How do you how do you make a living?

And, you know, I think there are a couple of avenues to explore.

There's a philanthropic avenue, and there's a for profit, like, media platform kind of, direction, solution that you can explore.

And my focus right now has been on the philanthropic avenue.

And I think, you know, journalists as a community, we're not hugely motivated by money.

As mentioned, you know, I I had a job at Goldman Sachs.

Many journalists, independent journalists could have worked elsewhere, made made much more money.

We're motivated by societal recognition.

We want society to say to us, you recognize that the risks we take are worth it, that the sacrifices and the service we're providing is useful.

And that's what drives us and, you know, gets us up out of bed every day.

And I think the philanthropic play that I've come upon is to create a prize.

There is no global prize that recognizes all journalists on an even playing field.

The Pulitzers are only open to US organizations, which is something not many people know.

Fucking crazy to me.

You told me that.

Yeah.

And and, you know, it's it's a bit like, you know, world champions, but it's only open to US organizations.

Oh, geez.

You know, there's no there's no, there's no rec I I know so many incredible journalists, brave journalists in Mexico, Angola, Cambodia.

There's no way to recognize them.

And so I think for the same quantum of money, say you have a million dollars, you can give 10 k grants to a 100 journalists, or you can hand out that million dollars as prizes and fellowships that elevates these journalists, puts them on a platform, on a pedestal, and shows them off to the world and, you know, describes them as the heroes they are.

That way of spending the same quantum of money, the same million dollars, mobilizes, galvanizes, inspires tens or hundreds of thousands around the world, of journalists who care about this work and who want to vie for that price.

And I think that's the philanthropic model.

You provide unrestricted grants like the MacArthur Foundation.

You, provide, you know, funding that ensures people can live a a decent dignified livelihood.

They use the money for whatever their needs are because they've proven their commitment to journalism.

And, and we provide them the platform, the publicity, the connections, and the you know, all the things that they need, all the scaffolding support that they need to do their job safely and well and with a degree of recognition.

So that's that's the philanthropic solution.

I think the for profit solution that you've alluded to is, is a much more complex discussion.

Like, what is what is the future of publishing?

That's that's really hard to answer.

It's revolving pretty rapidly.

Did I hear you say in passing that you used to work at Goldman Sachs?

I had a job at Goldman Sachs as a mathematician.

Interesting.

Yeah.

I so I graduated in math at, you know, pure math.

I was on India's physics Olympiad kind of I was a finalist on in the Shit.

Physics Olympiad team.

So I was working at a pretty high level in math and physics.

But, and I had I could have gone down this path of doing mathematics for for banks.

You were like a quantum training, basically.

Exactly.

And, actually, the unit that hired me wanted me to be between the quants and the clients.

The example my interviewer gave me was the chief investment officer of the Vatican has invested a billion $1,000,000,000 with Goldman Sachs in all these quant tools.

You need to explain to them what happens if the market shifts, and you need to understand the model, and you need to be able to communicate with them.

And so it used my both my skills sort of in a unique way.

But, ultimately, I I sort of bought this one way ticket to Kinshasa in Congo, began to report, caught the bug, and, didn't turn back, you know, to that world.

I I don't think I need to tell you, but I think that other path would have been quite lucrative.

I think so.

Yeah.

I think, you know, especially, I I was in 2005, and then, you know, back then, the high speed high frequency trading was just coming on, you know, being invented.

And I would have totally surfed that that wave.

But like I said, I think, you know, part of what motivates me and many of my journalist colleagues is serving society and recognition from society that, you know, these risks are worthwhile.

The service is worthwhile, and so it's been a very different path.

It's been interesting because I've now gone back to some of my friends in in banking and said to them, hey.

Support us.

And have you have you gotten a decent, what is their response when you when you ask for support?

You know, I think it's it's surprisingly positive maybe.

You know?

I think there's, the hedge funds and financial world understands the importance of free information flows.

And, I think there's also a desire to do good.

So I've had some productive conversations in that space.

And, I would say, also, interestingly, also in the Bitcoin space, I think the values of Bitcoin, Nostra, decentralized technologies, uncensorable technologies, these are very aligned with independent reporting and, you know, what our mission in the world.

Yeah.

I, I mean, I think there's becoming more and more awareness that, you know, we have a that this is, like, a foundational problem.

Right?

This is a fundamental problem with digital society is, I mean, what I was it was probably best distilled first by Trump and then by anti Trump people, but, like, the fake news.

Right?

And this idea of this is something you hear all the time.

It's been you know, the Overton window has been moved.

This is something that the average person, I think, maybe doesn't think about it that often, but they know it exists, and at least wants to have quality information.

And probably the more sophisticated someone is, the the more they think about it.

I, I mean, on the philanthropy versus sustainable business side, this is something that, you know, I wrestle with all the time with my personal and professional life.

I mean, I think OpenSats has been a massive force for good for open source development, and I think it's accelerated the movement significantly.

But then on the opposite side, I wear my ten thirty one hat, and we're trying to bootstrap profitable businesses that are sustainable.

And I will say as someone who has worked as a volunteer for OpenSats since we founded it, You know, it's a it's a grind.

Like, I it's not sustainable.

It's not a sustainable thing.

It's it's it's I it's when you throw fuel on a fire, then you have to go and get more fuel.

Right?

But, ideally, what you want is, you know, some kind of fusion reactor or something that doesn't need more fuel and just keeps going.

And that's what capitalism is, you know, in in terms of financial support and financial backing.

And on the journalism side, I mean, it's not a perfect, you know, that's not a perfect metaphor.

But on the like, in terms of corporate media, one of the organizations that I've had more respect for for a decent amount of time, maybe less so lately, has been Bloomberg.

And that's because their business model is not an advertising business model.

Right?

Their business model is not a clicks based business model.

They're making money basically on the side doing b two b stuff with their terminals and whatnot, and that fund funds the journalism.

And so finding, like, analogs to that and, obviously, once again, not perfect.

But finding analogs to that in the in the, like, independent space is interesting to me.

I don't pretend like there's an obvious solution, and in some situations, there probably isn't.

I don't know.

I'm being long winded here, but I I know you have seen some credible people, I guess, be able to monetize on Substack.

But I think it's it's very few and far between.

It's not really something that can be replicated at scale.

Right?

Yeah.

It's a it's a winners take all environment as social media and the Internet, you know, often is, you know, there's a few winners.

They succeed.

A lot of people try.

A lot of people fail.

I think, you know, from from our end, that's where I think the prize has to be a catalyst.

I mean, we're not planning to trying to fix journalism with on a $2,000,000 budget annually.

That's just not possible.

But if the if the winners can you know, the stringer laureate and stringer finalist, stringer fellow becomes a cache because of the people involved.

You know, we have AG Salzberger.

We have David Remnick, editors of, you know, The New York Times, New Yorker, Christian Amanpour at CNN.

They're not influencing anybody's reporting, but they're lending their names and credibility.

We have a Nobel, peace laureate handing out the awards next year.

If all this credibility can help the the the journalist kind of accelerate their career, gain credibility, especially for someone from Angola or Cambodia or Congo who doesn't have access to these networks to be recognized, to be associated with these names, to be able to you know, I spoke with the New York Times.

They they said, put put your 40 finalists in front of us.

We wanna we want for us, it's a talent pipeline.

So, you know, getting cutting through all those layers of of of, connections and, and separation and connecting these journalists, these really brave, great journalists to resources, attached to a credible brand, prestigious brand that we're building.

Hopefully, that you know, like a Nobel Laureate, people that becomes a moniker for life.

Whenever you refer to someone, you say they're Nobel Laureate, and that opens doors at universities, you know, publications, all kinds of support.

Yeah.

That makes sense.

Yeah.

Wherever there is support, they can find it.

And these supports aren't limited to, you know, western journalists or journalists like myself who went to Yale and, you know, have certain connections, trying to bridge that gap.

And the the the the model is that it should be multiplicative.

Every year, the winner does what I'm doing.

The winner opens up their networks, opens up their resources, opens up their publishing connections and mentors the younger journalists so that in five years, we have a multiplied out sort of, you know, network of partners and support, and it's not just, Anjan's network.

Right.

Yeah.

No.

I mean, the prize makes a lot of sense to me.

I think it compounds well.

It scales better than just grants alone.

I mean, because as it has more cache, then it becomes more effective, and then it just it's like a beautiful feedback loop.

The one thing to keep in mind is I'm sure I don't have to tell you.

Just don't let it become Forbes 30 under 30, which is actually like a negative signal now.

Exactly.

I would not do not back any companies that are in Forbes founders that are in Forbes 30 under 30.

But that's actually a perfect example of incentives.

Right?

Because Forbes 30 under 30 is not a nonprofit.

Their most valuable asset is not their reputation and their credibility.

It's actually clicks.

And so now I think every year, it's, like, 300 people are selected.

The list keeps expanding.

And they it's like, follower counts are more important, than actually what they're doing.

Well, let's so there's two pieces here.

So first of all, when did you start the Stringer Foundation?

We launched it last year.

Okay.

Right after my TED talk in in about May.

It's been it's been a whirlwind of a year.

You know, as I mentioned, we've gotten these major media organizations, the leaders of them to support us.

CNN, New Yorker, New York Times, Committee to Protect Journalists, a whole bunch of organizations in this space.

We've, obviously got our five zero one c three status.

Building partnerships with organizations like the World Liberty Congress, the Human Rights Foundation, HRF, where we met, all kind of pivotal support.

We've launched our applications.

Our deadline is December 31 in two weeks.

We've already got more than 300 applicants from around the world.

We have really amazing journalists have gone through this.

That's awesome.

Really, you know, outstanding people, who deserve support.

And we have our jury, including some very prestigious folks who will choose.

I won't choose the winners.

I built this.

I have a hand in this too much of a hand in this anyway.

And so it'll be a jury, an independent jury that chooses the winners.

And, we have an anchor donor who's covered our operational costs.

And, basically, I'm on the road raising two things.

I'm raising, money to hand out to journalists, you know, with the pitch that every dollar we raise will go straight to the journalists, and we are, you know, exploring traditional fundraising, Bitcoin fundraising.

Our website accepts Bitcoin donations and traditional donations.

And, we're raising an endowment like OpenSets.

That's our long term sustainable, model, where we raise $50,000,000.

It's five zero, at 4% that produces a $2,000,000 annual budget that funds our lean team and a million dollars in direct cash to journalists.

What are you gonna do?

Put it in treasuries?

I don't think Bitcoin you're gonna get your 4%.

Well, if you put a Bitcoin, it should be more than 4%.

But, probably, you know, it depends on the donor.

Yeah.

The OpenSets endowment moves up and down, like, 15% every week.

I don't know.

Everyone can stomach that volatility, but I highly recommend it.

Exactly.

I think, you know, if you're I think you both in the traditional stock market and Bitcoin, if you're willing to stomach that kind of, volatility and you have enough of a a buffer, it can serve you well.

So I I would say, you know, depends on the donor.

We are accepting donations Bitcoin.

We will pay journalists in Bitcoin.

It's just gonna be far easier than going through the banking system to pay journalists around the world.

Way easier.

Yeah.

It's Bitcoin sucks at force it if I were you.

A 100%.

And, you know, if you we even made a sizzle video, and I was filming in six countries around the world.

It was just I I onboarded so many people.

Like, there's not a the open sats we have a strict policy.

Like, you get approved for a grand, you get paid in Bitcoin.

We have never had a I mean, it's a little bit different because a lot of the recipients are Bitcoin developers, but a lot aren't as well.

You know, we fund open source software that is tangentially you know, what it doesn't have to be directly Bitcoin related, to be funded.

We've never had a single person complain.

Be like, oh, like, you just sent me, you know, $4,000.

Like, how do I use it?

Like, they figure it out.

They they're very happy for the financial support, and it makes our job like, we couldn't we're sending out grants to 40 plus countries, 200 recipients a month.

Like, we can't do that with wires.

It's just I don't even know if it's possible.

Let definitely not nearly as efficiently as we do it.

100%.

And the same for us.

We, you know, we made this video.

I was paying cameramen and fixers and, you know, production people in six different countries from Myanmar to Uganda.

There was no way the traditional system we it would have eaten up all their pay in in bank transfer fees.

And I onboarded all of them onto BlueWallet, sent them a dollar.

They received it.

I sent them the rest.

They were they were thrilled.

It was just instantaneous.

And, and now they're on Bitcoin, and they can see their portfolio go up and down, but, you know, over the long term, generally up.

And I think, it's it's education.

It's, supporting people to make themselves free of the financial system and sustainable self sustaining, across the world.

So, yeah, we will use Bitcoin to pay journalists.

I would say on the actual endowment, the structure, it's gonna depend on, to some degree, on donors.

Some traditional donors, old school folks are really, really still worried about Bitcoin.

But I would say we would push in the direction of Bitcoin and be aggressive in that direction as much as we can.

Oh, man.

We don't wanna exclude anybody.

So you potential.

That makes sense.

So you have two pieces here.

I, you have the grants, and then you have the, the prize the the the award.

So the 300 applicants, are they applying for grants, or are they applying to be considered for the awards?

They've been con applying for across the board.

So we just ask them to application.

It's the same thing.

It's one application.

We don't wanna make it onerous.

I'm a journalist.

I filled out, you know, hundreds of applications that went nowhere.

I don't wanna I'm I'm a journalist.

I'm building this for journalists.

So it's a fifteen to twenty minute application, that we then, score internally.

It's from journalists across a range of experience, like, from three years of experience to twenty years of experience.

So we use that to separate roughly where they are in their career journey and what they're eligible for.

The earlier the inexperienced journalists or less experienced journalists are more likely to win grants unless they're truly outstanding, and the more experienced journalists will be eligible for the award.

So there's a pipeline.

There's grants.

There's a junior fellowship.

There's a senior fellowship, and then there's the award, the string of prize.

And so we we we we do that internally.

We don't put that burden on them, and we're flexible.

If there's a journalist with ten years of experience who's just done incredibly outstanding work, then, of course, they're up for the price.

You know, we we measure in our in our application.

We measure how much they've done with the resources that they have.

You know, an American journalist who has access to a lot of resources, who's unlikely to be thrown in jail or have their bank accounts frozen or, you know, their family members killed just has a higher bar than an Angolan journalist for whom that's a daily risk and reality to be thrown in prison, denied food, and bank account shut down and stuff like that.

And so if the we we the the scoring system that we have, it's a courage index that weights, you know, the persistence of the journalist in the face of danger, the kind of journalist journalism they're doing, how they're holding power accountable, the scope, the scale, the story.

We invite applications applicants from around the world.

We want to be inclusive.

We don't wanna extort anybody.

We don't wanna end up with prize winners being the best, you know, female journalist or the best global South journalist or the best Angolan journalist or the best African journalist.

No.

We would just want the best journalist period.

And that's our that's our pitch.

That's our value add to the world of journalism.

And I think we're also gonna inspire and push global North journalists, like American journalists, to up their game.

You know?

You have so much security relative to a Cambodian journalist.

What are you doing with it?

Are you showing as much courage?

You know, push push and, you know, get these stories that need to be told, that, you know, many media institutions and authorities don't want to be don't want published.

Push for those, and we are the forum that will recognize and honor you and and finance you.

So the prize winner will will be half a Nobel, half a Nobel prize.

It's half $1,000,000.

And, senior fellowship is 150 k.

Junior fellowship is 75 k.

And the grants are, like, one off 10 k grants.

You know, some donors the grants are really for certain specific kinds of donors that, say, oh, we have, like, 50 k.

We just wanna give it to you.

We're like, great.

You know, throw it in.

We'll send it through our pipeline, through our same infrastructure and process.

It'll be vetted, independently chosen journalists, and we'll hand out the money.

No problem.

Money in, money out.

And so Are you going to, so that so 50, that would be, like, five journalists, 10 k one time grants.

Are you gonna send them, like, a little pamphlet?

Like, these are the journalists you bought?

Or Sure.

Yes.

And I think some of these donors are starting not bought.

Sorry.

This is very intensely provided.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

These are journalists you supported.

And I think some of these donors wanna start with 50 k, but, you know, you know, the or they have only 50 k, but maybe over time, though, they could bring together far greater resources.

So I wanna give them a a way to to participate without, without saying no to them.

That's something that I I fight with a lot, internally, while building out OpenSats is that, like, big charity is a real thing and in a bad way.

And the the standard for the really large charities is, you know, they're sending you I mean, I'll I'll use an example.

For my dad's birthday a couple years ago, I got him I I donated in his name to, an organization that funds mind clearing mind clearing rats.

Okay.

And, because it was just crazy, but also it's for good cause.

But, like, these rats, like, go out, and they're they're not blowing up on the mines on the landmines.

They're they actually can sniff the landmines.

They can they're trained to sniff the landmines, and then they they tell the human handler to go and remove the landmine.

And they're they're light enough that they don't blow up when they touch the landmine.

That's why they don't use dogs or something like that.

It's, like, smart smart enough, but light enough, to detect the landmines.

And we get I followed I followed yeah.

I followed these crews in Cambodia, actually, wherever Yeah.

It's pretty cool.

Yeah.

But, like and, like, part of the cool part is, like, my dad gets all the updates.

It's like, you get to name the rat, and it's like the rat's named Bob.

And it's like Bob just went to pre k, and then Bob went to class today, and he learned this or whatever.

And we're getting all these emails.

And, obviously, there's, like, a donate button on the bottom.

We're getting all these emails, blah blah blah.

Bob cleared mine today.

You're getting all these updates.

And that stuff costs, like it costs a lot of money, like, from, like, labor just human labor alone on, like, putting together this stuff and sending it out.

And so with OpenSats, for instance, like, we've opted out of most of that.

Like, we don't have the glamorous reports.

We don't have the galas.

We don't do all that stuff to try and keep it more efficient and more lean.

You know, by design, we don't take a cut of donations.

But it kinda has it it definitely has hurt our at least short term, it has hurt our ability to raise, scale donations and get more donations.

And it's an interesting balancing.

I I don't know if it's something you've thought about a lot because there's there's definitely, credence to it when done properly, but I think there's also a lot of room for inefficiency to kind of move into that.

Yeah.

We're actually putting together our end of the year update, our first, like, you know, real update to everybody.

You're gonna receive one.

We're crafting that.

I'm trying to automate everything as much as possible, but still customize and personalize it so people really feel like there's a connection with me.

I think it's you know, our our model is similar to yours.

We wanna be as lean as as cheap as possible.

We want the majority of money to go to the journalists.

Out of the $2,000,000 annual budget, 1,000,000 is straight cash to the journalist.

Half 1,000,000 is programmatic support to the journalist, mental health, legal support, other kinds of support.

And our team is half 1,000,000.

It's super lean.

That said, you're good.

Pollution in Mexico is sunny these days, and it's not the best time of the year for me.

But that said, we are a media organization.

I have naturally a lot of connections in the media being a journalist who care about this cause.

You know, a friend of mine in the New York Times was like, yeah.

Let's explore how we can publicize your finalists and your winners in the New York Times.

I'm pitching Christiana Manpour to be on our show.

At least have the winners, or the finalists on their on our show.

And these connections are very natural to us.

I think where a lot of organizations would pay for publicity, we're lucky in the sense that we have those connections naturally.

So I'm trying to leverage that as much as I can, not pay PR firms.

I met someone a few days ago that paid half $1,000,000 for, like, a for a media publicity campaign for another prize that they were setting up.

Insane.

Insane.

And that was at a discount.

They hired Apple That was that was a scam.

I think so.

And so, yeah, I believe in building organically, building small, building slow, you know, being able to low overhead so you can, you know, weather the storms that come your way, and creating something.

The success of this is gonna be longevity.

It's gonna be doing being consistent year after year, the same process, the same prestige, the same integrity, raising the funds.

And, over time, it's just gonna gain the prestige that that that it deserves and be a lasting infrastructure.

And so that's my general, you know, drift.

That's how I live.

That's how I've been able to do journalism.

You know, at $500 a story for so long, I've been able to live cheap and, you know, build an infrastructure that that, has a lot of impact, has a lot of reach.

My stories reach millions of people, but the costs are kept intentionally very low.

And I think the same thing is true of many of the journalists that we support.

And, that makes sense to me.

I, I mean so the other piece the other piece that I wanted to get your your insight on or how you think about it, when I'm building out OpenSats is, that I've been thinking about a lot as I build out OpenSats.

It's something I like I call the tenure problem, like, teaching tenure.

And and it's it's a twofold problem in my mind.

The first problem is, I think, you know, what a lot of people think when they hear tenure in academia, which is that you have, you know, just a lack of work work ethic happens.

You know, people get lazy, like, after five years, six years of being on tenure.

I mean, there's some there's some amazing teachers that are on tenure, but there's also a group of teachers that basically have job security, and they just stop showing proof of work.

They stop actually doing real work that is actually moving the needle.

So that's one piece.

And then the second piece is I think it creates a dependency.

Right?

It it creates this dependency on the organization that is funding their bills.

So that at its core, they kind of start to lack independence, at least in in motivation and and and and and making things happen.

And so where do why do I bring this up?

I bring this up because we talk about a lot of times, like, okay.

We get like this let's say top of the top.

Right?

Because we have a whole wide variety of open source contributors that we fund from, like, very small to just, like, really legendary contributors that the Internet relies on and people don't realize the Internet relies on.

There's, like, 20 of them.

Incredible.

People getting how do you think about okay.

So just to sum this all up, how do you think about people getting, like, long term grants?

Because the the the opposite side of that, right, too is, like, if you are a, incredibly impressive cryptographer or open source contributor, we want you working on open source software.

I don't want you to have to think about when you get the next grant.

Like, oh, does my grant end in six months?

Do I need to renew it and add more applications?

Am I gonna be able to afford my rent?

Right?

You don't wanna have to think of all that.

You want them to be, like, free to to actually do what's important and focus on their craft.

So that's the benefit of long term support, and the negative would be this tenure problem that I'm saying.

Like, how how do you think about that?

I think, you know, it's exactly as you described.

There's an elite group of people who, who are worth that and who've proven their commitment.

In journalism, for certainly, there's an elite group of people who are unrecognized in the world, and that's the problem today, who have persisted in journalism despite, you know, being imprisoned and, being threatened and having family members killed or bank accounts frozen and so on.

And still they persist.

They still do this work.

And I think that burden of due diligence is on us.

We've gotta choose the committed people who deserve that kind of unrestricted support.

And I agree for the vast majority, that kind of unrest or for a lot of people that un unrestricted support might lead to very variable outcomes.

And that's why you start with smaller grants and you, you know, give them some encouragement and you tell them the tenure is there for a very elite group, come join and be part of that elite group.

Maybe you get a couple of bad apples along the way.

I think that's the cost of doing this kind of work of, of picking these these really committed journalists.

But I would I I liked that model where you pick the people who've proven their commitment.

The burden is on us to choose those people.

They don't need to prove anything.

They've already proven themselves amply to the world, and we fund them.

And I think to them, the kind of unrestricted support that you're talking about is truly transformative.

And I don't think yeah.

I don't It's not it's not my wheelhouse really at all.

But, like, I'm kinda curious.

Like, from my perspective, like, I feel like if there's, like like, 10 really quality independent journalists that are just allowed to cook, like, like, just just run with it.

Like, you don't have to worry.

You know, you're getting a 150 k a year or something.

Like, a real salary.

You're getting, like, a real salary per year with no strings attached and just cook.

Just, like, make just produce really good independent ad free journalism.

Like, that would move the needle significantly.

I feel like that is not is am I wrong in that?

You know, a 100%.

I that I a 100%.

I think the good I think a good analogy is, the MacArthur grants.

They pick outstanding people, and they give them 160 k a year for five years.

And it's transformative for, what's the background on that?

I'm not familiar with that.

So the MacArthur Genius Award is, you know, MacArthur Foundation has a huge endowment, and they give 800 k grants to a select group of people chosen every year.

800 k grants, spread over five years, so that's 160 per year.

These are for artists and for writers and for, you know, poets, some some researchers.

And it's transformative for a lot of them.

It's especially for the artists, I can speak to that, you know, artists, journalists.

Unfortunately, it's only open to US citizens.

And so I'm not eligible.

Most of the journalists.

After my TED talk, couple of people came up to me and said, we wanna nominate you for MacArthur.

And I was like, don't bother.

I'm not a US citizen.

I'm not eligible.

And that's the problem we're trying to fix.

I think these models exist in these small ecosystems where it does supercharge careers.

I think having 10 journalists on on a on a decent living wage, and we don't even have funding for 10, but we'll have funding for three on our books at any given time.

It would be transformative.

I would be transformative not only for them, it would be transformative, I think, for the whole field to know that that exists.

I've had people reach out to me in the society, like, getting quality journalism.

100%.

It'd be it's it's it's, society benefits from having a sustainable a sustained cohort of reporters who aren't beholden to anybody and who thrive in their independence and have proven to use that independence in a good way.

You know?

Provide fact based, even handed, deep dived, kind of really critical, explosive reporting around the world.

Things that need to be exposed, stories that need to be told.

I really think of journalism, you know, for myself.

I think of what drives me is in some of these bleak places in bleakest places in the world where I've reported, I find some of the most inspiring human beings.

I found people who ordinary people who, have no protection, have little money, but give themselves to a really noble cause.

And I feel a big part of my job is to capture their stories, transmit those stories.

A lot of these people whom I'm writing about, they die, pretty quickly.

They die, like, you know, weeks, months, years after I've seen them because they're doing really high risk work.

My job is to make sure that their spirit doesn't die, and that their spirit, their work, their cause, the risk they took inspires people after their past future generations.

And I think that's kind of at the core of what journalism the kind of journalism that I do, should be about, very humane, inspiring journalism and elevating the best of us.

And I think, you know, we wanna support we wanna expand the support for this kind of reporting because journalism part of the reason why it's in crisis is because journalists have been told that you these kinds of inspiring stories are not what you can monetize.

You monetize information.

And, unfortunately, in the age of AI, information is now commodity.

And we've all been commodified.

Like, the AI chatbots are scraping the New York Times website, and the New York Times just sued OpenAI.

And we're just, like, becoming data feeders for AI engines where people are, you know, getting their information.

And I think journalism has to go back to that core principle for why we why I started off doing this kind of work, which was, which was to find these inspiring stories and transmit them and and provide you know, elevate these beacons of, inspiration of humanity around the world wherever they are.

Love that.

Yeah.

I mean, the AI piece is, is fascinating in its own right.

It should be interesting to see how that plays out.

I don't think anyone can be really certain on the different, you know, outcomes.

There's so many different variables at play, and it's it's still so very it's it's very early on how these tools are working and people are using them, and the pitfalls of them as well.

I mean, I wanna change paces real quick here, before we wrap.

I mean so one of my main focuses has been something called value for value, and that's been both on the Bitcoin side and on the Nostr side and building on Nostr.

And this show.

This show has been going on for five years with no ads, with no sponsors.

No clickbait.

We don't do the big, you know, open mouth thumbnail stuff, bullshit.

We don't do, like, the big engagement headlines, you know, emergency broadcast.

You know, this is gonna end the world.

Yada yada yada yada.

And it's been working, to degree.

I mean, it's been five years.

You know, some episodes earn from donations as much as a New York Times article, which is apparently is just a very low bar.

But but but it's also been very obvious.

Right?

Like, I've seen shows come and go since this was created that have made many, many multiples in terms of money, and, many, many multiples in terms of audience size.

Right?

And they kind of go hand in hand.

I do think I think there's an, you know, I think there are decent amount of people that are ideologically aligned enough to not care as much about the money.

Obviously, people need to live, So they care about money at its core.

Right?

Money as a tool to survive and sustain and thrive.

But I think the audience piece is, maybe even that, like that's hard to wrap your head around ideologically.

Because if you think you're doing good work and you you think the the signal you're spreading is important for society and important for people, and that's why you're doing it, I think it can get quite frustrating for people, feel like there's, you know, spinning their wheels and hitting a fraction of the audience that, like, mister beast is hitting or I don't know.

I I don't really have that many examples on the top of my head, but they're all over the place.

The top guys.

All the top guys.

Right?

With the engagement bullshit.

So you don't you don't watch them.

Yeah.

So what what I see the thumbnails.

So what is, is is I so I really do think there's a real opportunity there.

I think there's a real opportunity.

So so so the audience piece is probably once I get once again, I think I think if we can solve that piece, which is is the beauty of an open protocol like Nasr, where a bunch of independence kind of compound off of each other's network effect.

Kind of like an open version of, I think, what led to a lot of the success of Substack, which is, like, you're not on your own building out an email newsletter or a podcast.

You're part of, like, a greater discovery mechanism that compounds on top of each other.

Mixed with value for value Bitcoin could lead to a sustainable path where some of these at least, you know, I guess across the spectrum where some people can transition from grants and prize money to just, like, direct audience funding.

Is this something that at least, directionally, you agree with as a as a viewpoint?

I think building an audience is is where we have to be.

Right?

How you monetize that audience is the big question.

I think your point earlier on the show or in our conversation was that that often devolves into clickbait, and you being bought by audiences, that's the risk.

What I realized a couple of years ago was that I I'm able to get my stories published in some of the most, you know, in in media with the widest reach.

It's reaching millions of people.

I'm being paid $500.

Is my story worth $500?

No.

I don't think it is.

I think it's worth a lot because it's reaching so many people.

And so how do you monetize that?

Can you get grants?

Can you build organizations that, you know, philanthropically fund that?

That's how the Stringer Foundation came to be.

It's it's funding Yeah.

But the problem with that the problem with that is is is so you're getting you're getting the benefit of New York Times network effect, for instance.

Right?

They're syndicating it out to other people.

But then you're not you're you're actually not getting that audience.

Well, you're getting them for a brief moment in the sun.

Right?

Like, even, like, the beauty even at least something like this podcast, which once again, like I said, I I think has been very valuable to people, but has grown much slower than its peers, is that once someone shares one of these shows, they're like, they like it, they share with their friends and family, then they click subscribe, and then then they're part of the dispatch ecosystem.

Right?

Yeah.

But that doesn't happen that doesn't happen.

Like, you I I I I correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like it makes more sense to maybe use it as a bootstrap mechanism, like, taking advantage of other people's network effects.

But, ideally, you need a place that you actually own, that you control, that you can bring them back home to.

So you're not constantly basically, like, renting land from someone else.

Right?

I agree with that.

I think, ultimately, you have to own your own media organization.

And I think the tools are out there today to do that.

Yeah.

I it's just I again, the Internet you know, that's where I think Nostra and Bitcoin offers some kind of hope for a more, you know, the the original going back to the original idea of the Internet.

Because the Internet today, what it's become is a winner take all kind of environment.

And I don't see I see many, many journalists who've tried to build their own media organizations.

And, frankly, they're more they're more dependent on donations than from any monetizing you know, commercial monetizing ads, for their work.

The ones who tend to be successful with the ads tend to be, like you said, clickbait, engagement, ragebait, all kinds of negative stuff that you don't wanna see.

So how do we solve that for the Internet?

How do we solve that distribution problem?

Hard to say.

Hopeful that, you know, what I spoke about earlier, one of my thesis is that, you know, humane journalism, going back to those inspiring stories, maybe people will care for and pay for that, and that's gonna be easier to monetize than, information, providing timely or information like the wires do.

Maybe that's how the intro the news industry is gonna evolve.

Well, I think it's I mean, what's been success most successful so far, and correct me if I'm wrong, in my opinion is, like, analysis and opinion because that is actually scarce, right, and based on credibility.

Right.

To a certain audience in in sort of in the West, yes, analysis and opinion.

Those kinds of commentators have been able to carve out a niche for themselves.

And they go on CNBC or whatever, you know, and and and, you know, it it's a marketing tool.

The media top of funnel to bring them into their substack.

Exactly.

And so I think journalists as entrepreneurs, news entrepreneurs, that kind of training hasn't been pervasive enough for okay.

Say you've you're doing good work and you've gotten certain brand name.

What is the what is the mechanism by which you can make this a sustainable career?

Yeah.

I'm I'm sure Substack will tell us that, you know, it's possible on Substack.

My experience with many journalists is it's really hard to get, a sustainable kind of audience base.

Just so that but The problem with Substack is that at the end of the day, it's a centralized platform, and you're living there with their permission.

And they're gonna take a cut of everything, and, they're gonna choose your destiny.

They can choose to ban you at will if they want to, just like XCan or TikTok or Facebook.

I actually like your framing that you said.

It's kind of in passing, but, the like, for independent journalism to thrive, we basically need all the independent journalists to own their own media organization.

And maybe that's what Nasr is as a protocol.

Maybe Nasr is a protocol that enables people to own their own media organization without any infrastructure.

Zero infrastructure.

You don't have to run servers or anything.

Yep.

Exactly.

Which is a key part.

Right?

That's where a lot of the friction lies.

I mean, we've seen it.

We you know, we've seen a bunch of these guys try and, you know, own their own web servers, do all this other stuff.

And it's just it's a really, really hard way to skip.

100%.

I think in with Nostra, you own your audience.

Unlike with Substack, Substack owns your audience, and they can cut you off from your audience at any time.

And so where Nostra provides that edge is that you own your audience, and whatever you build, you get to keep.

So I think, you know, I think it's early days, obviously, for this kind of, for this technology.

But getting journalists incentivized proving to journalists that this is a way longer term, that will work, but making those short term incentives worth it can be powerful.

Yeah.

I mean, it's very much with Nasr specifically, it's very much a chicken and egg network effect, bootstrapping mechanism, both on the content side and on, like, the consumer reader side, audience side.

And maybe once again, you know, I'm not I'm a I'm a bit agnostic on this.

Like, maybe it's some other kind of open protocol, but I I think it's that direction that it needs to go in.

I've said to you privately, and I'll just repeat it publicly.

But, like, anything I can do to be helpful on onboarding, you know, respected, really quality proof of work independent journalists, Sannoster.

Consider me a resource.

Consider the freaks a resource.

Like, I I think, you know, you're hitting us.

I've talked about talked to you about this privately as well.

You're hitting us at a weird time in the Bitcoin markets.

But to the freaks that have any of you freaks out there that happen to have financial gains, you can get a tax deduction by donating to the Stinger Foundation with Bitcoin.

But I will say where I think the freaks can be quite helpful, is, you know, retweeting on Nasr, zapping, engaging, replying.

Like, replies and engagement really are are important as well, because it creates that interactive element that I think humans thrive on.

Thank you.

Really appreciate the shout out.

I was excited to see Devine, you know, go on Master, and I think in initiatives like that will make Master more mainstream.

Yeah.

I mean, Devine's not live yet, I don't think.

But yeah.

Okay.

Direction I I okay.

I thought there there was already a lot of, It might be.

It might be, like, wait list live, but there's a lot of hype around it.

It's the Okay.

Got it.

Reboot of Vine, which is the short video platform that existed before TikTok existed.

Right.

Well, I guess all that to say is, yes.

You know, I spoke about Bitcoin being source of revenue for us, source of a way we pay the journalists.

Already, it's hugely useful that way.

But I think what you said just now is exactly the direction in which this needs to go.

I think those core values, those core principles of build your own media organization, own your own audience.

Here's a tech platform.

Here's a tech stack that allows you to do that in a sustainable way.

That that is a direction in which journalism will thrive, independent journalism.

And and and it's just a question of time, I think, before the tools and the value proposition becomes, obvious and available to the average independent journalist no matter if they're in Angola or in or in Cambodia.

And we are that community.

We you know, that community of independent journalists globally is the Stringer Foundation.

We we nourish, sustain, support that community.

And as those tools become available, we're here to help them onboard, help them create their own, you know, thriving media organizations, help their own their own audiences, help them do the kind of reporting and serve society in the way that they want to.

It's a broad range of the kinds of journalism that they do.

I do a certain kind of journalism.

Other people do more, you know, data journalism or investigative journalism.

There's all different kinds, and we wanna be a broad umbrella that, is a home for all of them because that home doesn't exist right now.

Yes.

I mean, especially investigative journalism.

I feel like we're in a we're in a, like, a dry spell of really quality investigative journalism right now.

And who reads this stuff?

Like, who's reading, like, you know you know, detailed in-depth report?

Everybody's, like, asking the chatbot.

Yeah.

It's it's it's a it's a bit it's a bit nuts.

Well, historically, correct me if I'm wrong, but, like, was investigative journalism it was, like, kind of a lost leader.

Right?

It was, like, New York Times would fund it just because it would get them the cache of, like, we broke, you know, Watergate or something.

100%.

It was always, you know, cache, publicity, prestige.

And, it's yeah.

I'll I I don't know.

It's like a lot of professions, in the world that serve society.

It's fundamentally society has to decide that this is important and needs to be funded.

It's not it's it's not gonna necessarily generate a profit.

We'll get it done.

Thank you, sir, for the work you do.

It's important.

I was thinking as you build out the stringer foundation, I'll keep bringing you on.

You know, maybe every six months or a year or something, we'll do updates.

That'd be cool.

I'd love to I'd love to show off our, cohorts of finalists and award winners and, you know, the progress we're making and the cool journalists and, journalism that we are supporting and sustaining around the world.

Awesome.

Yeah.

Let's plan on that.

Anjan, it's been a pleasure.

Do you have any final thoughts, for the freaks before we wrap?

I, would say to the freaks that, you know, recognize that journalism and, Bitcoin, you know, traditionally aren't put in the same conversations often.

But I think what you said, Matt, that this is an open sets for independent journalism, captures that in one succinct sort of phrase.

And I think there's a long future, a shared future of collaboration between the freaks and us, and journalists.

And I'm excited for this conversation to ignite and nourish that.

Wonderful.

Guys, the you can find out more about the Stringer Foundation at stringerjournalism.org.

As always, I'll put all the relevant links, in the show notes.

Huge shout to the freaks who continue to support the show.

Thank you, guys.

It really means a lot.

Easiest way to interact with both me and, other freaks is on Nostr.

Once again, I really like the primal app.

You can download it in your favorite app store.

But Nasr is an open protocol, so any Nasr app works.

And then fountain podcasts, is a really easy way to comment and support the show.

All relevant links are still dispatch.com.

I think I will I'm gonna try and do a show next week, but it is Christmas week, so we'll see what happens.

If not, there'll be a show the week after that.

But if I don't do a show next week, Merry Christmas ahead of time.

I appreciate you all.

Anyway, Anjan, thank you, sir.

Thank you, Odell.

Glad to be here.

Love you, freaks.

Stay on the Stack Sats.

Peace.