B (4:04)

That's awesome. And I watched that case pretty closely actually. There was so much going on around it. There's a lot of influencers in the Web3 blockchain crypto space here, as you know, and just a lot of hype. But absolutely. I think the government, the SEC in this case definitely had some overreach. And I'm glad that this community, this decentralized community came together to support Ripple. Thank you, John. Jumping into the next question, you've been vocal about the SEC's enforcement actions against crypto firms, describing them as lacking clarity and consistency. Could you elaborate on your concerns and suggest how the SEC might improve its regulatory framework?

A (4:39)

Yeah, you know, if we go back to 2018, Hester Purse, who was an SEC commissioner nicknamed cryptomom, she had proposed a safe harbor provision. Because what we're doing, Brian, is we're basically trying to apply 1930s statutes. In a 1946 Supreme Court case called Howie, which dealt with orange groves, to modern day blockchain technology, artificial artificial intelligence, quantum computing, automation, robotics, you go on modern day technologies. Why are we applying, you know, 1930s law? Because you can't pigeonhole it. And Congress has enacted so the SEC should be providing guidance. And in 2018, the only thing that was produced was the Bill Hinman speech that said Ethereum was sufficiently decentralized to not be a security. But they never defined what sufficient decentralization is. And there is no Howie Factor on sufficient decentralization. So it really create a lot of vagueness. And we learned that the SEC under someone like Gary Gensler, they prefer it to be vague, they prefer it to be opaque because it allows them to have maximum prosecutorial options and they can engage in regulation by enforcement. And I think to show how absurd it was, the best example I'd give you wouldn't be the Ripple case, even though that's a pretty good example. It would be the Coinbase case because Coinbase went to the SEC and said, you know, we're going to list xrp, but tell us if we shouldn't. And the SEC didn't say anything. They listed xrp, but then Coinbase went to the SEC and said, we are going to file an IPO and go public and we want you to accelerate the ipo. And Brian, what everybody needs to understand in order to get acceleration, the SEC has to make a determination that it's in the public's best interest for that IPO to be accelerated. The SEC did that. They made a determination. Coinbase, this is good, it's in the public's good to do this, grant the acceleration. And two years later, Gary Gensler, the same SEC sues Coinbase and claims the entire business model of selling XRP or Solana or Cardano or any of these other tokens that it's an illegal operation. Now that's just clearly absurd where you on one hand say it's in the public's best interest and two years later it's an entire illegal operation that needs to be sued and they need to come in and register. And that's what happens. And that's why there was this war on crypto. And then the Kraken case and the investigations into Robin Hood, into Gemini. There were over 300 Wells notices on crypto. We had the chokepoint 2.0 operation where debanking was going on. There was a real, real war against crypto. It's not imagined. The SEC and Elizabeth Warren, Gary Gensler and the government had its boot on the neck of the industry and that's all been lifted. And so it's a good thing because in my opinion, you were sending innovation overseas. People wanted to have access to this asset class and so they went to the FTXs and the bad guys and had they fostered innovation here in America and provided the safeguards and some consumer protections, we'd be so far ahead of the game than we are. But the good news is sunlight has broken through and the industry is looking to be to have the regulatory clarity that it's so desperately needed for the last four years.

B (8:20)

Thank you, I appreciate that. And I think with the new administration, we'll get a lot of that support as well. Again, we've got folks that just are still staunchly anti decentralization and crypto, as you know. Appreciate you highlighting that coinbase lawsuit. Obviously it's funny how that works. Hypocrisy is an everyday thing in federal regulations, it seems. Seems like. So thank you. The next question for you, John. What insights did you gain from your recent Senate campaign in Massachusetts and how did you plan to continue advocating for cryptocurrency issues in the political arena?

A (8:50)

No one was stepping up. I knew my chances against Elizabeth Warren, you know, were slim. I didn't announce until February 20th. That's extraordinarily late. It's only, you know, six, seven months before the actual election. Doesn't give you much time, especially for someone like me who didn't have of name recognition in the state. I've been a lawyer for 25 years in Massachusetts, but you know, the general public doesn't know who I was or they didn't, but no one was stepping up. And I couldn't understand, Brian, why the senator from Massachusetts was running on an anti crypto platform. She had a whole poster out saying went viral online of she's building an anti crypto army. And, and I was sitting back trying to figure it out because you know, Massachusetts, the second most expensive state in the country to live, housing crisis, immigration crisis here because we have a right to shelter law that doesn't require residency. So the illegal immigration issue was bankrupting us as a state, costing over $2 billion a year, inflation, all these things. And why is she focused on crypto and trying to ban it? And her bill that was written by the Banking Policy Institute of America led by JPMorgan Chase and Jamie Dimons, the chairman, banned the self custody of Bitcoin. And so I couldn't understand it. Then she went on Chuck Todd's Meet the Press and said that America was ready for a Federal Reserve issued central bank digital currency. Then you know, I said, wow, this is where we're headed. So I felt obligated to get in the race. And you know, I was proud of it because on our first debate she stood up and said, oh, I don't have a problem with people buying and selling crypto. And of course that's a 180 from what her bill did. So success is always relative. And the political landscape, you know, I learned a lot running how important money is and, and the role that that plays. But I can tell you this, we've won in the sense that her anti crypto agenda really cost the administration. It didn't cost her her seat in Massachusetts against me. But you know, Bernie Marino won in Ohio against Jared Brown. And the Fair Shake crypto super PAC was the most successful super PAC in the country that last election year. And they made a real difference. And I think now you're seeing that people are saying, you know what? Crypto actually makes a difference. The people want access to this asset class. 55 million Americans have exposure to it. And so I think what we learned is that the crypto vote, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, can make a difference in elections. And so I think crypto is going to have another big say come the midterms.

B (11:34)

Absolutely. There's so much more in it. We're seeing a lot of more adoption in the crypto space by people because we're seeing a lot of attention on these lawsuits, for example, or politicians are, you know, using them as an advertising medium in their campaigns. Whether it's they're pro or against, it's bringing a lot of attention. I appreciate you highlighting that. And brother, I appreciate you running against the establishment to let people do what they do best here in America is have their freedoms. So appreciate that. And John, last question of the day, if you could briefly share. You've expressed strong opposition to a Federal Reserve issued central bank digital currency or cbdc. As we know, you talked about that just a second ago, stating it's a hill that you're willing to die on. What are your primary concerns about consumer issued CDBCs and what alternatives do you propose?

A (12:22)

Great question. And I think that, you know, I know that defi and decentralization is something that's close to your heart and that's what scares career politicians, someone like Senator Warren, this concept of decentralization, decentralized finance, because they want to have like five major banks and those banks can be controlled by her agency, whether it's the CFPB or the Senate Banking Committee. But a CBDC by the Federal Reserve, it's programmable money that can be turned on and off. Now they wouldn't start that way, but if we take it to sort of the far extreme, it really is Big brother in George Orwell's 1984 Coming to Life. You could program the money to only work in a certain region. It can be turned on and off. Oh, wait a minute. You know Brian, you made a donation to some ABC company. We view that the ones in control view that is an extreme organization. Now your money doesn't work. They can control you. If they control your money, they control your entire life. And again, I'm not suggesting that a CBDC would start off like that, but that's the slippery slope you could go down. And the alternative, I think we're seeing it. You know I, I got involved with xrp. I was mainly a bitcoiner but you know, I saw XRP could be used as a bridge currency and cross border payments and other tokens as well could utilized that way. And now we see that stablecoin and there's going to be apparently stablecoin legislation is probably fair to say, financially speaking, the most innovative place we're at in crypto. We're going to get legislation. Brad Garlinghouse at the Digital Asset Summit this week said that we're going to see a 10x in stablecoin market caps. You know, whether it's USDC, a circle or tether or ripples, stablecoin tier one banks are probably going to issue stable coins which will reduce friction in the banking system. You know, self custody of your money, self custody of your bitcoin or your crypto. To me that's freedom. And as someone who grew up in poverty, I see the American dream escaping. You know, people used to say, well the American dream was owning your own house. And well, houses aren't affordable for regular people. So I look as bitcoin and crypto as sort of the new American dream and, and fighting the government from controlling that type of, or limiting people's access to it is something I would die on for sure.

B (14:56)

Thank you. Like you said, it may not be the idea behind a CBDC is maybe not to limit people that maybe they don't agree with, but that is a slippery slope. And there's obviously this became a contentious topic over the last couple years here. We saw FedNow go live and we know that might be the foundation for starting the cbdc. But I appreciate your insights on that for sure. I think there's a lot more that we need to educate, educate the American people on this stuff because there's a lot of things that happen in D.C. that we're just not privy to because I think it's purposely hidden. But that's just my stance. But I appreciate your insights on it. I know you're doing the right thing for the American people overall, no matter where you vote on the aisle. So I appreciate that. And John, thank you. It's been such a pleasure chatting with you today, and I hope to see you real soon.

A (15:41)

It's been my honor. Thank you, Brian.

B (15:43)

Bye for now.

A (15:49)

Sam.