A (6:43)

I love the blue yellow dress analogy. No, but I mean, you even get that when you watch the video of somebody dying in Minnesota. Oh, I mean, like, politically, half the people see it as murder, half the people see it as, you know, like self defense.

B (7:02)

It's social media. It's literally the algorithms and social media. And there's a scene in one of my favorite movies of political satire or religious satire, Monty Python's Life of Brian. And my favorite vignette out of Life of Brian, which is totally applicable today, is the scene where, I don't know if you saw it, but where he opens the windows after he's just had sex with this girl and he's stark naked and. And there's this multitude of people out, you know, saying, you know, o', Brien, the Messiah and, and he says, I'm not the messiah, I'm not the messiah. You are individuals. And to a person, every single one of them coordinated goes, we are individuals. It's one of the funniest things that you'll ever see. But that is literally what's going on today in, you know, the, the two sides of America. Now I think those of, there are, there are a lot of people who would say that it's worse on one side than the other. And it's probably true because a reasonable person looks at the Minnesota thing and says, okay, wait a minute. You have a guy who literally was sent to the hospital with life threatening injuries for being hit by a car, now has a gun in his hand and some, someone's being, you know, someone is driving that car with her wife, basically telling her, you know, to drive the car and he shoots. Now was it right or wrong? I mean, probably a bad judgment in some sense, but understandable bad judgment. And you know, it's a tragedy. It's literally a tragedy. The fact that there are so many people who want to take advantage of that tragedy to make points, to try to, you know, impede law enforcement from arresting pedophiles and the other side wants to use the tragedy to say this is why we need to crack down even more is absurd. Rational people should be able to agree that it was a tragedy that law enforcement should be able to operate and that law enforcement shouldn't be able to go out of their fucking, you know, go into people's houses and demand their papers. I mean, but, but you literally get that. So now yesterday you have Trump basically talking to a bunch of people who objectively have been trying to push the world in a direction and they're the one set of governments who listen to them are the Europeans. And it's failed, objectively failed. And so, you know, but the media of course would sound like, well, Trump's, he's. And it's crazy. I mean, to me that's a lot of what's going on in crypto. There are people who look at bitcoin. On the bitcoin, you know, maxi side, you have the bitcoin maxis you keep seeing. Every single day I see 5 or 10 posts from old bitcoiners saying we've lost the plot, it's been co opted, it can't work anymore without any understanding of the fact that for bitcoin to succeed, it has to get mass adoption. And mass adoption is going to need to mean it's going to have to end up Inside the system one way or another. And on the same time, you have people from the traditional financial side basically trying to figure out, okay, like Montgomery Burns sitting in there, ivory tower. I used that analogy yesterday, but it's true. How can we co opt it? Meanwhile, we have a government today in the United States for at least the next three years, and agency heads who all basically say, no, we don't want you to co opt it, but we do want to promote it. And no. And you would think the crypto community would latch onto that, and that's what we should be caring about. So, yes, you're right, Scott. There's all this bullshit going on.

A (10:21)

But, man, I was just trying to make a joke about the video and you really went for it.

B (10:26)

Well, you know, what the hell, I mean, what else are we going to talk about, really?

A (10:29)

How the Clarity act is super dead and even bipartisan partisan support is failing, but Trump says he wants it done.

B (10:35)

Is going to fail because the Democrats have been. And look, it's too bad.

A (10:40)

Oh, God, I did it again, didn't I?

B (10:41)

Too bad Austin's not up here because he's one of the most reasonable Democrats out there. You can't be a reasonable Democrat anymore and not understand that even the most moderate Democrats are bowing in fealty to the extreme and understand what they're supporting, and they're doing it knowingly. If you want to kill the Clarity act and you're a Democrat, what you're basically saying is we prefer there to be no regulation because we want this industry to die and move offshore. That's what we want. That's what you're supporting. You're not supporting protecting people because obviously a lack of regulation means more people will get rug pulled, more people will get scammed. It's that simple. You know, it's like. And they already agreed to the Genius Act. And so, you know, you're going to get stable coins in the middle of the system. It is going to matter. And the question is, well, what are other tokenized things that people, once they. They have stable coins ubiquitously, where are they going to go buy them? Well, are they going to go to. Are they going to use offshore exchanges? They can use defi. Yeah, probably. And we'll see where that goes. But it's interesting. I mean, I see Carlo up here. I mean, surely I had to have. I had to have triggered something. Hey, it's been a long time, Dave. I feel like we haven't talked in ages. Good morning, Scott.

A (12:01)

It's been like three days, dude.

B (12:02)

I know.

A (12:03)

Good morning.

B (12:04)

Crypto, that's an eternity. Yeah, I can't disagree with anything you all are saying. We got the Clarity amendments out and Senate Agriculture Committee has put out what is pretty reasonable on surface level approach to defi. And I think the banks have sufficiently scared Congress into believing that if they allow any yield slash reward on stablecoins. Do we agree that they didn't scare them, they paid them well? Yeah, okay, I'll take that. Yeah, fair point. So, yeah, they've convinced them that there'll be a flight of deposits if they let exchanges hold stablecoins in a passive way. So you have to now create this paradigm where you are actually doing something with the stable coin in order to justify paying yield. And I don't think that's going to improve. I think they succeeded in doing a slight end around to the Genius act and I don't think that's coming out. But the biggest problem we have is there's no Democrat support for what's coming out of the Agriculture Committee. And I think still, like you said Scott the other day, the biggest hurdle for this thing is going to be the ethics clauses which are going to be non negotiable for the Dems. And I just don't see Trump ever boxing himself in and limiting his family's ability to profit off of crypto.

A (13:35)

That ain't happening.

B (13:37)

I mean, the absurdity of that is that if you ask the population, the voters, should there be ethics about all investments, I.e. pelosi watch, et cetera, should it be stocks, should there be crypto? Whatever. If you said should people, should the families, should there be policies on ethics for all investments? The answer with absolute certainty is I think you're going to get 60, 70% of the world, if not more, saying yes. But the fact that they're putting something where there's no ethics requirements whatsoever on this massive asset class called stocks and they have to have one to have any regulation in crypto is beyond absurd. I mean it is pure political grandstanding and they should be ashamed of themselves because it makes no fricking sense. But of course, that's the way politics works these days. They want to create an issue and that's their only issue. I mean, they're literal Democrats only issue. All you have to do, even, even the mayor of New York, some of the stuff he's doing, which is just, I mean, it's actually worse than I anticipated. It's New York's turning into a shithole. But you know, even he just announced this, he literally said that we need $10 billion in our budget to quote, and I quote, Trump proof the city. I mean, Trump is basically an issue. The one benefit of. Of 2028 is we won't have. You won't have to hear the word Trump out of party anymore. I mean, which is. It's insane that that's an issue, and people have been motivated to consider it an issue. I mean, it's silly, right? You know, the amount of money that's been made in Congress and in their families and everything else from the NGOs to through. There's so many unethical things that are going on. It's insane that there's no ability to push for ethics writ large. But they're going to make crypto ethics the issue. It's. I don't know. I don't even have words for how stupid it is.

A (15:43)

Anyone on the panel? Clarity Act. Jump on in. Awesome.

B (15:50)

Good. Do we have it? I'll jump in. Anybody. Anybody sees the dress as gold is obviously a psychopath. Right? Dave? So, you know, it's funny you mentioned that.

A (16:00)

There is no dress.

B (16:01)

There is no dress. It is funny because what Dave's saying is actually true. Where you literally see the other side is that's impossible. Right. How could you possibly see it that way? Right. So it's a perfect analogy. Dave, great way to start the morning. And I just don't think you're going to get, you know, you're not going to get that side to see your.

C (16:18)

Your way, because they literally can't.

B (16:20)

Right. And I mean, that's what. I think that's what crypto should be talking about right now, is that there.

D (16:25)

Is no fixing this.

B (16:26)

You can't fix them because they literally.

D (16:28)

Don'T see it the way you see it.

B (16:30)

And so I think, you know, crypto fixes this. It's going to be a bumpy road, but there's no. There is no fixing it. Right. There is no. To Dave's point, like, they should be ashamed. They'll never be ashamed because they don't see it the way you see it. And, you know, at the end of the day, it just. It just takes. It's going to take time to wind down.

A (16:49)

And that's a play.

B (16:51)

Yeah, yeah.

A (16:51)

Playing devil's advocate to that, though, Adam, like, so listen, I'm a. I'm an unaffiliated voter. I will once again say this, and I'm trying to spark conversation. It's very clear. It's very clear here that the Democrats are the ones who are not in favor necessarily of the bill. But if you take Brian Armstrong's view that a no bill is better than a bad bill, can't you then naturally say that a lot of Republicans are willing to vote for a bill that's effectively backed by the banking lobby that's actually really bad for crypto.

B (17:21)

Absolutely.

D (17:24)

I'm actually pushing all politicians into the same boat.

B (17:28)

I'm not saying Republicans are better than the Democrats.

A (17:32)

Right.

B (17:32)

Yeah, I think it's, I think government versus free men. I mean I, I do really believe it's at that point. It's, you know.

A (17:39)

Right. Because if you listen to Brian Armstrong, he says for, you know, the, the token, they literally snuck in a clause banning the tokenization of assets into the Clarity Act. So should Democrats not want to vote.

B (17:54)

For that, let's be specific, the clause that he, that they objected to and it was what I was talking about to Perry Ann about yesterday, effectively would put handcuffs on the SEC and CFTC from adapting rules. One of those rules, which Gary, your brother bitched about this morning correctly, like violently is the accredited investor rule. And you know there are a lot which by the way is what is literally wealth transfer from the poorer to the richer. And so you know, effectively that clause makes the whole bill a non starter. That clause makes me say better no bill than, than you know, than a bad bill. But when it comes to, you know, yield on all due respect to Carlo, it's annoying that $180 billion in subsidies to the banks is considered a good thing by all the members of Congress who are taking bribes. But the truth is in five years it won't matter at all because technology is making it so that once you can do payments, once you can have a payments platform that can handle your bills, pay your electric bill, pay your rent, do all that at the same time as invest and investing is via and everything is tokenized on that platform. So you could save in bitcoin and have automated sweeps that sell your bitcoin to pay your bills and or whatever other, whatever thing. The fact that you're not getting yield on the actual stable coins won't matter at all now. It's going to take a few years for that to be true. So that's not my bright line issue. The bright line issue is the one that will stop the innovation. And make no mistake, when you get to you know, even the, the most dyed in the wool capitalist, the bare knuckle person who builds a business and makes billions of dollars and creates millions of jobs, those people, with the exception of Elon Musk, Virtually all of those people and people like, like David Sacks and others, there are a few, but the vast majority of them, the ones that are parading around the World Economic Forum, they also, once they have their power, they want to keep it. And so they're erecting moats and gates instead of it being castles with crossbowmen guarding the ramparts. It's use governments to create blocks against the next wave of competition that could challenge their status. And that's what this is all about. I mean you could look at everything, that's what this is about. So what Brian Armstrong is saying, and in this case I agree with him, he's saying, listen, we built this fucking thing, we will continue to build this thing. We're already here. He doesn't want those blocks. Now in his case it's because of naked self interest. He wants to be able to out compete the banks and he already believes that with no bill he can do so because he'll get his banking license under this administration. But the broader point is a bill that blocks disruptive competition from taking over is a bad thing. And so to there I agree with him. Even though in his case he's saying it, I think for naked self interest. Bruce, I know you agree with this. It's the one point you agree on.

E (20:56)

Yeah, I mean I, you know, I, I think that the point, it's not that the, the Democrats are the enemy, it's that the Democrats and the Republicans are the enemy because they're all two sides of the same uni party statist coin and they're just a bunch of, you know, big government tyrant grifters who grift in their own different ways and market to their own base of morons in different flavors of marketing. So you know, I'm against all bills pretty much. I, you know, this idea like, oh no bill's better than a, you know, bad bill. I think all the bills are bad. I haven't seen a good bill, at least not anything that had any chance. You know, the minute I saw this thing, you know, Zach Shapiro has given me a hard time saying I hadn't read it. I'm like, I don't need to read it. I don't need to read your religious text, bro. You know, the minute I see that it's 278 pages and I see all the statist authoritarian shills lining up for it and I glance over it for five seconds, I can tell that it's a steaming pile of crap. Just like the genius act and just like the Loomis Gillibrand act and just like every, every other steaming pile of crap that they foisted on us going back to the bit license when a bunch of clown idiots in our industry went down to New York City and sat in front of Ben Loskin, said.

B (22:13)

Oh, we want clarity man, we just want to be regulated.

A (22:17)

We want rules.

E (22:18)

And then we end up with this never ending path of tyranny where it's two steps forward, two steps back for 12, 13 years now of, you know, every single time we're a frog in the boiling water where things get worse and worse and worse with every single one of these stupid bills. You know what? The bill I want to see is the thing that's actually deregulatory. How about we cancel the accredited investor thing? A one line bill. No one in the United States is required to have any AML kyc. No one in the United States is. You know, accredited investor rules are hereby repealed. You know, the, the, the Jobs act, you know, reg. Reg. CF is hereby increased to $1 billion. You know, $1 billion cap. I mean those are the kind of bills that I'd like to see. But no, you're never going to see that. You're going to see a bunch of grifters trying to, you know, lobbyists on one side trying to do their own self interest for their crappy centralized stable coins and their grifty pre mined centralized projects. And then on the other side you've got just the pure statist Elizabeth Warren types who are going to try and be shilling for the banks and pushing their own little.

B (23:27)

Yeah, but you know, rather than go down that rabbit hole second, you know, Dan, what do you have to say?

A (23:35)

Just real quick. You guys remember there was previously a crypto company that was like super pro regulation. They're like, yeah, we gotta be regulated. Really, really pushing the pro regulation stuff. Little company you might not have heard of in a while called Gemini. And they were really pushing. I used to work there, so I was working there when they were very pro regulations. Like yeah, we need all this, we need all this. And what happened? Finance at their lunch and then Coinbase came and took. What happened was the SEC sued them, right? They played the ball, they said, yeah, do all this kind of stuff, you know, permission first, all that kind of stuff. They got sued by the SEC Binance at the lunch and now they're nothing.

B (24:10)

Well, I mean it's actually a little. The one where I thought you were going was the company that was most pro regulation was the one that, thank God they blew up was ftx because he was going to get a bill. He probably would have gotten it passed. People forget what the, how, how ridiculous the, the, what was it? The DCC, D.C. yeah, everybody was lining.

E (24:29)

Up to support him. He was the most loved guy on the street.

B (24:32)

And a whole bunch of people in.

E (24:33)

Our industry were singing his praises for his bill. I don't even remember the name of it.

B (24:39)

Defi entirely in the United States.

E (24:41)

Yeah, everybody, whole bunch of crypto Twitter influencers were all Beck and Sam. And that's not unprecedented. The biggest fraudster, their second biggest fraudster in history, I think, is Sam. And he was extremely tight with the regulators. He was the only person in our industry to ever have an audience with Gary Gensler. And then the. But the biggest. There was one fraudster bigger than him. His name was Bernie Madoff and he was head of the largest regulator. You know, so I don't get how anybody sees, you know, more regulation as a solution.

B (25:17)

Well, I mean, we could debate that, but it's not more regulation. It's the types of regulation. I mean, if you actually sat in a room and I have many times with Paul Atkins, you would know that what he believes is that, and Hester Purse says this actually all the time, quite eloquently, that the best regulation is disclosures, is disclosure based regulation and holding people's feet to the fire. And frankly, that is, in many respects you would consider it deregulatory because you would say, well, yeah, fraud is bad. Right? People lie, they should have their feet held to the fire. And, and it is helpful to have that anyway. Dan, I mean, I think I cut you off. I'm sorry.

A (25:58)

No, it's all good. Yeah, you're right about ftx, but I was just saying that, you know, Gemini went this very, very regulated path and it blew up on their face. So getting to bed with regulators is not necessarily a good thing. I agree with you. Yeah, Sam was very much in bed with the regulators, I think, at the time, though. I mean, I'm not sure you supported him, but they were a good bulwark against Binance at the time is all I would say.

B (26:24)

Well, I mean, bulwark's not with any.

E (26:25)

Paul.

C (26:26)

You know, I don't think ask for regulations actually ever created any form of innovative technology. I mean, if we asked for clarity, if there was a Clarity act before Uber got built, we wouldn't have Uber. If there was a Clarity act needed first before we can actually create the Internet, which bypassed a lot of the telco Rules, we wouldn't have the Internet. Same thing with being able to transfer money globally across border. We wouldn't have Bitcoin. So fundamentally, yeah, have all of these regulatory, you know, acts die and walk in the gray area. Go ahead and build in the gray area, because that's where you actually will build things that matter and that people that actually have people adopt them. And really, your only protection is not an act by Congress, by, you know, as Bruce loves to call a bunch of morons. It's actually adoption of the tech because then government can't squash it. They actually have to shoot themselves in the foot if they want to squash technology that we're all using. And so unfortunately, we're not all using this technology. And don't tell me that institutional adoption is using the. The technology because institutions are basically in bed with the government. You need.

B (27:25)

This space was downloaded via spaces down.com visit to download your spaces today.

C (27:30)

Well, people using the technology, the people that are going to actually cheer and back companies like Uber, they were the ones people, the users of Uber were the ones that said, no, you cannot squash Uber. We will revolt. They wanted it that bad. They wanted the product. They use the product. Nothing other than use and utility is going to protect the technology against the government institutions. So if you want real protection, use the damn thing. And we don't have that yet. So what is it going to take? I don't exactly know, but I know that you, Dave, have said, like, oh, well, you know, people don't want to spend Bitcoin, they want to use it. Well, all right, great. Then we're going to die on that hill. Whatever it takes for it to actually come to the consumer, not institutional adoption. You know, Scott, I listened to part of your podcast this morning with, with John Woo, and he mentioned how Avax was billed for institutions. And I couldn't have been more depressed to hear that, you know, as. As his definition of adoption of, of crypto, because there's.

A (28:23)

That was always their pitch.

E (28:24)

It was.

C (28:25)

It totally was.

A (28:26)

I hear what you're saying, but that's.

B (28:27)

What they were building.

C (28:28)

No, exactly. But the thing is that they've got a huge amount of visibility in the space on that pitch. And that's a sad pitch to hear because it doesn't touch the individual. And I know it's been said multiple times that, you know, the consumer will come, retail will come, when price goes up. Actually, I feel like retail will come when it actually touches them, when it's a product they can use. If you look back into the past decade of crypto, there was always a retail narrative. When they got involved. So early on with Bitcoin, oh my gosh, we can actually spend and use bitcoin. That was a retail narrative. And then even with ICOs, oh, we were going to have all of these, even consumer apps. And granted some of these narratives are absolutely idiotic, but there was a plethora of garbage. But there was the narrative of, oh, I can build this app on crypto. Could be a freaking. I saw dating apps with a crypto narrative, whatever. Either way, it still had a consumer and retail narrative where it's an app that I can touch and I can use to some degree. Even trading with Defi, a lot of retail can actually use that. Even though it might not go, it might not be that exact product for your average everyday user. There are a lot of retail traders, NFTs, art, that's something that touches the retail. Once you start saying institutional adoption and it's just something that we put in the treasury and governments and banks, it doesn't touch retail. They're not as interested.

B (29:45)

Right.

C (29:46)

That's why AI has really swept the rug out from underneath of crypto, because it actually, AI has been around for quite some time. People don't realize. When I worked at Nvidia in 2005, I was already working with professors at MIT UIUC and they were building and using AI and this is as early as 2005. Now granted, it was slow, it was untenable, it was used for the under the hood algorithms that enterprise used. And so therefore retail wasn't investing in companies that, that powered AI as soon as they could touch it. ChatGPT came out and suddenly your mom is talking to, to chatgpt. Boom. Investment in that, in that sector flew off. It just, it skyrocketed. And that is my little rant as far as like what's missing in crypto and what I try to drive to build and what I think people should be driving to build and what we should be talking about and highlighting the projects that actually bring that level of retail adoption, not institutional adoption. And so that's my little version of like my, you know, libertarian rant, because the libertarians are the ones that are closest to wanting this kind of use case and not just what we see in these acts in Congress and banks and institutional, you know, under the hood adoption. So hopefully we can get that in 2026. If not, you know, I'm kind of on hold until I see that and we'll get excited about the industry when that starts to show some glimmer of hope.

F (31:09)

We got.

B (31:10)

Oh, sorry, I just. It's right on top on this topic really quick. And this is the one thing that like, and you've heard me say it, Scott. We got the app in 2025, Paul. It's called Polymarket. It has poly in the name. Right. What we've, what we've realized is that utility doesn't drive price for crypto. Substance doesn't drive price for crypto. Mainstream app, largest thing talked about last year online for retail users across the world. Doesn't drive price for Polygon. It's down 90%. It's done nothing for it. So it's not. I know we've all been talking for a long time about trying to, you know, it's, it's retail, it's retail adoption. We just got. It didn't do anything.

E (31:56)

Joe.

B (31:56)

The product problem is, is that so many people in crypto ignore that. It's not just about adoption. You have to have value, right? You know, that has. The token has to be worth something. And you know, it's like people always do this and it drives me absolutely out of my mind. It's like if the token doesn't give you a piece of the revenue, then why do you think you should own it? Right? You know, it's that simple. And the reason for this, which of course perversely is because of all regulation by enforcement, is every single token, every token, quote, foundation, the fact they're foundations is, is equally ridiculous. Right. You know, there was no way. There is a way. Let's be really clear here. There is a capital markets structure where tokens could pass on value and become worth a lot as it gets built. But until companies don't aren't worried about being dragged in orange jumpsuits and perp walk by by miscreants and misanthropes like Gary Gensler, you can't do it. And that's what this is about. So let's not lose the thread here. The thread is. Yeah, I just want to separate utility owning the Polygon token. What percentage, what does it buy you? Yeah. The reality is you don't need, you.

D (33:08)

Don'T need, you don't need the native.

B (33:09)

Token to trade on polymarket. Right? So it's a little different. I was an idiot. I bought board, I bought, you know, the board apes token, you know, Apecoin. At one point that was one of my, my worst investments ever. Why? Because I thought, ah, greater fool people will buy it. And in fact it went up after I bought it like a mooc. I didn't sell it even though it hit my price target. So. Okay, I. My bad. I learned, and. And I just won't do it again. Right. You know, and a lot of people are looked at that. And if you want to look at the altcoin market, I mean, we have this all the time. I'm gonna pick on Scott now just because it's easy. But, you know, you've done multiple interviews.

A (33:42)

It is easy.

B (33:43)

You've done multiple interviews with people like Sergey from Chainlink. Chainlink has an amazing narrative with one problem. They've never, ever clarified what percentage of the revenues of the Link ecosystem will go to Link token holders and. Or even a path for the governance tokens to vote. The exact same thing is true about Ondo. And all of these tokens that theoretically have value, they're going to go to token holders. And so when you talk about Polygon, they never even attempted it. So I'm sorry. I mean, I shouldn't be angry. But if it's. If you want to understand what needs to happen now, this could either happen in one of two ways. Either with regulatory clarity and most of that will be fought over and be micro minutia, or if the regulators say, you know what, caveat emptor, do what you want, deregulate. But either way, that's what needs to happen. But in this middle ground where people are worried about regulation by enforcement, they'll go to Dubai and they'll ignore the US Market. And if you, if you know that there's a risk of US people buying your token, you're not going to give that. And so it's, It's. It's a ridiculously perverse situation. Okay. Sorry for the rant. Yeah. I just wanted to clarify that there is crazy adoption. Every time you're logging in, you know, you're. You're moving to Polygon, USDC or something on Polygon. Every one of these markets has a resolver that's on Polygon. Right. So I just wanted to be clear. There's a ton of utility that's wrapped into. But you're exactly right. It's not a security token. Right. Where like the, the value is flowing in. But I just wanted to be clear that and delineate for people that tons of utility doesn't necessarily mean the token price is going to increase. Right? Well, that's right. It's the way that these things are structured, resolves to value. It doesn't have to be a security, although being a security shouldn't be a dirty work. I mean, people ignore this. I said this five years ago. I said that the biggest problem isn't whether it's a security or not. It's what the hell is with our securities rules that are so up, that make it impossible that being a security is a death sentence. That's the issue. Because there is a. You should be able. I mean, Bruce nailed it before and one of the things he said, he was talking about Reg CF and all this other stuff. I mean, are you kidding? Do you know, you know, Grant Cardone was on here and he basically said it's, it's like $60 million to go public. Just think about that. And you have to wait, you know what, a year. Whereas in crypto you could go public with hundreds of thousands of dollars and be liquid in weeks or months. I mean, obviously people are going to want to use crypto if in fact that's the case. But once the regulators came in and said, oh, but if you do it, we're going to put you in jail, well, that stopped it. Anyway, sorry, Alex, you've had your hand up and, and, and, and, and you've been patient. So sorry about the ranting.

F (36:31)

Not at all. I want to kind of contribute to the ranting. But by the way, just for everyone to know, Poly Markets trading volume is very, very small relative to what's happening on other competitor chains. So it's not $200 million a day that is going to actually bring stats that are as good as what's happening on the Dexes, on Solana and other chains. So I think that's why the utility is not reflecting Polygon's price because it's significantly lower if you look at all of the on chain metrics. But I want to go back to something that Bruce was saying and Dave, that you were saying, which kind of is connected to what's happening at the wef. And obviously, I think Brian Armstrong spoke very eloquently. I thought he was very good at showing diplomacy when debating with the Central bank of Europe. And one thing that I realized with regulation and innovation, and these have always been in conflict, but we all know that technological innovation always comes first and regulation is always after. That's a concept that we know. And there are many sayings like regulation needs to catch up with innovation. But what's happening right now with these new bills is that regulation is not just having to catch up with innovation. It's regulation is helping the followers catch up with the leaders. And that's my biggest concern here. It's that if we're creating free markets where everyone should compete, we shouldn't have something that benefits the banking cartels. Right. It shouldn't be something where this regulation particular is going to keep the same industry in power, regardless of how much innovation is coming from the actual private sector. And this is one of my biggest concern when it comes to what Web3 is developing right now and how they will use many of these laws. We see what's happening in the UK with the finproms policy, which is an absolute scam where you have to go through a license company in order to just make a tweet to target UK users, even if you're not soliciting any type of action. And this costs like anywhere between 10 to $15,000 for a single email on an updated feature just to be able to communicate to your community in the uk. So think about how much of a scam that is. You literally have to pay to communicate. And someone who's saying, okay, wait, this article itself, you kind of talk about two features, so guess what, we're going to charge you twice the amount to be able to communicate like that. So, for example, the UK policy and regulators are really giving that money back to those with banking licenses. So they're protecting their cartel and they're stifling innovation. And once again, the regulation there is helping the followers or the banking cartel catch up with the leaders and the true innovators. And this is a big, big concern. Same with what we're seeing in Europe with Micah, and same with what you're seeing currently with the bills and all the acts that are being passed. So it is a concern. It is a concern. But I just wanted to say that I do think that eventually, if the cryptocurrency in our world keeps on innovating to a point where the lag is so, so far ahead, it's going to be very difficult for the others to catch up. And so we just really need to keep pushing innovation, widen that technological gap so that eventually, you know, even if people are using regulation to stifle innovation and keep the ball in their court, we can eventually make the gap so wide in terms of the ux, in terms of how easy it is to. Which is our biggest, you know, issue right now in crypto, that it will be impossible for others to catch up. I think that's. That's what we're seeing right now.

B (39:57)

Yeah, I think that's a. I just responded because, you know, my son just responded to that there. You know, obviously he's Listening. So Ian, if you there just requests to come up, I'd love to hear, you know, what was going on at Davos. But he made the point that there are productive meetings that happen there. And that's true, of course. I mean, you know, I think all of us on this space believe that builders, such as the people building what you were just describing, Alex, are the most important people in society. I don't think there's a whole lot of disagreement on that. And clearly when you get top end people who are the best and the brightest together, there will be businesses, there will be deals done that make sense the point, I just want to distinguish between the top levels and what actually ends up where the rubber really meets the road. Right. I think that's super important to understand. You know, the fact that the wef, the literal actual World Economic Forum, the management of IT for decades has suppressed, you know, nuclear energy, has done, they've done all sorts of things. You know, they're the ones with the famous let them eat bugs stuff. You know, that is very different than when the top builders all throughout our industry and all the other industries get together that very important deals will get done. I think it is important to make that difference. And so, you know, I'm thank, thanking Ian for pointing that out, but I think that's what you're talking about, right? You know, you and Paul are basically saying the same thing, which is as things get built that get product market fit, that will drive adoption and that will drive value eventually when the value is allowed to be given to the people who are basically there's a way to invest in it, right? Isn't, isn't that, can I you basically summarize it? I mean Paul, I assume that's what.

C (41:32)

You agree with less of, that they can invest in it, but that just by simply using the product that is driving value to it. And so polymarket was brought up and yes, it doesn't really, it doesn't really have a token. And I would barely even claim Polymarket as being something that drives any of the crypto utility and adoption. I mean Polymarket at launch restricted US users.

B (41:55)

Right.

C (41:55)

Like where in the ethos of Bitcoin did it say, you know, I'm sorry, if you're in this country, you can't use Bitcoin and oh by the way, in order for you use Polymarket, just swipe a credit card.

A (42:08)

Right.

C (42:09)

So nowhere there was there any inkling of crypto. Sure there was something behind the scenes, but given the fact that they already restricted users, took Fiat Payments, this could have been a fully centralized service. Like there was nothing other than maybe some appeal to the crypto community that made this need to be a crypto product. And so the talk of that as being actual true adoption, and it's here and it touches the retail user, I would say no, it simply isn't. It's another product kind of on sort of crypto reels as almost an enterprise play that sure, retail users can use, but like so restricted and so tied to TradFi that there's not even a tie. Even if I was using it, I was in another country and I was in Dubai and I was actually allowed to use it would not give me an inkling of wanting to invest in or need to use any form of cryptocurrency. So that's not what I would define as utility. Now granted, I think what you said, Dave, is partially right in the sense that, heck, if you look at all of the largest companies in like the US Stock market, right, most of them are ones that build a product that has some inkling of touching the consumer. Especially some of the early large ones like Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, they all touch the consumer. And the consumer did have a way to invest in those companies. And that was a bit separate, right? The investment is separate from the use of the product. Crypto, they can kind of be the same. And Bitcoin is one of the one true ways. If Bitcoin actually became like for example, a payment method, then using the technology actually is, is kind of very in line with investing in the technology. But products like polymarket separate that, but they've separated so much that there's no even understanding that you are using a technology that's investable or that is necessary, that there's even a token necessary for its utility, or that it's even tied into this entire industry of crypto, you know.

B (44:11)

You know what's funny, Paul, is like when I, when I first moved to England three decades ago and realized that in the, the, the British stock market at the time, companies routinely, routinely had you to gave utility or discounts or stuff to shareholders, you know, and that was part of the deal. And now understand that the UK was not an equity company culture, Europe was not an equity culture. It was much more of a fixed income culture at the time. And, and the UK has had, you know, legal gambling basically forever on every street corner. But what's, what's amusing is that token and blockchain technology allows for that so much better. And my suspicion is when equities get tokenized you're going to see a lot more of that convergence. And this just, this is worth pointing that out because I do think that it matters and the, the, the technology that enables it and is going to become relevant. But understand that blockchain rails has some very interesting implications, you know, for the total market capital be there. But we don't, you know, it's not, it's not necessarily what the tokens are today. And that's something you were talking about with John Woo this morning. Oh, Scott's gone.

E (45:22)

Hey guys, are you still there?

D (45:24)

If I can bounce in here. I, I, Paul, the Paul, the comments Paul made earlier on about organic adoption, like that, that is so, so important. I think we need to recognize, I mean I've come to grips with, this is a very, very, very small market. The crypto bros have done everything they can to create 10,000 different products. When you go buy a bitcoin, if you buy enough of it, you're a bad bitcoiner. If you don't completely self custody. I mean we have, we have had a horrible mark and we still have a horrible marketing program here because we confuse the user. We don't do launch an AI project and go, hey, it's free. Take it, use it, play with it. No, what we do is we say, oh, you can't buy a bit, you can't buy a bit white. You can't do this, you can't do that. You better be careful, you're going to lose all your, this is the horrible way. You don't, you know, if you're selling drugs on the street, you don't look at someone and go, hey, by the way, you know, you could die from this shit. No, you give them a free sample and they come back, they dig the high and they buy something from you. That's the way this marketing needs to happen. And we are making it so difficult to ramp people into the system. We make them wrong for coming into crypto, then we make the institutions wrong for being here. Which by the way, without the institutions, but you don't have a market. Okay, Like I'm, I'm starting to get a little irritated with like I have so much volume in this play now. And, and what I think is we're 10 years away from really getting where we need to go. And, and, and it's just, it's, it's such an amateur. Like the enemy is outside of us, yet the enemy really seems to be internalized. Like our, our group seems to be, you know, oh, they're, they're bitching at Coinbase, like, Coinbase spent built tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars helping lobby this thing. So I, you know, we're gonna have to bring some external players in here and support the. Out of them and get away from our almost religious, kind of almost tyrannical religious viewpoint about how this works. We need this adopted. We need people using this. And it's not been easy, man.

B (47:49)

Yeah.

D (47:49)

Now, on a good note, if I could. On a good on. On a better note, I was with my bankers yesterday and they loaned me a lot of money. And I said, hey, look, guys, I'm in this bond thing, this little treasury thing that's getting, you know, 400 bips. It's Dr. It's dragging down my return badly. I want you to go to your risk management team and I want all that switched into STRC. I can go from 3 1/2% to 11. You're totally secured. It's millions of dollars, okay. Like just sitting in bonds and none of them. Three of them. Okay. Or at the table with me, a trader, a trust guy and the head of the bank. And I'm like, look, if you look at your. If you go to your risk management team, this is fully collateralized 11%. I'm so much better off putting the bond structure in there. It's more solid than the treasury notes. And then they started laughing. I'm like, dude, it's fully secured with Bitcoin. So the cool thing is they're actually going back. They did not know about strc. And it's only six months old, Seven, eight months old. So that'll be a problem. There's not a massive amount of liquidity it's building. But, you know, for me to be able to have that conversation, they're like, hey, that makes a lot of sense. And they know the comma that I didn't have to mention was, hey, look, if you guys can't do this, I'm going to have to find somewhere else to go because it's just too big of a spread. Eleven to three and a half. Like, you start putting that on, you know, five, ten million dollars, it's. It starts to add up. So some of these products, See, I like the products being all these different products being launched is going to hammer the institutions into. Because we're going to find ways to arbitrage any rules they write. Anyway, that's the way regulation works. We will arbitrage rules. Now, I'm a big believer. Don't get a crypto bill if it's got something in it you don't want, don't sign it because you're never going to get that back. I mean, it's going to be impossible to get it back anyway. I just thought I'd drop some, some commentary on we might be much smaller than we think we are and it may require a longer period of time for us to. I mean, silver and gold are showing us that the old money goes to the old money sources, it doesn't go to the new money. And we got to figure out a way, how do we make the old money more comfortable with coming into this industry. And once they're here, we probably shouldn't piss all over them. Thank you, guys.

B (50:26)

I, Gary, words of wisdom. I mean, I have a follow up to that, but Dwayne, I see your hand up. And by the way, for those who wonder, Scott is having connectivity problems again. Got to love this app. Duane.

G (50:41)

Oh, thanks. Good morning, everyone. Yeah, I agree with, I agree with a lot of Gary's statements here. One thing I find, and it's probably just because our Overton Window is different where I live, but you know, inherently, just to make some basic comments here, there's an inherent, very strong libertarian ethos within Bitcoin and that's just a feature of the technology and the culture that builds around it. So, you know, one of the big issues that are going to probably be a permanent issue is number one, like Gary was saying, you have a smaller market or community, so to speak. And then how do you sell that to the other side, to Democrats, et cetera. So, you know, you're going to have some sort of regulation, exactly how that shapes. Because, you know, if the argument is that no, you know, no sort of regulation is better than a bad bill. Well, you know, maybe not, not necessarily, if I can make a comparison, maybe this is not an apt comparison, but a loose comparison to say things like Sarbanes, Oxley and other sort of, you know, other sort of regulations or compliance. I mean, it does, it does in a way create work because you have to go through all of this process in order to comply. But at the end of the day, you're trying to sell to the rest of the world, so to speak, or investors that really don't have a lot of knowledge or a knowledge base on crypto. So they're going to have to think about, you know, basically regulations and safety and all of these different things because there's a lot of a lack of understanding on that side. And then how do you communicate those things? Because I Mean, that was really exemplified in Davos. If you look at the comments from Canada, from Europe, versus the comments from America. So this is going to be a prolonged issue and you could look down and say a decade from now and you still don't really have clarity or any kind of regulation that's basically going to help the industry move forward. But that's just some, you know, just some random thoughts for you.

B (52:42)

Yeah, I think that all of this boils down to how do you get a technology like Bitcoin, the technology that enables trustless value transfer with absolute provable scarcity to be adopted as a standard, which would imply it participating the way gold and silver is. And the answer to that is not, as Gary points out quite clearly, by yelling and telling people who are buying it via Ibid or whatever that they're wrong. The answer is embracing the optionality that everyone has to use that technology the way or invest in that technology based on what they think. And that's why I make the comment that it needs to be a bigger tent. And a lot of these stupid religious zeal kind of wars don't do anybody any favors. But the truth is it's cyclical. We've seen it all the time. I mean, you know, my working theory is we're in crypto winter right now and we're still in a frigging range at around 90,000 and it would be 88, something, whatever. If that's the worst that's happening because of this transition we're going through, then eventually we emerge from crypto winter and people get excited about something again. And I don't think any of us know what that something is. Alex, I think I saw your hand up next.

F (54:08)

Yeah, I wanted to comment something, Dave, on what Gary was saying earlier, which is extremely, extremely important because he was talking about the issue like solving real world problems. And I think, Dave, and this is going to sound really vulgar, I'm really sorry, guys, but there's too much intellectual masturbation in Web3, as in we're trying to focus on little pieces of tech that really don't fucking matter sometimes, other than the grifters that we all know exist, rather than focusing on real world problems. And we kicked off web three. I remember seeing web three relative to web two adoption on a curve. And back in 2021, we were roughly five to seven times faster in terms of adoption. Why? Because web three is kind of like a layer built on top of Web two. And so people who know how to use a computer, if they're just A little bit tech savvy, they would be able hopefully to manage a non custodial wallet. Obviously there are many mistakes, lots of money lost and we shouldn't be preaching people on how to use their money. But why this space matters and how we can improve the ux. And what we've noticed recently is that we've stalled. We've been at half a billion dollars since 2024. Adoption is not going up, on the contrary to popular belief. While when we compare it to AI, how many users do you guys think we have in AI? As of today we have 1.4 billion fucking people in AI and we're still stuck at half a billion in crypto. And ChatGPT and Grok have only started truly like a year and a half ago and we're already more than nearly triple the times of adoption in AI than we're having in Web3. And it's all because we're trying to build all this very complex tooling that is completely useless from the massive standpoint rather than solving problems that truly matter. Do we expect everyone to understand what multisig is? Do we expect everyone to understand how to manage our private keys? Do we expect everyone to fucking bridge from one blockchain to the other? Having two gas coin fees from two separate blockchains? It's an absolute disaster. And so it really reminds me as analogy of the early days of the railroads in the United States, right, where you'd have one railroad go from A to B, but then from, to get to C you would have to go from B to N and then N to Q and then Q to C. And so it's very, very complicated. And I think because people are, have this kind of personal need to build something better than the other, rather than focus on open source and build on top of each other and try to own everything and dominate the market. We don't have the right mindset and we're not thinking about the end user. And I think that's a massive, massive problem, guys, that we really, really need to fix if we want to reach more than 1 billion users in crypto by 2030, as all of us expect.

B (56:58)

I think that it's, that is, is a great almost a mic drop. But you know, Dwayne, was your, was your hand up from before or is that a phantom from before? So I don't want to cut you off.

G (57:09)

Well, that's a phantom from before. I was surprised you saw me in the, in the first place because it's like kind of glitching.

B (57:15)

So just Yeah, I, I think that Alex's point is, is kind of the mic drop basically and people in Bitcoin don't understand that like there's, I would say 90% of the world it wants to, you know, is perfectly happy to use their credit card to swipe and pay is perfectly happy to go on a website and let somebody else handle all the, the, all of the internals and the 10% of the world who needs. And maybe my percentages are wrong. I don't care who wants the optionality to be able to take their, their wealth and hold it themselves because they feel they need to leave their country or they want to be able to just. They don't trust anybody should be catered to as well that you need a big tent and the, you know, having applications where you can manage your succession so you can do estate planning, you can do everything that you need to do and make it easy to use and never worry about the security threat of oh my God, if God forbid, my wife clicks on a, on, on an email and downloads an attachment that the next time I use the same computer to you know, do a, a crypto transfer, I'm going to lose all of it. You know, that that needs to be fixed. It needs to be solved. And to be blunt, the vast majority of people aren't going to want to manage that risk themselves. They're going to, they're going to want to outsource it and they're going to be willing to pay a little bit to for it. Now should they be paying 3% for every credit card transaction for that? Of course not. I mean that's just user us because there's no real need for it if you're not using credit. But people will pay for it. And there are a lot of builders in our space that are trying to do that. When those are the conversations that are having that are happening, that's when, you know, we're not in winter anymore. That's when people are getting excited again. And that's really the point. I mean I think that's what you were saying. Right Alex, sorry for putting you on the spot again. Yeah, okay. I got the heart. Well, anyway, we are at 11:20, so since Scott is not here to give the normal disclaimer, please follow every speaker up here who gives their time for this. We'll be back tomorrow morning at 10:15 and we'll see if maybe we have some news that is not because we're stuck in the middle of a range and nothing else happening. Take care everyone.