The Chopping Block: The CLARITY Act Endgame with Patrick Witt + Gauntlet's $125M SBI Raise + Balaji's Malaysia Exodus

Summary

Unchained Podcast Summary

Episode: The Chopping Block: The CLARITY Act Endgame with Patrick Witt + Gauntlet's $125M SBI Raise + Balaji's Malaysia Exodus

Host: Laura Shin (plus The Chopping Block crew: Haseeb Qureshi, Tarun Chitra, Tom Schmidt, Robert Leshner)
Date: July 23, 2026

---

Overview

In this episode, the Chopping Block crew offers an insider’s view on the biggest news stories shaking the crypto world: Gauntlet’s $125M raise from SBI Holdings, the fallout from Balaji Srinivasan’s Network School expulsion from Malaysia, and in-depth analysis of the final legislative hurdles for the much-anticipated U.S. crypto regulatory bill, the CLARITY Act, with Patrick Witt—White House crypto policy point person—joining live amidst high-stakes, last-minute negotiations.

The main thrust of the episode explores how U.S. crypto regulation is reaching a pivotal moment, delving into the power struggles, policy details, and outright political drama currently determining the industry's future.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Gauntlet's $125M Raise from SBI Holdings

(Starts at 02:00)

• Tarun celebrates Gauntlet’s largest funding round to date, led solely by SBI Holdings.
  • SBI described as a "weird conglomerate" and “crypto OGs of Japan,” owning a range of banks and exchanges.
  • The raise marks a shift in crypto fundraising: “Crypto’s matured…people kind of go back to more traditional big companies investing in small companies,” says Tarun (02:26).
• Cultural notes:
  • Tarun jokes about needing to wear a suit for meetings in Japan (“not easy wearing a suit and being shaved for seven days a week,” 04:32).
  • Special shout-out to SBI’s chairman, Katau-san, “who apparently listens to the show quite regularly” (04:49).
• Team dynamic:
  • Haseeb notes the crew’s fundraising prowess: “Both of you now have raised more money as founders than you have as VCs. That is actually very impressive” (05:58).

2. Balaji’s Malaysia Exodus and the Network State Drama

(Starts at 06:28)

• Background:
  • Balaji Srinivasan, prominent crypto figure, attempted to establish his “Network School” (embodying the network state concept) in Malaysia’s Forest City, with an eventual investment plan of $145M.
• The Incident:
  • Rumors of Israeli nationals storing at Network School sparked controversy (Malaysia prohibits Israeli immigration), leading to an immigration raid and media uproar.
  • Balaji released a video publicly requesting a memorandum of understanding (MOU) from the Malaysian president for operational legitimacy—threatening to move capital if harassed.
  • Despite a lack of conclusive immigration violations, the local government revoked Network School’s license, leading to a publicized relocation to Kazakhstan, with an MOU signed.
• Panelist reactions:
  • Robert: “I want Balaji to succeed…It is an audacious task…He picked the wrong dance partner to start.” (10:14)
  • Tom: “A lot of Westerners go to non-Western countries and...assume it’s going to be the same kind of common rule of law…This is not Singapore. This is kind of...the Wild West. It can look really good. And then one day you have this existential moment.” (10:50)
  • Haseeb: “Kazakhstan seems a better fit…much more secular in its leadership…this will be a lesson to other countries: if you want to do this…there's a certain way you have to do it.” (11:30)
  • Tarun: Notes Kazakhstan’s government is actively recruiting blockchain/AI projects; the move is well-timed (13:05).
• Patrick Witt (just joining in): “I am knee deep in trying to get the [CLARITY] bill passed…When I come up for air someday…I look forward to getting caught up on that.” (13:57)

3. The CLARITY Act: The Political Endgame

(Main discussion begins at 14:13)

Context

• The CLARITY Act is the long-awaited comprehensive U.S. crypto regulatory bill, already passed in the House, now stalled in the Senate in the face of intense negotiation and partisanship.
• Immediate deadline: Senate recess begins August 7th, jeopardizing the bill’s passage this session.

Ethics Provision as the Main Sticking Point

(Deep dive starts at 16:14)

• Patrick Witt describes the crux:
  • For the first time, the President has agreed to submit to an ethics law restricting conduct—namely, prohibiting federal officials and their spouses from “issuing or sponsoring digital assets” while in office, with “strong civil penalties” (16:14).
  • Witt explains, “This is a massive concession...How many other ethics provisions applied to the President of the United States? Zero. How many...enforced by anyone other than the US Attorney General? None.” (16:14)
• Key debate:
  • Dems want enforcement by state attorneys general (AGs), which Patrick slams as unconstitutional and unprecedented:

    “It’s a massive departure from precedent to subject the president to any ethics provision...to somehow loop in state attorneys general, which constitutionally...I don’t know if it makes sense.” (16:14)

• Plain English summary: The White House’s proposal: DoJ (federal) enforces. Democrats demand: 50+ state AGs also enforce. This is the main sticking point. (19:53)
• Specifics of the restriction:
  • “Can’t issue a digital asset while serving; sponsorship and paid promotion also prohibited; intermediaries cannot list impermissibly issued assets.” (21:25, Witt)
  • Includes a compliance path for officials who already made their own tokens—must use a blind trust or divest (22:08).

Panel Q&A:

• Robert: “This is...more robust than the ethical protections on other financial assets that already exist today.” (22:43)
• Witt: “Arguably the most comprehensive, most aggressive ethics provision that has ever been passed by Congress.” (22:54)

Remaining Obstacles & Legislative Dynamics

• Other major categories under negotiation:
  • Law enforcement (BRCA focus)
  • Agriculture committee title (vertical integration, conflicts of interest, etc.)
  • Ongoing near-daily negotiations with Senate Democrats (23:36)
• Democratic negotiation style:
  • “They never agree to anything in advance…you finally say, okay, we can’t go any further, and then...they cut their deals at the very end.” (24:42)
• Will there be a last-minute surprise?
  • Witt: “This is going to be negotiated until the very last moment.” (25:18)
• Could a Senate vote happen without certainty of 60 votes?
  • Witt: “If you’re waiting for...grand bargain deal...you’d be waiting forever...We’re doing our best to answer every one of the issues that they’ve raised...At the end of the day, you got to stand up and be counted.” (26:49)
• Bipartisanship:
  • Witt notes over 200-300 pages added just to address Democrat caucus concerns; “It’s not a crypto giveaway...we’re doing that in order to make sure it’s a bipartisan product.” (28:44)
• Macro goals:
  • “We want America to be successful. We want it to be number one. We certainly don't want other technologies and financial markets to be taken over by adversaries…” (29:13)

Patrick Witt’s Personal Story & Team Status

(Starts at 30:54)

• Witt’s National Guard service was almost called up mid-negotiation—thanks to a deferral by the Georgia Adjutant General, he’s staying “to see this through to the finish.” (31:35)
• The White House’s Harry (crypto team deputy) is also departing soon. “Incredibly grateful for all the work Harry's done...we have him until the end of the month.” (31:35)

Odds of Passage & The Path Forward

• Polymarket odds currently a coin flip: 46% the bill passes this year (33:11)
• If not passed pre-recess, could it come back post-midterms?
  • Witt: “I can't say for sure. If you end up with a split Congress...very hard to envision...coming together on a bill.” (34:02)
  • “It is a jump ball, it is a coin flip—massive achievement in and of itself.” (35:47)
• Crypto policy bench: Witt has no immediate plans to exit government after negotiations; timing will depend on upcoming obligations and bill status. (35:59)
• Private sector dreams:
  • Witt looks forward to “transparency and honesty” after government life; “Private sector people...tell you, ‘Here’s my objective…’ In government, it’s a lot of misdirection and things held back…” (36:35)

Unexpected Positives

• Tarun asks what has surprised Witt on the upside:
  • Witt points to new clarity on listing certain exchange-traded assets: “It’s going to be pretty cut and dry.” (38:09)

Is Clarity the End of Crypto Legislation?

• Robert: “Is this the end of crypto-facing legislation?...Or is this the destination?” (39:04)
• Witt: “We’re planning to mark up the SBR bill...House tax provisions are also on deck…There’s still within this calendar year...opportunity to get a couple more wins on the board.” (39:47)

Closing Messages & What Listeners Can Do

• Witt: “We need to remember what we’re trying to do here…set up the U.S. to be the leader in the financial markets of the future. As much as people can impress upon those who are ultimately going to be asked to take a vote to remember that this is about America’s global competitiveness…” (41:18)
• Haseeb: “If you are an American, call your representative and tell them you want to see clarity get passed. You believe in crypto.” (51:35)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Patrick Witt:

  “This is the first time ever that a president, the White House has ever agreed to submit to an ethics provision that would restrict the president's conduct…That should not be understated just how important of a concession that is.” (16:14)

• Robert (on Balaji):

  “It is an audacious task to try to build a new network state on any other sovereign nation's grounds…Once a network state gets successful enough, I don't think you run the same risks. But Balaji, I think, picked the wrong dance partner to start.” (10:14)

• Tom (on founders in new jurisdictions):

  “A lot of Westerners go to non-Western countries and...assume that it's going to be the same kind of common rule of law…then one day you have this existential moment.” (10:50)

• Patrick Witt (on legislative wrangling):

  "Democrats’ strategy throughout this bill…has been to never agree to anything in advance…they make you play a game of chicken...then they cut their deals at the very end…That’s probably the nicest way I can say it." (24:42)

• Haseeb:

  "This bill is now in the center of that story…if they go soft on this, how are they going to be able to hold the line to their own constituents and say, 'Yeah, you're totally right. Crypto corruption, let's go after him’?" (48:21)

• Tarun (on crypto public image):

  "My personal life index is how much...if I meet a random person in New York, what's the probability that I'm going to tell them that I work in crypto?...that thing has just plummeted dramatically in the last six months." (50:09)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Gauntlet/SBI raise: 02:00 – 06:26
• Balaji Malaysia/Kazakhstan saga: 06:28 – 13:57
• CLARITY Act overview begins: 14:13
• Ethics provision in detail: 16:14 – 23:27
• Ongoing bill negotiations and party dynamics: 23:36 – 30:54
• Personal stories/team attrition: 30:54 – 33:10
• Passage odds & political timelines: 33:11 – 36:27
• Looking forward/positives: 36:27 – 39:47
• Crypto legislative roadmap: 39:47 – 42:25
• Closing thoughts, what you can do: 41:18 – 51:45

---

Final Thoughts

The episode delivers a rare look at legislative sausage-making as the crypto industry sits on the edge of regulatory clarity—or continued chaos. The panel balances inside-baseball policy analysis with realpolitik, industry commentary, and self-aware humor. Patrick Witt’s first-hand insights offer an invaluable peek into Capitol Hill’s process, the unprecedented nature of this ethics debate, and the stakes for U.S. innovation and global competitiveness.

Takeaway:
“This is about America's global competitiveness...as much as people can, impress upon those who are ultimately going to be asked to take a vote to remember that this is about America's global competitiveness at the end of the day, I think that's the winning message here.” — Patrick Witt, [41:18]

If you care about crypto’s future, now is the time to call your Senator.

Transcript

[Patrick Witt]

We met with the President on Thursday of last week, again yesterday morning to get final sign off on the first of its kind ethics provision that would apply a conduct restriction to the President of the United States. This is the first time ever that a president, the White House has ever agreed to submit to an ethics provision that would restrict the president's conduct, not a dividend.

[Tarun]

It's a tale of two kwan.

[Haseeb]

Now your losses are on someone else's balance sheet.

[Tom]

Generally speaking, airdrops are kind of pointless anyways.

[Haseeb]

Unnamed trading firms who are very involved

[Robert]

eth is the ultimate defi protocols are the antidote to this problem.

[Haseeb]

We're coming at you live today. Obviously, all of you know, every couple weeks the four of us get together and give the industry insider perspective on the crypto topics of the day. So joining us today, we've got Tom the defi maven and master of memes.

[Tom]

Hello, everyone.

[Haseeb]

Next we get to ruin the giga brain and grand poobah at Gauntlet, yo. We've got Robert, crypto connoisseur and czar of superstate.

[Robert]

Good morning.

[Haseeb]

And we will have joining us today, but they're not here yet. We will have Patrick Witt, who is the presidential point man on policy at the White House. Now, today is a very important day. That's part of the reason why we're doing this live stream is that we are in the final running. Supposedly the Clarity bill language is supposed to drop today. Patrick just called us right before the show is going to go live telling us that he's running around trying to get, get, make sure the language falls in the right place. So he will be dialing in before the end of this episode. But just FYI, we're going to be opening with other topics and we'll get to Clarity once he's able to join us. And I'm Aseeb, of course, the head Hyde man at Dragonfly. We're early stage investors in crypto. But I want to caveat that nothing we say here is investment advice, legal advice, or even life advice. Lisa chopping block XYZ for more disclosures. Okay, so boys, first, before we get into any of the meat, it's been a very crazy couple weeks. I wanted to first congratulate Tarun. Tarun, this is, this is a couple weeks ago. We were a little bit late, But Tarun raised $125 million from SBI holdings, sole investor. This, I think, I think is your biggest raise by far. For those of you who don't know, SBI is like the they're like the softbank spin off. It's like an enormous public company in Japan. They're like the, I don't know, they're the crypto OGs of Japan. Huge raise. Tarun, what are you going to do with the money?

[Tarun]

Yeah, thanks. You know, I think one thing I've realized being both in crypto and a little bit in traditional finance, I would say the interesting thing is historically everyone always thinks about VC as your fundraising method for growing a company from the beginning. But I do think like as crypto's matured and is becoming more sort of tradfi adjacent used by tradfi, inevitably I do think people kind of go back to more traditional big companies investing in small companies type investment versus a kind of like syndication VC style investment. And I think, you know, in the process of kind of thinking through institutional expansion, building products for sort of traditional finance entities that want access to defi liquidity as well as being able to provide liquidity to, to different types of needs to make the defi vs tradfi thing a lot more smooth. The natural thing was like, hey, the natural source of capital to actually really kind of look at is people who are in the traditional world who are really looking at crypto. And SBI has sort of been around crypto for a long time. I think they led the Series A or seed of Ripple Labs a long time ago. That was their first thing. They also own a bunch of crypto exchanges in Japan. They own like three exchanges. I think they're consolidating another one. So they'll be the top exchange in Japan soon. But yeah, they're kind of a weird conglomerate in the sense of like in the US and you don't really find this type of holding company that owns a ton of different entities. One way of viewing them, I think the thing they're most successful at has been like their online brokerage, no fee Robinhood, like product, which launched at a similar time as Robinhood but focus on Japan. But yeah, they own a bunch of banks. They own tons of companies.

[Haseeb]

Yeah, it's now they own a bunch of gauntlet.

[Tarun]

Yes, now they, now they own a bunch of us.

[Haseeb]

So good for that. That's the highlight of the portfolio. Obviously.

[Tarun]

You know what's funny is I had to, I had to wear a suit for which, you know, I think is a.

[Haseeb]

Yes, we do know.

[Tom]

It was very funny.

[Tarun]

Yeah, crazy. Crazy. Yeah, it's not, not easy wearing a suit and being shaved for seven days a week.

[Haseeb]

I think you need to tweet a Selfie of Tarun wearing a suit in Japan. Amazing tweet that.

[Robert]

I'd love to see that.

[Tarun]

Well, I'll also shout out to the. The chairman and founder of sbi, Katau San, who. Who apparently listens to the show quite regularly. So.

[Haseeb]

No kidding. No kidding. Shout out, Katasan. Yeah.

[Tarun]

So anyway, thanks for. Thanks for the kind words and, you know, looking forward to having to learn a lot more Japanese than I know now.

[Haseeb]

Cool.

[Tarun]

Although I will say I did learn one really funny thing this week which is relevant to the show, which is I learned in Korean how to say buy the dip, which is jupjup, and apparently it translates literally into picking up items that have fallen.

[Patrick Witt]

Jump.

[Haseeb]

Jump.

[Patrick Witt]

Let's go.

[Tarun]

So I need to learn the Japanese buy the dip.

[Haseeb]

Okay. I don't know. The Japanese buy the dip. Koreans buy dips. I don't know. The Japanese are dip buyers.

[Tarun]

Yeah. I don't know if it's like as funny that it's like picking up things that fell on the floor. It's like.

[Haseeb]

Right, right.

[Tarun]

It's like you should cry over spilled milk. It could be the next runner. That's kind of the spirit of the. Anyway, but thanks a lot. Yeah, figured I'd give them a shout out though, so.

[Haseeb]

Well, congratulations. The Chopping Block crew continues to crush. I think both. Both of you now have raised more. Actually, now that I. Now that I think about this, both of you have raised more money as founders than you have as VCs. That is actually not easy. That is not easy. That is actually not true.

[Patrick Witt]

That is true.

[Robert]

Yes.

[Tom]

And it's not because they didn't raise money as vc. They're both very impressive.

[Tarun]

Yeah.

[Haseeb]

It's not because you're not good VCs. To be clear, you guys are top tier VCs as well. So that is. That is actually very impressive. Just as founders, so.

[Robert]

Well, thank you. We are. We are the insiders.

[Haseeb]

Yes, that's true. As we say on the show, chopping it up. Okay, so speaking of getting chopped up, friend of the show, Balaji, there's a story that's been developing that we've been paying attention to. Hopefully we can get Balaji on the show to talk about this because it's been very interesting. So for those of you who don't know Balaji, Balaji is one of the OGs in the industry. He is one of my personal mentors. He was CTO of coinbase, founder of 21, previously ASC and Z Partner. He is the author of the Network State and the concept of Network States, which I'm sure many of you have heard of. But the idea of a network state is a sort of stateless or outside of the nation state system entity that comes together and bargains for land and, or collective rights, taxation, whatever, in, you know, different jurisdictions around the world through an online first network. So he created this thing called the Network School, and he created it in Malaysia in this area called Forest City. Now they've invested a total of something like $150 million is my understanding. I'm sorry, no, they've invested about 25 million. Plan to invest another 120 million into Forest City at this. Basically, it's like a. It's almost like one of these abandoned Chinese ghost towns that existed in Malaysia. I actually went there relatively early on and gave a lecture and met with some of the people there. So it's kind of like one of these founder resorts where people come together, they. They crash there for like two or three months, build a startup, you know, and then they might stay, they might leave, they might go somewhere else. So, so anyway, that's Network School. The drama began when there was an anonymous account that claimed that Israeli nationals were living at the Network State. Now, for those who don't know, Malaysia is a Muslim country and they do not allow immigration from Israel. But many of these, the. The accusation was that some of these Israeli nationals had dual citizenship, so they had a second passport, and that's how they were able to come in and go to the Network State and stay there in Forest City. This caused an immigration raid to come in to check all the passports from all the foreigners. And supposedly these. The immigration raid didn't find that there were any invalid passports. Balaji came out, called it a fake story. And, you know, many people from the crypto community kind of rallied behind him. He then posted a video, kind of extraordinary video, where he basically called out the Malaysian president and asked the Malaysian president for an audience so that he could get a memorandum of understanding with the Malaysian government that there would be essentially the equivalent of a charter city arrangement for what they're doing with Network School and basically say, look, we are allowed to exist, we were invited by the country, and we should not be harassed for what is ultimately not our responsibility, which is enforcing the immigration laws. That's the responsibility of the immigration agents. He said, if we cannot get a memorandum, we will reallocate our capital to other countries instead. This became a huge drama in Malaysia. So this was, as far as I can tell, it seems to have become national news and Malaysians were very, very angry at this whole debacle. And this resulted at the end with the Malaysian government revoking the license to network state. Not the central government, but the local government revoked their license. And then just today they announced that they signed an MOU with Kazakhstan and they are now going to be relocating network school to Kazakhstan instead of Malaysia, seemingly bringing the whole thing full circle. Okay, looks like Patrick just joined us. Patrick, welcome to the show. We were just talking about. I don't know if you caught any of this. We were just talking about Balaji and his whole network state debacle between Malaysia and Kazakhstan. We'll wrap up this segment really briefly, but just real quick thoughts from the team about this crazy showdown between Balaji, Malaysia and him now landing in Kazakhstan.

[Robert]

Well, I want Balaji to succeed. Friend of the show. It is an audacious task to try to build a new network state on any other sovereign nation's grounds. You're running into their whims as well. Once a network state get successful enough, I don't think you run the same risks. But Balaji, I think picked the wrong dance partner to start. The sad reality is he's not at nation state level yet. It's a small experiment. I hope that this next endeavor he's more successful, but I feel bad that he got kicked out.

[Haseeb]

Tom, any reaction?

[Tom]

Many thoughts and reactions, but I think there is something where it's like, I think a lot of Westerners go to non Western countries and they're like, well, I'm just going to run the same playbook and assume that it's going to be the same kind of common rule of law and trusted system I can depend on and it can kind of go pretty well to a certain extent. And then one day you wake up and there's a coup and the government is totally out. Now that's what's happening here. But I feel like this is illustrative where it's like, this is not Singapore. This is kind of in some ways the Wild West. And it can go kind of turkey chart style. It can look really good. And then one day you have this existential moment. And so ideally you want to go somewhere where you're not going to have a turkey chart.

[Haseeb]

Yeah, turkey chart is a good description of it because obviously the world is a complicated place. Not every place has the metropolitan international affect of the U.S. most countries are not melting pots. Most countries have very specific perspectives on ethnicities and on religious groups. And Malaysia is one of those places. And so even if there's it does seem like Kazakhstan is a much better fit given that although Kazakhstan is not only a Muslim country, it is much more secular in its leadership. And that is just going to result in a very different environment if you are trying to build something like what Balaji is trying to build. And of course leadership matters. My understanding is that he clearly didn't have the same kind of relationship with the government that he now has coming into Kazakhstan, having signed an MoU with the country's leadership. But I think it's ultimately good because we're all learning in real time. This will be a lesson to other countries of, hey, if you want to do this kind of thing, if you want to import Silicon Valley into another country, there's a certain way that you have to do it and you kind of can't do it too lightly, otherwise this is going to be the result.

[Robert]

Yeah. He is literally the best immigrant import possible for any nation. And he's bringing with him an entire crew of extremely sophisticated, extremely wealthy, extremely capable people. So hopefully this turns out better.

[Tarun]

I only have two tiny things to say. The first is I actually met someone from the Kazakhstan department of like AI and Blockchain. They bundled them together recently and so do we.

[Haseeb]

Wait, just like us? Yeah. Wait, what?

[Tarun]

Yeah, no, no, hey, hey. I'm not. I'm just saying that was. I didn't know that they had such a thing. And then I learned it and it did sound like they're really making a pretty aggressive push on bringing entrepreneurs there, like they were in doing a tour of Asia and like really kind of trying. So I think the timing actually also matched because they were kind of looking for this around the same time. The second thing is the state that forested east and Johor is like one of the largest non US data center buildouts that's fully mainly foreign funded. So I kind of wonder what that's going to do because, like, that is a huge amount of capital going into that state. But yeah. So anyway, interesting.

[Haseeb]

Patrick, any thoughts on this story? I don't know if you're familiar at all with the Kazakhstan AI blockchain strategy.

[Patrick Witt]

I'm not. I am knee deep in trying to get the bill passed. So there are, there are many stories, not just this one, that I am completely not tracking on. So when I come up for air someday, hopefully in the very near future, I look forward to getting caught up on that.

[Robert]

Well, let's catch up on the go.

[Haseeb]

So let's catch up on the bill. So, Patrick, you told us earlier that you were running around trying to tie up loose ends. But let's first do a little bit of exposition of just where things are with clarity. So for those of you who've been sleeping under a rock, clarity, of course, is the big crypto mega bill. It's the big one, the one that we've been waiting for and working on for years now. It was introduced finally into the House in May of last year. It was passed the House in July of last year. And basically it's been hanging out in the Senate and more or less banging around with many different subcommittees passing it around. It's finally gotten onto the Senate legislative calendar. I think June is when it first got on the calendar and the deadline that everyone is thinking about is August 7th. August 7th is when the recess happens. And then by the time things come back, it's midterms time and there's a lot of other stuff that's going to be taking up legislative space. So the expectation is that if this doesn't happen within the next couple of weeks, there's a good chance it doesn't happen. Now, the story about the bill today is that the big fight going on right now is on this ethics provision. Okay, so what is this ethics provision? Most of the bill's already been hammered out. There was a stuff between Coinbase and the banks and yield and blah blah, blah. We already got through all that. The main final hang up is ethics. And ethics of course, refers to presidential ethics, which is Democrats largely are demanding that there be some provision that government employees and or the the White House, meaning the president, vice president and or congressional members are enjoined from some sets of things, whether it's issuing new coins or trading blah blah, blah, something. We haven't seen the language actually yet right now. There's been already quotes in the press. We haven't seen the language yet of this new ethics provision. The White House supposedly sign off on language that they're comfortable with, but the Democrats have already given quotes in the press that they're vomiting all over the language. So Patrick, let me bring you in. Tell us about the state of play right now and what you see as the prospect for this current fight over presidential ethics.

[Patrick Witt]

Well, first of all, appreciate y' all having me on. It's good to be connected. Haseeb, it was great seeing you in London a couple weeks ago. Yeah. As you mentioned, the White House has signed off. We met with the president on Thursday of last week, again yesterday morning to get final sign off on the first of its kind ethics provision that would apply a conduct restriction to The President of the United States. It's a coincidence that this is our 250th year in existence as a country. This is the first time ever that a president White House has ever agreed to submit to an ethics provision that would restrict the president's conduct. Now, there's a number of constitutional reasons that people have not done that before. But despite Democrats comments, not surprising that they're going out there and trying to attack this provision before even necessarily seeing what's in it. But I can tell you that that is no small feat and that should not be understated just how important of a concession that is. How many other ethics provisions applied to the President of the United States? Zero. How many ethics provisions that are currently on the books are enforced by anyone other than the US Attorney General? Meaning how many of them are enforced by state attorneys general? None of them. So these lines of attack and argument that they're making, you know, it's a massive departure from precedent to subject the president to any ethics provision. This president did sign off on one, which is amazing. A second departure from precedent to somehow loop in state attorneys general, which constitutionally, I don't even, you know, there are probably scholars on this issue that would have differing opinion, but there would be no shortage of them saying constitutionally. I don't know if it makes sense for the state attorney general to be able to sue a constitutional officer, potentially preventing them from performing their constitutional duties. The president is to take care that the laws get enforced. If he's having to deal with a lawsuit from a state attorney general, you can see the problems that that could lead to. And as we've told Democrats throughout this process, you know, this is President Trump in the White House. Now, a future Democrat president would also have the same objections to this because there would be either 25 red state or 25 blue state, roughly state attorneys general who are all looking to become governors or senators, or future presidents who would love to make their careers off of bringing lawsuits against disfavored folks in the other political party. So this provision is real. It is a massive concession. I applaud President Trump for agreeing to it. It would restrict all federal officials from issuing or sponsoring digital assets for their time in office, including their spouses. And it would carry strong civil penalties associated with that. So that's where we are right now. We're talking with the leader's office on rollout for not just this provision, but the bill text overall to get that out there and let people judge for themselves. And I think what they'll see is that this White House has made an enormous concession here. And if Democrats are going to try and hold up the bill over this, saying that they need some other unprecedented enforcement mechanism, it's pretty clear that they're looking to score political points more than they are about doing what this bill is intended to do, which is establish a clear regulatory framework for digital assets, not to just dunk on political opponents and score political points in advance of a midterm.

[Haseeb]

So let me flesh that out a little bit because I think some people might have gotten lost in the details there. So the ethics provision that's currently being proposed by the White House is that the restrictions against the President, Congresspeople, Vice President. Would be enforced by the Department of Justice because, of course, it's federal law. You're the president. And okay, it should be federal agency law enforcement that should be enforcing this. What Democrats are pushing back, they're saying, no, we want all of the state attorney general, attorneys general, which of course are 51 for each state, each of them should be able to enforce the same law. If the New York State Attorney General says, hey, I think you ran afoul of this statute, that they should be able to come after the president for that or, and, or vice president and, or congresspeople, that's the fight that's happening right now. And that might make a little more sense why there's this. This kind of drama about, okay, state attorneys general versus the, the doj.

[Patrick Witt]

I was just going to say, I mean, if you're making the argument that this provision is insufficient because it doesn't have state attorneys general enforcing it, then you're basically making the argument that every ethics provision that is on the books for federal officials is insufficient because it also doesn't have state attorneys general enforcing. So we need to have a much bigger conversation if that is the position of the Democrat Party.

[Haseeb]

Yeah, I mean, that resonates with me is that it seems very odd for state attorneys general to be enforcing a federal ethics provision. I guess my other question, though is like, okay, what exactly does this ethics provision enjoin the enjoined parties from doing? You said it was issuing a currency and. Or sponsoring a currency.

[Patrick Witt]

Can't issue a digital asset in your time serving. That also extends to the spous. Sponsor a digital asset. No. Paid public sponsorship of digital assets in exchange for money. And also it would prohibit digital asset intermediaries from listing any digital asset that was impermissibly issued or sponsored.

[Robert]

So hypothetically, let's just say that somebody serving has already Created a digital asset. Right. What's the path to enter compliance? Or are legacy assets thought of as exempt? Like, walk me through sort of what the actual.

[Haseeb]

How do we think about Trump Token?

[Robert]

Yeah.

[Patrick Witt]

Yeah. The provision lays out that for assets that were previously issued or sponsored by a covered individual, the term of art and the statute, you either need to place any interest in those assets that you might have into a blind trust or divest of those assets. So making clear that you cannot have a continuing, ongoing interest in which you are taking an active role in that, to make clear that, look, we're putting this provision in place mid flight in administration here, and there needs to be a pathway for compliance, which this provides for.

[Robert]

Yep. And that seems to me, and again, I'm a layman, but from a legal perspective, you know, more robust than the ethical protections on other financial assets that already exist today.

[Patrick Witt]

That's right. So this would be a huge, you know, I think Senator Moreno said, you know, this would be arguably the most comprehensive, most aggressive ethics provision that has ever, ever been passed by Congress. And I think that's right. You know, certainly going back 50 years to the Ethics and Government act that was passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal. So, you know, I think people losing sight of that and trying to take issue with small, you know, provisions or, you know, different things about it, need to keep in mind that this is a major, major concession that's, that's being made already.

[Haseeb]

So, Patrick, let's assume that Democrats can live with the structure of this term. What's next in line that needs to get sorted out before we can get a bill passed?

[Patrick Witt]

You know, there's. We've had the big three issues coming out of the Senate Banking Committee. One, ethics, we just discussed and hopefully resolution on that very soon with the big announcement yesterday. Second, law enforcement, generally concerns about the bill that's really focused on the brca. And then third is kind of ag, which is not just one issue, but that title in general. General that was passed on a partisan basis in the Senate AG Committee back in January. And so some of those issues didn't get fully fleshed out. There have been near daily conversations between crypto industry stakeholders and Senator Booker, myself, Senator Bozeman's team, working through those issues, which concern vertical integration, conflicts of interest, affiliate trading, preemption, provisional registration, pretty much a lot in there, but a lot of those have been checked off. We are very close, I would say Democrats strategy throughout this bill, for those of us that have been working on this for the past year, has been to never agree to anything in advance, it seems like. And then they kind of make you play a game of chicken. And ultimately you finally say, like, okay, we can't go any farther. This is the best that we can do. And we believe this is the best policy. And then you do see them ultimately cut their deals at the very end, but they make you work for it. I'll say that that's probably the nicest way I can say it.

[Haseeb]

Okay, so is that a way of saying don't write this thing off until the very last minute because there might be sort of ninth inning surprise?

[Patrick Witt]

Yeah, I think this is going to be negotiated until the very last moment. So again, that's just been a strategy of Democrats throughout this process. I wish it weren't that way. I think ultimately we should be arriving at the best policy and not necessarily trying to play a game of chicken here or try and one drop the other or things like that. I think we should be arriving at what is the best policy. You tell us what your policy objectives are that you're trying to achieve, we let you know what, what ours are, what our red lines are, and let's, let's find something in the middle. You know, it doesn't need to be a lot of gamesmanship involved, in my opinion, but call me naive, I haven't worked on the Hill before, so this is a new experience for me.

[Robert]

I know you're, you know, not a part of the Hill or the Senate, you know, but just to war game, you know, some ideas out, is there the possibility that it goes to the floor without having complete conviction that there's going to be 60 votes? You know, obviously, I think the goal is everybody gets on board. Right. There's so much good content here that there's so much bipartisan support for that it should happen. But if it goes to the very last second. Right. You know, I remember when it was in, you know, the Banking Committee, like, there was deals being cut while it was being debated and committed. Right. Like, it literally went beyond the last second and went into overtime.

[Patrick Witt]

Right.

[Robert]

You know, is there a possibility that, you know, it winds up getting a vote before there's, you know, 100% confidence that it'll make it through? Like, how do you see this playing out?

[Patrick Witt]

I think exactly as I said, if you're waiting for there to be some kind of grand bargain deal in which you have, you know, call it 10 Democrats in advance saying, leader Thune, please put this on the floor. We can't wait to vote for this. You'd be waiting forever. It's just never going to happen. That's not how Democrats have negotiated throughout this entire bill, unfortunately. I genuinely mean it when I say I wish that weren't the case. You know, I'd certainly be a lot less stressed and have slept a lot more for the past year. But we are doing our best to answer every one of the issues that they've raised, every one of their policy objectives. I mean that sincerely. Even on ethics, as we saw yesterday, nobody thought that we could actually, actually, you know, produce an ethics provision that had real teeth and that included the President. We did. We've answered every one of their, their issues that they've raised in, in a good faith way. I'm a very transparent person. Anyone that's dealt with me knows like I'm, I'm not a good liar. I'm not a good poker player. I'm not trying to play games. I'm telling you exactly where we are, where our red lines are. And I'm trying to get creative, to find solutions to, to achieve the objectives that they want. So we're going to continue to, to do what we've done for the past year, which is again, engage in good faith address all the issues that Democrats raise in a way that we think makes the most policy sense. And at the end of the day, you got to stand up and be counted. And when they call the question, we'll see if people have just been paying lip service to moving off of the anti crypto, the war on crypto stance or whether it was genuine because this is a truly bipartisan product. I think we've added 200, 300 pages to the bill. I can tell you that that was not, not because we were wanting to add them. They were, they were in order to address Democrat concerns and their caucus's objectives. And so we've, we've answered the mail on every one of those and we'll see if it's enough here pretty soon.

[Robert]

I mean, what gets me confident is when we've seen this go through the House. Right. The House. I, nobody was expecting to be so bipartisan when it finally came to a vote. We were all surprised by just how many votes it garnered on both sides. And I think there's a lot of broad support for clarity and for market structure, legislation. I just feel like there's a lot of politics getting played in the run up to

[Patrick Witt]

should not be a political bill. I know people probably say that about all sorts of legislation and inevitably the politics comes into it. But we're talking about regulating financial markets. We're talking about regulating a technology. In some ways, it's kind of inverted. The fact that Republicans are leading the way on a regulatory bill. Normally you'd expect it to be the opposite. And this is not a crypto giveaway. I spend half of my day having to deal with concerns from crypto industry stakeholders who take issue with things that are in the bill or things that are being contemplated. But we're doing that in order to make sure that it's a bipartisan product and that we can arrive at an outcome here, not just some kind of show vote. I'm not in it for a show vote. I haven't dedicated the past year of my life to just getting some kind of political victory here. It's about producing an outcome, and it's about getting this bill in place and allowing crypto to achieve its full potential. It's a technology. At the end of the day, we think it holds tremendous promise. The President has made very clear on crypto or AI or nuclear or quantum, you name the technology. We want America to be successful. We want it to be number one. We certainly don't want other technologies and financial markets to be taken over by adversaries, you know, either dictating to us what the rules of the game are or taking a lead in different areas that potentially put our national security at risk. So that's what this is about at the end of the day. And I sincerely hope that folks come together and score whatever political wins they need to, but at the end of the day, they should be voting for this bill because it's good policy.

[Haseeb]

So, Patrick, speaking of, you know, spending the last year of your life on this bill, one of the interesting subplots to this whole story was your own apparently getting called up at the 11th hour to go serve on the National Guard in Georgia, which you previously deferred your obligation to go serve in the National Guard. They called you up, I think. I don't know if it was like, a week ago or something, and just I think it was yesterday you announced that you successfully got it deferred. Right. As Harry, who I think is also in the White House crypto team, he announced that he's departing in two weeks. So it kind of feels like. Talk us through what's going on there, because it sounds like you're pretty shorthanded given the staff over there at the White House.

[Patrick Witt]

Yeah, so in my case, I'm a member of the Georgia Army National Guard for the past year and some change. I drill once a month Like a standard reservist. As part of my commitments, I have some upfront mandatory training that I have to go to JAG school, basically. I've already deferred that twice now. And the next date was July 27th. So Monday of next week, I was supposed to report I had orders to show up in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, to, you know, in fatigues and there to complete my training. I got a call from. From inside the building, got calls from outside the building. Ultimately, you know, the adjutant general, state of Georgia, the head of the Georgia Army National Guard, you know, reached out and said, we think we need to defer this for you. You're doing important work up there. We want you to be able to complete that. And so I was very, very grateful to receive that deferral. So get to see this through to the finish. Harry, meanwhile, my deputy, he's supporting a wife and two kids on a government salary. And it was a deal that he had with his wife to serve in government for one year, and that was three years ago. So they're a couple years overdue to return back to the private sector and bring it close to his public service. So incredibly grateful for all the work that Harry's done. We have him until the end of the month. So either we're done and we get this passed, or we're very close, and we'll certainly be bringing him back for the signing ceremony. If we get there.

[Robert]

We'll get there.

[Haseeb]

Let's also be, as investors, probabilistic here. So the poly market, I'm sure you're not going to comment on it, but Polymarket right now has ticked up over the last day and a half, but it's currently sitting at 46%. The low was something like 30%. The high, I think, was February of like 70 high, 70s. So right now it's a coin flip is what markets are saying of whether or not this bill passes this year. Now, of course, there is a possibility, and I think. I can't remember who it was. Was it Loomis or somebody who was saying that, like, look, there's a possibility that even if it doesn't hit this legislative session, it comes back, you know, post midterms, and there's a renegotiation of some of the core terms. How would you handicap it? Obviously, nobody wants to go home without a win, but, you know, let's say worst case scenario, bill does not pass. How do you handicap the odds that post midterms, there's another crack at trying to get this thing passed?

[Patrick Witt]

Specifically Post midterms, I don't know. I wouldn't even venture a guess on that. You know, we're focused on the next couple of weeks. I don't think anyone could tell you with any kind of confidence what the appetite would be for that after the midterms maybe you have some. The political pressure gets alleviated for Democrats or depending on how the election shakes out, maybe it increases, I don't know. So I can't say for sure. If you end up with some kind of split Congress. It's very hard to envision a world in which one chamber is pulling in one direction and the other is pulling in the other direction and them being able to come together on a bill. It's been hard enough to get a bill agreed to between House and Senate. Obviously House produced a product. Senate we're going to still there a year plus later. I can say right now I would say the prediction markets are about accurate. It feels like a coin flip. It really could go either way at this point in time where maybe for some folks that's a little bit unsettling and they want some more certainty around it. I would say with a piece of legislation this important, with the macro environment that we're dealing with, with the fact that we are rapidly approaching a midterm election in a very challenging political environment, just overall where people are polariz, the fact that we have been able to take it to this point where we are at the finish line and it is a jump ball, it is a coin flip is a massive achievement in and of itself. As I mentioned, I'm here for an outcome. I'm not here for some kind of conciliatory victory. But I want to make sure that this gets done and I feel like the fact that we're here on the cusp of it with a real chance to get it done is something that should be appreciated.

[Haseeb]

And what is the crypto bench look like? Because I'm assuming that you're headed back home to Georgia after I don't know how much longer you can defer your service. What does the crypto bench look like after all this?

[Patrick Witt]

The deferral that I received? You know, I'll figure out at what point in time it makes sense to to go do that training. Somewhat open ended right now. So I'm not going anywhere. That training is only a matter of months and then I go back to being a standard reservist. So whenever the time comes to go do the training, that'll either be time for me to leave government and start Life in the private sector on the other side of it, or come back to government. We'll see. I don't have any predictions for that right now.

[Tom]

What are you most looking forward to? Let's assume the best and this passes. What are you looking forward to the most in private sector life?

[Patrick Witt]

Again, I think people being very upfront and honest about what their intentions are. Private sector people, wow. People tell you, here's my objective, here's what I'm selling, here's what I'm trying to do. I feel like in government it's a lot of misdirection and things held back and everything filtered. So that's just part of the challenging environment of managing through a process in which you have a lot of different stakeholders that have different priorities and view things differently. But yeah, just some real honesty and just transparency about what people are trying to get done.

[Tarun]

Time. I had one tiny question which is, you know, we've mainly focused on all the kind of negative things, right? Like, hey, the negotiation's hard. You know, things are. People are kind of not being truthful, I guess. But the question to me is like, what has been something that surprised you to the upside, like something that was like a positive change to the current final bill that like in the beginning actually you thought wouldn't have made it in or, or you know, like what have sort of been some of the positive surprises that are, you know, obviously I think the negative one's well documented, but I'm just kind of curious if there's anything that stands out to you as like, did not think this would make it in or did not think this part of the bill would be constructed.

[Patrick Witt]

It's. It is a great question. I, I feel like most of my time is just spent battling. So, you know, I'm, I'm kind of myopically focused on all the things that I'm, I'm having to. We're having to.

[Haseeb]

This is why he wants to go back to the private sector.

[Patrick Witt]

We're having to accept concession or make the bill worse or water it down in order to build enough support to hopefully get it to 60. So I don't know if I've had a chance to dwell as much on the positive part of it. I think maybe there's a provision in Title 1 around treatment of certain assets based on their being in exchange traded products, which brings some outright clarity and just doesn't make you go through the steps of, you know, do you check this box? Do you check that box? In order to get clear regulatory treatment for Those it's going to be pretty cut and dry. So I think that's been a positive. And for those people that have, you know, tokens that are part of exchange traded products, you know, it's definitely provided them a lot of clarity and certainty that they're happy to have.

[Robert]

My question for you is, you know, let's assume Clarity passes because, you know, I think there's so much here that should be supported by both sides. I think we're going to get to significantly more than 60 votes for this. When it comes to the floor Clarity gets signed into law. Is that the end of crypto facing legislation in the U.S. is there an appetite to go further? Is there an appetite post Clarity to tackle items relating to a US Strategic bitcoin reserve? Is there any appetite to take the wins and keep going or is this the end of the road? Is this the mission accomplished banner? Is this the destination?

[Patrick Witt]

Another good question. We're planning to mark up the SBR bill arma Representative Begich's bill in the House on the other side of August recess. So that's going to come forward. We are talking about tax provisions later this year. There's Talk of Reconciliation 3.0, the NDAA. Those are opportun to potentially get some of those tax provisions in there rather than moving it as a standalone. So there's still within this calendar year and within this Congress an opportunity to get a couple more wins on the board. This would certainly be a big one, but we've already got the chamber loaded up, so to speak, for what comes next. So we very much want to get Clarity passed and allow the regulators to start implementing the rules immediately. And then pretty quickly on the legislative front, we'll turn to the other priorities and make sure that the genius implementation, which is still ongoing and soon the Clarity implementation stays consistent with the spirit of the bill and with the President's pro crypto agenda.

[Haseeb]

Well, Patrick, we appreciate all the hard work you're doing and all the lack of sleep you're enduring on our industry's behalf. Anything in the closing hours as we're getting to the final negotiations that us or our listeners can help with. I'm assuming that there's a small number of angles of attack that you think are really going to matter here or a small number of holdouts on the legislative side who you think are particularly important. Floor is yours.

[Patrick Witt]

I think the main thing is just helping people zoom out. We get so, so dug in and we're negotiating two words on page 372 of a bill and that feels like the end of the world if we don't get exactly what we want. And, you know, I could say that sometimes for myself and sometimes for Democrats that we're negotiating with, we need to remember what we're trying to do here. We're trying to set up the United States to be the leader in the financial markets of the future. Digital assets are here to stay. They're already implemented into our financial system. This would make clear the rules in order to safeguard the wiring in a system that is already kind of naturally happening, but doing so in a way that reflects good principles of consumer protection and preserves the innovation that blockchain represents sense. So as much as people can impress upon those who are ultimately going to be asked to take a vote to remember that this is about America's global competitiveness, at the end of the day, I think that's the winning message here that needs to be impressed upon people as we get closer to a vote.

[Haseeb]

Very good, Patrick. We'll leave you to it. I know that you've got a lot more work to do today, and I'm sure you'll be sprinting for the next couple weeks, but you're doing God's work.

[Robert]

Work.

[Haseeb]

And thank you for all the hustle you're putting in.

[Patrick Witt]

Awesome. Thank you so much for having me on. Sorry I was running a little bit late. Appreciate you bearing with.

[Haseeb]

You're all good.

[Robert]

No worries. Thank you, Patrick.

[Tarun]

Thanks. All right.

[Haseeb]

Cheers, Patrick. Oh, okay. Well, we let Patrick go. Reflections now that he's not here.

[Robert]

Yeah.

[Haseeb]

Okay. Say what you really think, Robert.

[Tarun]

Robert has a lot of opium.

[Haseeb]

I have a lot of opium. Listen, I respect that a lot.

[Robert]

I'm a believer in my head. And the odds after that went from, like, 70 to 75.

[Tarun]

Wow.

[Tom]

You were absolutely, very much.

[Tarun]

Sounds like there's arbitrage for you.

[Tom]

70 to 75.

[Robert]

70 to 75, right?

[Tom]

Yeah.

[Haseeb]

It's a very small move in absolute terms. Okay.

[Robert]

I mean, he said things that a lot of us have seen in the public domain already. You know, some of the insights around the exact shape of the ethics language. I think there was some alpha in there that people haven't heard before. I think there was new information, but it's not like 70 to 95. I think there was an incremental set of things to make me slightly more confident.

[Haseeb]

Yeah. So I understand the crux of this. I mean, it feels like ethics is the main kahuna here. I think if you can get ethics, the whole bill comes together. It's very clear that. Okay. The first question was, will Trump even make any ethics concession? And I initially kind of sounded like the ethics concession was kind of fake, of like, oh, I won't create any new coins. And it's like, well, nobody wants any new coins. Like, there's no.

[Robert]

No one market.

[Haseeb]

Yeah. Putting things in a blind trust and. Or divesting them outright. Like, okay, that's a pretty major concession. That feels pretty real. So now the. The thing about the. The DOJ versus state attorneys general, that seems a little crazy to me. Like, state attorneys general each picking at the president.

[Robert]

Yeah, no, that's a recipe. That's a recipe just to create a scenario where, like. Like, he'll get sued even if he hasn't broken any rules. You know, a random Washington state or Oregon or like, some AG is just going to, like, file a lawsuit because they can and they're empowered just to gum up the system. Right. So it seems ridiculous that that would even be a legitimate prospect to allow any state AG in a politicized environment to be able to go after not just Trump, but any federal employee.

[Haseeb]

A sitting president. A sitting president.

[Tom]

Right.

[Haseeb]

Which, like, already there's a very strong presumption against your ability to go after sitting president anybody.

[Robert]

Right. Like, it would literally empower, on average, 25 Republican or 25 Democrat AGs to go after whoever they don't want if

[Haseeb]

they do anything related to Congress members. Congress members. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So, yeah, it does sound like a bizarre construction that said, I understand where it's coming from, which is, of course, it's coming from the politicization of the doj. Right. It's like, okay, well, do you really think that Todd Blanche is going to go after Trump for violating anything? Which I get that that is kind of the own goal that the Trump administration has served, but it doesn't feel like state attorney general is a good solution to that.

[Robert]

Right. But also, like, the Senate and the House have investigative powers.

[Tom]

Right.

[Robert]

If they felt like the DOJ wasn't doing it, like, they can literally get involved. They can subpoena, they can, you know, call for special prosecutors. They can do all these things. Like, even.

[Haseeb]

Yeah. Maybe special prosecutor is, like, the right answer or something like this. Like some kind of.

[Tom]

I was gonna say, I feel like we've. We've seen this in other scenarios. Yeah. I mean, I feel like also this is not even about necessarily about, like, worries about some future president issuing another token. It was. It's really like, you kind of see this. Obviously, it was coming through. Yes. They don't, like, the fact that Trump

[Haseeb]

I would buy AOC coin personally, I think that would, I think that would rip.

[Tom]

She's never gonna do do it. Maybe she should.

[Haseeb]

But dollar tag aoc. That would do. That's perfect.

[Tarun]

It already exists. It already exists. Yeah. Tom has the real reason that does.

[Tom]

Well, yeah, I will again. But it's like how do you retroactively punish this person who did something which was sketchy and kind of not super palatable but like maybe yes.

[Tarun]

Right? Like, yes.

[Tom]

And, and so, you know, he did

[Haseeb]

mint the token two days before his inauguration. So yes, this would not fall under the statute.

[Tom]

It's sort of like it.

[Tarun]

Yeah. I mean I just don't know if there's like, is there any way that I feel like, if it doesn't seem like there's the, it feels like the strategy for Democrats is just make them bleed until the end and then midterms have and recess happens and then make them bleed again. Like, like I don't see any strategy in which they're like, yes, we really want this. Especially given that the like.

[Robert]

Well, I disagree, I disagree. The reason why I disagree is if you look at the House side right. Of this legislation, there was extreme bipartisan support for the House side of market structure. That is a fact.

[Haseeb]

Like it wasn't even like, oh, it's 5294 to 134. But remember that was last summer. Summer.

[Robert]

I know, I know that was last summer. But Trump had already made Trump coin. Okay. Like that was already.

[Tarun]

Yeah.

[Haseeb]

The world crypto financial not down.

[Tarun]

Crypto market wasn't present down where Liberty didn't have all this other stuff. I, I, but I don't think your

[Robert]

average politician is like tracking the price.

[Tarun]

Average Democratic senator, definitely. Are you kidding me? I get five times a day of like Trump COIN is down, but we're going to get him type of thing things I will tell you, I don't, I think you are misreading the Democratic

[Robert]

Party even by that point. Trump COIN was down though. That, that's objectively true.

[Haseeb]

It was down from the high. It was not down to the same degree that it's down now. I, I think it's very clear that this has become an animating issue for Democrats in a way that it was not last summer.

[Tarun]

I agree.

[Haseeb]

Like the story has congealed and they know that this is going to play well going into the midterms. Like it's already, it's a very, very, very off repeated line. This bill is now in the center of that story. If like I Think the Democrats feel it, that if they go soft on this, that how are they going to be able to hold the line to their own constituents and say, yeah, you're totally right. Crypto corruption, let's go after him.

[Robert]

Right? No, they want a bill where they can say, we've regulated crypto and we put restrictions on Trump so he can no longer profit from.

[Tarun]

I think that's like, that's like the Nancy Pelosi Democrats. Aoc. Democrats want blood.

[Haseeb]

Yeah.

[Robert]

There's irrational people. There's Democrats that did not vote for Marcus.

[Haseeb]

But you only need seven. You only need seven.

[Tarun]

Yeah, exactly. That, that, that's the.

[Robert]

Well, McConnell is like, I don't even know if he's voting. So I'm serious.

[Haseeb]

I mean, like, can he vote?

[Tarun]

Can he vote by holding today's newspaper when. With the writing his vote?

[Robert]

Yeah, yeah. Like an AI generated newspaper. You know, I think realistically, eight or nine. Yeah. People also like their car breaks down and they can't make it to the vote and stuff. I think you need more than seven. I think you need like nine or ten.

[Tarun]

By the way, by the way, we got one comment that I think we should read on air, which came from, which, which comes from our, our, our matriarch laurian, which is 70 to 75, is like someone saying six minute abs versus seven minute abs. I thought that was pretty funny.

[Haseeb]

That's pretty good. That's pretty good. Well, that, that sums up the episode pretty well. Well, I, look, boys, we are in the home stretch. Obviously this bill matters a lot.

[Tarun]

Look, I, I'm not trying to fud. I obviously want the same thing, but I, I, my personal, I mean, look, he, my personal life index is how much, how many, how much? If I meet a random person in New York, what's the probability that I'm going to tell them that I work in crypto or not, if they ask? And that thing has just plummeted dramatically in the last six months because there's

[Robert]

no Clarity act signed into law.

[Tarun]

No, because, like, because the media coverage of the Trump crypto stuff by all your friends, media coverage of the Trump lives in Brooklyn. Horrible.

[Robert]

Tarun lives in the country.

[Tom]

Have you talked to them after Robin Hood channel chain, though? You know, have they tried Rabbit or chain?

[Haseeb]

Like, hey, hey, hey.

[Patrick Witt]

Yeah, yeah.

[Tarun]

I, I have not asked them about their cash cat.

[Haseeb]

Look, sentiment, baby, sentiment's starting to turn. Let's just see. Yeah, I mean, look, I, I will just say this, I will just say this. Look, clarity, obviously, we, we'd love for clarity to pass. This is kind of the last bulwark against just having to deal with this bullshit over and over again with every administration. But even if clarity does not pass, a lot is going to change. There's going to be regulations, there's going to be rulemaking. And it's not the last shot. It is the highest probability chance that we pass it now, if we're going to pass it. But probability is not zero. It's definitely less than 50 if it doesn't pass this year. But, you know, it's definitely not zero. So let's cross our fingers. And to the extent that you are a constituent, if you are an American, call your representative and tell them that, like, hey, you want to see clarity get passed? You believe in crypto?

[Robert]

Yes. That's how we make it happen. All your senators.

[Haseeb]

Call your senators.

[Tarun]

Yeah, but. But realistically, there's probably like 12 of them who are the most important.

[Haseeb]

Call 12 of yours.

[Tom]

Do it anyway.

[Haseeb]

One of 12 states, call your senators, because we. We want to make sure that this message is heard loud and clear. Okay, that is it. Thanks, everybody. We'll be back next week.