Bankless - SotN#17: RETREATING! w/ Jake Chervinsky (BitMEX REKT, SEC Action, is DeFi safe?)

Starting point is 00:00:03 The bankless state in the nations are brought to by WIREN. WIREN is DFI's first self-building community-run project, which I just get really, really excited about. Wyn is a system that seeks out yield in DFI, and it does that in a number of different ways. A very aggressive way is with the vaults where you can deposit your preferred asset of choice, and different DFI experts will come in and generate a strategy for what to do with your deposited token, right? and so it'll go find ways to get yield in that deposited token in Defy. For those who want to just earn yield on their stable coins, the Earn system is for you,

Starting point is 00:00:39 where you can deposit your preferred stable coin, and Y-Earn will go and figure out which money market on D-Fi, and D-Fy-I is producing the best interest rate, whether it's D-Y-D-X, it's compound or AVE. It looks around D-Fi to see where the yield is coming from, and it directs stablecoins automatically so you don't have to. Check them out at y-earn.comin. to get started and also check out the stats page to see what other people are doing as well.

Starting point is 00:01:03 We're also brought to you by Monolith. Monolith is your cool new Defi account, your Defi savings account, your Defi checking account, except the cool thing about the Monolith Defi account is that it gets software updates, right? You actually get to increase the usefulness of this over time. So here are some of the features. Monolith is a smart contract wallet with a lot of the features that you would expect if you've come to know Defi and what it is, you can add money to it. You can put that money to work in compound and accessing yield, but you can also swap through Uniswap. What was cool with Monolith is that they will send you a very sexily Monolith Visa card that connects to your Monolith Smart Contract Wallet on Ethereum. So it's a

Starting point is 00:01:45 really awesome tool to live a bankless life with a savings account that gets software updates. So this is something that you're never going to find out in the real world, but you can still do real world things with, you know, real money and, like, buy your groceries. So that's just fantastic. Coming soon to Monolith, actually already here to Monolith is now you can buy die and get it sent to your wallet directly, right? So it's also being an on-ramp. So you don't have to go through your centralized exchange like Coinbase or Gemini or wherever. You can just go straight from your bank account right into your Monolith checking account smart contract wallet. So check them out at Monolith.xy Z.

Starting point is 00:02:27 Bankless Nation, welcome to another episode of State of the Nation. This is episode 17. And we have a special guest today, Jake Chervinsky, who is going to tell us a little bit about all of the regulatory action that's been going on in crypto. It has been heavy the last week and absolutely crazy. David, how are you doing today, sir? Just fantastic. Kind of an interesting and kind of good week to be in the defy realm of things because like this is kind of where we get to say like I told you so like this is why we do defy but also not defy isn't really in the state that it should be in order for us to really be saying I told you so so a little bit a little bit of a juxtaposition there and if this is your first state of the nation guys so Dave and I do this every Tuesday we release it

Starting point is 00:03:21 on YouTube it's live on YouTube now so if you're watching on YouTube you're watching it live and then the following day. So on Wednesdays, we release it on the podcast stream so you can catch it that way too. What we do in these state of the nations is we try to apply the things that are going on, particularly in the past week, to the macro concepts that you read about and hear about on the bankless podcast and newsletter. So David, what are we talking about today, man? So much has happened. And talking to like the whole legal side of crypto Twitter, the whole legal side of Twitter is that so much has happened that like just can't keep up because it just came one after another and and first there was bitmex and then there was salt and kick and then and then

Starting point is 00:04:04 there's now there's John McAfee and so there's just a big push coming from like the nation state three letter agencies getting into the world of crypto saying you know drawing a line and saying everyone that's on this side of the line has gone too far right and so that has all happened in a week. And so last state of the nation, this wasn't even on our radar. And now this state of the nation, there's so much to talk about with specifically just legal stuff. And Jake is an expert. He actually, like, predicted this stuff in a way before it happened. So we're going to start there. I think he's the perfect guest for this. Before we get there, let's talk about what's going on in the bankless nation. So, David, we released an epic podcast like the Molok Slayer podcast yesterday. Give us a

Starting point is 00:04:48 sneak peek on that. Yeah, yeah, Molok's Slayer with Amin Soleimani and Kevin O'Waki of Gitcoin. In the 2018, 2019, Bear Market, Amin Soleimani kind of gathered everyone around and said, you guys, there's this problem called Bolok, and, like, Ethereum is currently, like, experiencing it. Like, we're currently having to deal with this. And so he went over to combat Moloch. He made Moloch Dow. And as a short snippet of what Moloch actually is, Molok is like the reason why humans always tend to fail to coordinate, right? Like it's this incentive mechanism that always happens where like the more and more humans coordinate, the stronger there is an incentive to defect from that coordination because it

Starting point is 00:05:30 profits you in some particular way. Right. And this is basically the instantiation of the prisoner's dilemma. And it's a really important subject matter. And so we got Amin and we got Kevin from Gitcoin onto the podcast to talk about Molok and how Ethereum represents this like opportunity. for us to experiment and iterate on like governing strategies on incentive mechanisms to really try and force moloch to retreat so david i think i think guys david said that was his favorite show

Starting point is 00:05:57 so make sure you check that out i think it's the the topic just everything about it was uh was spot on so make sure you check that out you also have a meet the nation coming out later today right with r iC with rac a hondre yeah so uh andre who is a grammy award winning artist and i i really like like the guy mainly because I listened to his music in college, and to this day, I still listen to it. And while he was dabbling with music and really pushing his music career forward, he was also working with Ethereum, like, just out of interest, out of curiosity, right? And he's one of these guys that was able to take one part of his life and then take this other part of his life and get them to converge, right?

Starting point is 00:06:37 And so this guy released tape on Zora, which was an NFT, that went from like $20 to like $900 to $900. and that kind of really kick started, like this whole NFT movement. And now he's doing the RAC token, which is this community token, for his fans to be able to express their interest and value in the music that he produces. So using the example of Ethereum as this like experimental layer for coordinating value, in what we were talking about in the Moloch episode, there's now RAC Andre who is using this layer to coordinate his fans

Starting point is 00:07:11 in a way that other artists have not yet experimented with. So really interesting stuff. RAC is a member of the Bankless Nation. He actually, besides you and I, he was the third person to ever don one of these shirts. Yeah. And he was wearing in the Meet the Nation video too. Oh, awesome. That's awesome.

Starting point is 00:07:27 All right. Well, I haven't seen that. So I can't wait to check it out. The last thing we got to tell you about is a really exciting virtual conference event called Invest Ethereum that is coming on October 14th. So definitely going to check this out. Vitalik's going to be there. Rinn Christensen's going to be there.

Starting point is 00:07:44 other defy leaders are going to be there to talk about the future of the Ethereum economy. I think this is going to be the conference maybe of the season. Don't miss it. David, you're also speaking. What are you going to be speaking on? Yeah. So I was actually talking with the guy that was coordinating it, and I was looking at the schedule, and this schedule was just fantastic.

Starting point is 00:08:04 And I was going to talk about scaling Ethereum. But then I saw it on his schedule that there's a section to talk about ether, the asset, bullish or bearish? And I was like, definitely put me on that one. Well, you're bearish, right? Super bearish. And so, yeah, so I have a nice little speaking slot to shill ether, my hardest at CoinDesk. So really happy to see CoinDest coming around to Ethereum in the Ethereum ecosystem.

Starting point is 00:08:27 So tip of the hat. Yeah, I think that's great. So, you know, support what CoinDest is doing with this conference. They'll do more about Ethereum if we show support for it. And if you register with a link in the show notes, use the bankless code. You get $25 off. So that is certainly worth doing. David, I'm going to start with a question.

Starting point is 00:08:44 We always start with at the state of the nations. What is the state of the nation this week, my friend? The state of the nation, I already hinted about this. The state of the nation is retreating. We are retreating. We talk about this frequently on the bankless pod, how like, you know, the bankless nation, it's a new type of nation. But these nations conflict, and sometimes old nations aren't too happy about that, right?

Starting point is 00:09:07 And so there is, like I said, a clear line was drawn by some of the three-letter agencies of United States. also of the UK. The UK is also involved here. And they drew a line and said, anyone who's on the other side of this line is, you know, doing unlawful things. And so John McAfee just got arrested. Bitmex got charged with operating an illegal exchange and violating the bank secrecy act. Arthur Hayes is quote unquote at large. And so some big moves coming from the legacy nation state. Yeah, we're going to talk about that. So the nation is retreating right now from the legacy nation state. And I think the big question on everyone's mind, David, is what does this

Starting point is 00:09:49 all mean for Defi? Right. So our next guest, our guest on today's State of the Nation episode, is going to talk about this. Jake Turnviski, welcome to state of the nation. You are the general council of compound. Can you help us make sense of what's going on with these regulations and everything that happened last week, sir. I can do my best and thank you guys for having me on. I'm a long-time fan of bankless. Well, fantastic. It's great to have you on you, I think, are one of the best legal minds that we have in the defy crypto space. And we're so grateful that you're active here and you're applying your knowledge in your mind here. Maybe we should start with kind of your tweet. And I'm going to put this up on the screen if I can. Your tweet really sort of predicted what would

Starting point is 00:10:40 happened last week, I want to say. So you said this on September 28th. You said the SEC and CFTC, they both end their fiscal year on September 30th, right? There's often a flurry of activity, the EOS settlement of the things that happened within that time window. And then you said, this week could be interesting. And this was before any news came out and any news at all. And certainly it was very interesting. So can we start with maybe a recap of some of the things that happened this week, Jake? Yeah, sure. And yeah, I mean, it turned out to be even more interesting than I thought. So I don't want to take credit for having called all of this. I did not know any of this was coming, although it is often the case that we see news at the end of the fiscal year as these

Starting point is 00:11:25 agencies are trying to put together their best argument for how they did in a previous year and ask for more money for the next year. So just really quickly, before I jump into a quick summary, I should say, I am general counsel of compound labs, as you mentioned, but I'm not here in my capacity as an employee of compound. I'm just here to provide my personal opinion on what's been going on in crypto and in the defy space. Nothing I say is intended as legal advice. So yeah, last week was a pretty big one. I think the first really big decision that came out that related to crypto was an order from the SEC on salt lending, which was an ICO from 2017, it was frankly just another in a long line of these ICOs that has been tagged for an unregistered securities offering.

Starting point is 00:12:21 Basically, salt lending sold a token in, I think, 2017. They raised $47 million. They did that by selling a token that they said would increase in value based on their efforts building out this lending protocol. And as you guys may know from being around crypto for a while, what you have to do with these tokens is apply the Howie test to see if they represent investment contracts, meaning an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profit based on the managerial or entrepreneurial efforts of a third party or promoter. And the SEC basically said this token is an investment contract, meaning it is a regulated security under the federal securities laws. In order to sell it, salt lending had to register it with the SEC and make a number of disclosures about their business.

Starting point is 00:13:18 By failing to do that registration, they violated the securities laws. And so the SEC required them to pay a $250,000 monetary penalty, which may not sound like a whole lot of money in comparison to the 47 million that they raised. But the more important thing that salt lending has to do with the token is they now have to register it and treat it like a security. They also have to pay rescission, meaning a refund, to all of the initial purchasers of the token, which is potentially a huge amount of money and, you know, for all we know, could put salt lending out of business. And treating these tokens like they are securities is a really significant compliance burden. So this is definitely a pretty significant blow to salt lending and anyone who was, you know, excited about what they were

Starting point is 00:14:06 working on. So, Jake, you said that this is, kind of fits the bill as many of the 2017 ICOs, and to a very large extent, it does, right? It's just another token that was sold that, you know, basically was, you know, and had some sort of social contract of an investment contract. But what's different, I think, with this one, is that, you know, with previous SEC moves in this, in the 2017, against the 2017 ICO space. This one to me is different because there's nothing fraudulent about this one. There's nothing malicious about Salt. It just didn't register, right?

Starting point is 00:14:42 And from what I've gathered, the SEC hasn't really made moves like this before, where previously they were going after just kind of the worst offenders. And Salt really didn't harm anyone. It just didn't follow the rules. Does that map onto your understanding, too? Yes and no. You know, the SEC, just like any enforcement agency, certainly did start with the overt frauds, right? The malicious actors who were literally trying to

Starting point is 00:15:06 steal money from people by lying to them. But this isn't the first enforcement action related to a pure regulatory violation. So for a couple of years, actually, the SEC has come out with other enforcement orders against ICO issuers who maybe didn't mean to do anything wrong, but just weren't paying attention to their obligations under the securities laws. So even dating back to Paragon coin, which was related to a cannabis business, you may remember. Air Fox, Gladius Network. There's been a whole bunch of these. Yeah, Munchy was, I think, one of the very first ones.

Starting point is 00:15:42 There have been a lot of these. And frankly, it's just the SEC going one by one by one through all of these hundreds of ICOs from 2017 and sort of rolling them up in these enforcement actions. Are they going to, like, catch them all? Do you think, Jake? You know, I don't know. I think probably not just because there were so many, I mean, probably thousands of these that followed the same structure, right? And it should have been, and I think it was obvious to

Starting point is 00:16:08 most people who understood the securities laws back then, that these schemes were not compliant with the registration requirements, where you're selling a token that has absolutely no use or function at all, right? All it does is represent a promise to build a network, using the funds raised from the sale of the token that someday in the future may use the token and give it some value, that's sort of like a textbook investment contract. I think the problem that the SEC has

Starting point is 00:16:37 in terms of going after all of them is it takes a lot of resources to litigate these cases and probably they sent out hundreds of subpoenas and opened up dozens of investigations, but only so many of those are really worth bringing to fruition and enforcement action. I won't be surprised if we keep seeing more trickle out week by week and month by month for the course of years.

Starting point is 00:17:02 In fact, I'm a little surprised. We haven't seen more of them before now. But I think that if the SEC was really going to take care of all of them at once, we would have seen what's called a sweep where the SEC issues orders or files complaints against dozens in a single day. And they've done that before. So in the early 2000s, when there were a lot of, internet stock scams. The SEC did a sweep where they went after literally dozens of the internet

Starting point is 00:17:30 stock companies at once. And they decided not to do that with ICOs. And I think that probably the time has passed for that. Maybe that's because ICOs are inherently just a global phenomenon. And it's just kind of harder to track down ICOs than it would be the internet tech stock scams. Yeah, I think part of that's true. A lot of the issuers are not in the US. So it's harder to, you know, to get them to respond to subpoenas. When we see enforcement orders like this, it's also important to remember, and this is a good segue into the next case we saw last week, those enforcement orders are negotiated settlements. It's an agreement between the issuer and the SEC not to proceed with litigation, which means salt lending was negotiating with the SEC for probably months or years

Starting point is 00:18:16 about what the settlement would look like. Now, if salt lending had refused to settle with the SEC, The SEC's only next step is to file a complaint in a U.S. federal court. And that takes a huge amount of resources and for them to file cases in court against dozens or hundreds of ICOs is just not possible, especially when they're outside the U.S. And it would be hard to get jurisdiction over them anyway. Or rather, it would be hard to get them to show up to court, right? They might default. And what's the point of that?

Starting point is 00:18:47 So, you know, maybe that's a good segue into the next big case from last week. Yeah. So the next one, the next one is. kick, right? Which is probably where you're going, which kind of fits the motif of like a, you know, 2017 era, ICO. And they actually, I think took the SEC to the next stage to the brink or maybe tell us because this looks more like a court settlement case. And so maybe they weren't willing to settle. Can you tell us about the like the high level of this case? Yeah, that's exactly right. So the KICC foundation also did a public sale of tokens called KIN tokens.

Starting point is 00:19:24 At the time of the sale, you know, at least as far as the SEC alleged and the court found, kin tokens didn't have much value. Their main reason for existing was that KIC promised to carry out future efforts that would bring value to the KIN token. They promised to integrate KIN into their messaging app. So KIC was a company long before the ICO. that had a messaging app. And they basically promised to build this ecosystem that would use the kin token and would make the kin token valuable over time. And unlike someone like Salt Lending,

Starting point is 00:20:00 the KIC Foundation refused to settle with the SEC. And actually in a sort of weird, unusual move, the SEC sent them what's called a Wells notice a couple years ago. A Wells notice is a document where the SEC basically says, we are planning to recommend an enforcement action against you. This is your last chance to convince us we shouldn't go forward. And KIC wrote a response to that notice, which is very typical.

Starting point is 00:20:27 But in very unusual fashion, they published the notice. And basically said, we're taking this fight public. Right. Which is not usually done. They made a campaign out of it. They made a very directed campaign out of it.

Starting point is 00:20:40 And they started this hashtag called defend crypto. or something, defend crypto, I think. Weren't they also, David, accepting donations? They accepted donations, right. And so they kind of turned this into like a political campaign saying like the SEC is, you know, bringing down the hammer and coming after us. And they tried to like, quote unquote, rally the troops behind them to in order to, you know, fight off the SEC.

Starting point is 00:21:02 I have my own opinions about the legitimacy behind that. But Jake, before I express those, if you want to continue with the story. Yeah, no, it was very interesting and exactly. right. They position themselves as a representative for the entire sort of like ICO industry to try to fight against the SEC's legal interpretation of the Howie test. And because of that, they refused to enter a settlement with the SEC and said basically, if you want us, you have to sue us. So they made the SEC file a complaint. They litigated the case for quite a while. They got very quickly to the motion for summary judgment stage. So this is a point where basically the parties say, there is no material dispute about the facts, right? There's no real dispute about what happened. The only disagreement is about how the law applies. And both sides argued that even accepting the facts as they are,

Starting point is 00:21:58 they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, meaning there's no need to go to trial. There's no need to do fact-finding. Hick said the law's on our side and the SEC said no, the lies on our side. And the judge this past week sided with the SEC. Right. and said, yes, indeed, the Howie Test applies where you sell a token that does not have consumptive value that you're promising to carry out managerial and entrepreneurial efforts to bring value to the token.

Starting point is 00:22:25 The token represents an investment contract and must be registered under the securities laws. Okay, so Jake, so how similar is this to the landmark EOS case? I think that happened last year, although like time flies in crypto, right? And then like the EOS case was interesting because it seemed to me that basically like the fallout from that was that originally in the EOS presale, the ICO, that U.S. the token was a security, right? But then it crossed the chasm. It morphed into a token that is no longer a security. First of all, fact check me there to see if that's right. And then how different is that from the salt case? and the KIC-KIN case? Yeah, so that's partly right and partly unknown. So it's not wrong.

Starting point is 00:23:18 We're just not totally sure. So in the EOS case, yes, the EOS token is very similar in a way to the KIN token in that Block 1 had made promises about what they were going to do to bring value to the EOS token. Different promises from KIC, right? Kik promised to build this ecosystem around KIN. Block 1 promised basically to build the EOS blockchain. Initially, EOS was just an ERC20 token trading on Ethereum that sort of like represented a claim on future EOS tokens that would later exist on the EOS blockchain, which hadn't been built yet. But that was a promise to carry out essential efforts that would bring value to the EOS token.

Starting point is 00:24:00 So the SEC basically said the EOS token, when it was an ERC 20, was a security and should have been registered. There was actually no direct conclusion about whether the EOS token was still a security once it was on the EOS blockchain, right? Now, Block 1 had already finished carrying out this promise of building the blockchain, but who knows what other promises there might have been that a purchaser of the real EOS token might think the only reason I'm buying this is because Block 1 is going to carry out some managerial or entrepreneurial efforts to bring value to this token. that question was just never litigated and the SEC, at least as we, as far as we know, never

Starting point is 00:24:41 passed judgment on it. So that's just a huge to be continued. Like we don't know, aside from Bitcoin and possibly Ether that the SEC has made some public comments on. We don't know about like, you know, U.S. or any of these other networks, whether the SEC deems in the securities or not. Yeah. And that's, I mean, that's pretty typical for the SEC.

Starting point is 00:25:03 they do not often say when something is outside of their jurisdiction, right? They'll tell you when they think something should be regulated. They don't often publish no action letters, right, which is sort of like a formal letter saying either we think something violated the securities laws, but we've decided not to take action against it for policy reasons. Or based on our analysis, we do not think that, you know, whatever the scheme was violated the securities laws. They do that very rarely.

Starting point is 00:25:32 So it's sort of a standard for us to live in this world of uncertainty about what the SEC thinks. Wow. Well, I guess that's where we're living right now. You know, the third case that came up is maybe the most interesting in some ways for defy and the topic that we're going to discuss soon because it introduces two other government agencies, regulatory bodies. So we were dealing with the SEC in the cases you just mentioned. But now... Let me wrap up the SEC-I-O conversation, Ryan, and then we'll get to that.

Starting point is 00:26:08 So, Jake, we've been dealing with the SEC and ICOs, and this has been an ongoing topic of conversation every time the SEC does something. Is there any new precedent here, or is this just a continuation of, you know, the slow march of the SEC against, like, the haphazardness of the 2017 mania? I would say 95% of it is not new. There's nothing particularly unique about salt or kick that teaches us much. I would say it is important because an order from a federal court on a motion for summary judgment carries more precedential value than anything we've gotten so far. Right. So these enforcement orders that the SEC puts out, like I said, it's a negotiated settlement. It's not the law. It's just what the SEC got someone to. agree to settle a case based on. When you have an order from a federal court that carries a lot more value, it still isn't the law of the land. Another district court could find differently in another case on very similar facts, but nonetheless, it seems pretty obvious that the courts are adopting

Starting point is 00:27:15 the SECs of view on these ICO tokens. Very good. So I guess we have some more information about how the SEC is handling these things, but it seems pretty consistent, at least, for the past of years, like back to kind of the third big thing that happened last week with Bitmex, where basically we introduced two other government, US government regulators, the CFTC, who had something to say about Bitmex, the derivatives exchange, kind of like a Bitcoin, like bank, if you will, but certainly a derivative exchange. And then also the DOJ, I believe, had something to say about it. Can you talk about what happened in the Bitmex case? last week and maybe some of the implications are fallout from that, Jake? Sure. So yeah, I mean,

Starting point is 00:28:05 just sort of to set the stage here, we've been talking about the SEC up until now, like you said. The SEC is the federal regulator that has jurisdiction over securities, meaning stocks, bonds, investment contracts, etc. The Bitmex action involved three other agencies that are worth knowing. One is the CFTC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. They have jurisdiction over commodities derivatives. So commodities are basically anything that trades in a futures contract, literally anything, right? Traditionally, it's been things like wheat and oil and pig bellies, you know, these kinds of things, pork bellies rather. But also, you know, any other types of rights and interests can also be commodities. The CFTC has jurisdiction over.

Starting point is 00:28:53 trading in commodity derivatives, meaning swaps, options, and futures. So these are financial instruments that derive their value from the underlying commodity. And Bitmex was a derivatives exchange. It traded perpetual swaps on Bitcoin and other digital assets. So that's why the CFTC claims to have jurisdiction over Bitmex. The case also involved the Department of Justice, the DOJ, The DOJ, among other things, is the prosecutor of federal crimes. So in this case, the DOJ indicted Bitmex for federal crimes. And I'll get into sort of what the theory of the cases for both the CFTC and the DOJ. The other third agency to know, which wasn't directly involved, but is very important

Starting point is 00:29:43 in all of these kinds of proceedings, is FinCEN, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which is a Bureau of the Treasury Department. they are responsible for regulation and enforcement with respect to the Bank Secrecy Act, which is the anti-money-wondering know-your-customer rule in the United States. And some of the charges against Bitmex related to the Bank Secrecy Act. So FinCEN was certainly behind the scenes, you know, involved in this investigation. But just to give you a really quick summary of the facts and what the charges are. Bitmex, like I said, was a derivatives exchange. They were allowing customers to trade swaps on Bitcoin and other digital assets.

Starting point is 00:30:28 They were allowing U.S. customers, at least according to the allegations, to have access to their platform. This meant that under the Commodity Exchange Act, they were a type of regulated entity called a designated contract market or a swap execution facility and had to register as one or the other with, the CFTC. Also, because they were accepting and soliciting orders in swaps, they were a futures commission merchant and other type of regulated entity under the Commodity Exchange Act. And by failing to register as they were required, they violated the CEA. And that's the basis of the CFTC's complaint against Bitmex. So the CFTC filed a complaint in federal court against Bitmex for those regulatory violations. And it's important to realize, right, the reason the CFTC has any jurisdiction there, I think, is because there are U.S. citizens. They charge that they're U.S. citizens involved in

Starting point is 00:31:31 Bitmax. They don't regulate for other nations, but because they charge that U.S. citizens were actually, like, using BitMex derivative services, that's when it falls into the CFTC's court. Is that correct? Yeah, that's right. So, you know, all U.S. regulators have jurisdiction in the United States. To some extent, they have extra territorial jurisdictions. There are cases where U.S. regulators can try to get jurisdiction over X. U.S. conduct, but even then, only when it is in some way affecting the United States markets. And so the only reason that BITMEX could qualify as a futures commission merchant in the United States is if they are accepting or soliciting orders for derivatives products from U.S. citizens. And, you know, I should mention,

Starting point is 00:32:21 you know, all of these are allegations. Bitmex plans to vigorously defend against those allegations. And we shouldn't necessarily take the government at its word. We've only heard one side of this story. At the same time, you know, we can sort of discuss what the allegations are and compare that to our experience of seeing Bitmex in action. Right. Yeah. And so like the meme about Bitmex is, there's this video of this guy who's like patting down people going into a concert and it's an older guy and he's like he's like kind of not paying attention and he's like barely loosely touching the people as he's patting them down and then he says okay you're good and that's like what people claim bitmecs to be is like oh your IP isn't from the United States you're clearly not a US citizen also we don't do KYC right and so like any amount of person with like basic computer skills could be inside of the US and then you're not a US citizen. Also we don't do KYC right and so like any amount of person with like basic computer skills could be inside of the US and then you use the bit the bitmex derivative platform and then there's it's also worthwhile we should probably talk about in in the 2018 uh consensus event which is like uh crypto's biggest event yearly event bitmex uh rented out like three lambos and slap their logos on the side of them and like parked them

Starting point is 00:33:32 outside of consensus which is in new york right and so like why would you do that if you're not advertising what what you're advertising to germans there like no we're in new york uh and so like People have known like Bitmex to fly pretty close to the sun with what it should be doing versus what it's actually doing. Yeah, I mean, those are all really good points. You know, the Lambos, that's what we would call a bad fact in legal terms. It's not helpful for Bitmex's defense. But look, so, you know, sort of diving into the nature of the CFTC complaint, qualifying as a futures commission merchant, it's not an offense. that considers your intent or your knowledge, right?

Starting point is 00:34:17 It's what you call a strict liability offense. If you are serving a U.S. citizen, you qualify as a future commission merchant. It doesn't matter sort of like what efforts you are taking to try to exclude U.S. citizens. Now, there are other charges at issue, which we'll get to you in a second, that do require some proof of intent, meaning you know that you're serving U.S. citizens, or you've been negligent in trying to exclude U.S. citizens, or even know. that you've intended to solicit U.S. citizens, right? These are all relevant to other types of charges, but it's just important to remember from a regulatory perspective, setting up geo-blocking or,

Starting point is 00:34:54 you know, an IP address filter. It's not going to be enough. That's one of the lessons from this action to escape CFTC jurisdiction. They're going to, they're going to, they're going to exert their jurisdiction over you if you have U.S. customers, version of it. I don't think anyone even thought that that would be enough, right? Like, it was basically the barrens. minimum. And like, I'm not a lawyer and you aren't Bitmex's lawyers, but I'm going to go ahead and hypothesize that the lawyers of Bitmex inform the officers of Bitmex that, you know, we should really be doing K. Y, C, and the officers were like, nah. I mean, yeah, I don't want to speculate. I guess it is hard to imagine a lawyer signing off on this kind of system. And when you read the allegations

Starting point is 00:35:38 from the government, it's clear that this wasn't one of these situations where, you know, Bitmex was trying its best, at least so far as the government alleges, to keep U.S. citizens off of their platform. A lot of the allegations are that Arthur Hayes and his co-founders explicitly knew that there were U.S. citizens on the platform, and they encouraged U.S. citizens to join the platform. In some cases, they had even gone into their back end to change the designation of where some customers lived so that they wouldn't have to use a VPN to get onto the platform. So this isn't, you know, the kind of situation where it was just a mistake, at least as far as the allegations say. So before we get to the DOGA and FinC with respect to BitMex, I want to ask the question, like, about the CFTC and like the question of like, why do they care so much, right?

Starting point is 00:36:27 And this also maybe applies to the SEC. So my impression of the SEC is our mandate, the SEC might say, is to protect retail investors, right? So is the CFTC similar? Are they basically saying, look, like our overarching, when you zoom out, our overarching mandate is to protect U.S. citizens, retail investors from nefarious actors in this space. And that is why we are taking actions such as this BitMex action. Is that the purpose of the regulatory body? I'd say yes, that is definitely part of this. I think it's not all of it. So just like the SEC, right?

Starting point is 00:37:06 the SEC has basically three main goals to protect investors, to facilitate capital formation, and to ensure fair and efficient markets. The CFTC has sort of similar goals in its mission statement. It is also looking to protect especially retail investors from overly risky financial products. It also is trying to protect the systemic integrity of the derivatives markets in the United States. And, you know, we've seen over the course of years at least a lot of, a lot of, you know, speculation, at least looking at what happens when the price of Bitcoin moves up and down, that it can be tied to what's going on on Bitmex, right? And the complaint actually says that there have been trillions of dollars, not billions, trillions of dollars of nocial trading in Bitcoin,

Starting point is 00:37:56 you know, swaps on Bitmex. So there's no question that Bitmex, at least, in the eyes of the government is systemically important to market structure in digital assets. And we've known for a really long time that that's something the U.S. government wants to clean up. This is one of the reasons of many that we don't have a Bitcoin ETF approved by the SEC because of the immaturity of the Bitcoin markets. So part of this, yes, is protecting systemic risk that flows from 100x leverage trading on business. Yeah, I want to double down on that point.

Starting point is 00:38:30 The Bitcoin ETF is something that is like touted as like the gateway to opening up access for everyone to Bitcoin, right? If we get a Bitcoin ETF, you know, our grandmas can have Bitcoin in their retirement pensions. Our parents can have, you know, and us can we can have Bitcoin in our 401 case. Bitcoin with a Bitcoin ETF, Bitcoin can start to get like integrated with the rest of the world in a much more compliant and approved manner. And the reason why one of the cited reasons why we haven't gotten a Bitcoin ETF, have approved is that because it was labeled that price discovery was happening in offshore unregulated exchanges. You might as well just put in bitmex there. But in the actual citation, they obviously didn't cite bitmex specifically, but what other offshore unregulated exchange

Starting point is 00:39:18 just price discovery happened? They were talking about bitmex, right? And so now, and so what would be much more comfortable with regulators is if that price discovery happened on U.S. regulated derivatives markets, right, in which we have those right now. And so while, you know, a lot of Bitcoiners will, you know, shed some tears at the loss of their favorite Bitcoin, Bitcoin casino, Bitcoin Bank, you know, I think over the long term, I think it's a pretty decent commitment to trade Bitmex for a Bitcoin ETF. Yeah, I think that's fair. And, you know, Ryan, the other thing is, so I said, you know, that's part of it. And the other part of it will lead us to the Department of Justice action that went along.

Starting point is 00:39:59 with the CFTC's complaint, which is there's an anti-money laundering angle to all of this. This is the big one, right? This is like the big deal. Yeah, I think this is the big deal. And, you know, if the only violation had been of the Commodity Exchange Act, we probably wouldn't have seen action this strong as we did last week. So the deal is, if you qualify as a futures commission merchant under the Commodity Exchange Act, you automatically have an obligation under the Bank Secrecy Act to register with Finsen and implement an anti-money laundering compliance program. An anti-money laundering compliance program means you have to KYC all of your customers, right?

Starting point is 00:40:44 Customer due diligence. And you also have to file any number of reports with FNCN, either for very large transactions in CTR's currency transaction reports over $10,000 in value. you also have to file SARS suspicious activity reports, which tell FinCN about anything shady going on on your exchange. And as we all know, for a very long time, Bitmex was not doing KYC for any of its customers. Now, there haven't been as far as I've seen any allegations

Starting point is 00:41:14 of actual money laundering going on through Bitmex. However, who knows what the FBI sort of, you know, has figured out on its own behind the scenes. I think it's reasonable to wonder if there were, some other law enforcement concerns about hiding criminal activity or trying to longer funds through BIMEX. So the DOJ, in addition to the CFTC, indicted Arthur Hayes and his co-founders on criminal charges much more serious than just a civil complaint for a Commodity Exchange Act violation, for willfully violating the Bank Secrecy Act. In other words, knowing that they had to set up this

Starting point is 00:41:55 can't be money laundering compliance program, and then willfully refusing and failing to do that. And in the indictment, there's a fair amount of evidence, you know, at least in the DOJ's allegations, that Arthur Hayes and his co-founders, you know, knew that they were required to implement this, this AML policy and that they were intentionally avoiding doing that. There was sort of one phrase that has really stuck with people where Arthur said during a debate, I think, with Nuryl Rubini, that the reason that they had set up in the Seychelles was it was a lot easier to bribe officials there. You could bribe them with a coconut. So, you know, that doesn't look good. And it does sort of show, you know, consciousness of guilt,

Starting point is 00:42:40 so to speak, about that violation. Okay. So just to recap the meaningful, what's meaningful about this, is that, like, Bitmex, and because it wasn't doing KYC or all the other reporting requirements of financial activity on the Bitmex platform, was that, you know, this massive black box of inputs and outputs of Bitcoin, right? And so what pisses off the U.S. regulators is that, you know, they don't know where that money is coming from and they don't know who that money is going to. And so when we are trying to always perpetually get a grasp for where the world's money is in order for us to be able to stop the things that we don't want that money to be used for, Bitmex was a huge thorn in the side of the United States, right? Like, we want to

Starting point is 00:43:22 know who's getting funded with what. And Bitmex isn't a... enabling us to understand that, right? And that's kind of what the Bank Secrecy Act is all about. Yeah, that's right. The Bank Secrecy Act, and it's not just the BSA, it's really sort of like the global system of financial surveillance. So that includes 5AMLD, and it includes the FADF standards, the Financial Action Task Force. The point basically is to deputize trusted third parties who serve as financial intermediaries to perform surveillance over the transactions that they process on behalf of their customers and report to the governments of the world who that money belongs to where it's coming from and where it goes. And BitMex, like you said, was sort of not playing along with

Starting point is 00:44:10 that game and it allowed folks to send Bitcoin to Bitmex. And then, you know, as far as a company like Chainalysis or other blockchain analytics services were concerned, they weren't able to track those transactions once they left Bitmex, they wouldn't know sort of who the money was going to or where. So that's why this was an anti-money laundering concern for law enforcement. Right. And from what I've gathered, there were confirmations of Iranian individuals using Bitmex, and Iran is definitely on the don't touch money from this country list. And I think listeners can start to get a feel for why this conversation is extremely relevant to Defi. And we're definitely going to go there. But before we do, I do want to ask, like, so one, Bitmex

Starting point is 00:44:57 officers in jail, and Arthur, the CEO, I guess, is been quoted to be at large, not, not arrested, but at large. And so we can assume that he's, like, on the run. Do, I know you don't like to speculate as a lawyer, Jake, but what do you think is going on behind the scenes here? are, is there going to be a deal kind of written between Bitmex and, and the regulators, or are they doing the complete, like, you know, middle finger where if they're still processing withdrawals, the domain hasn't been seized, like Bitmex continues to operate? Like, what's your take here with, like, how this moves forward? Yeah. So, I mean, I guess first of all, it is important to remember that Bitmex, like any other defendant, is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable

Starting point is 00:45:46 doubt in a court of law, right? So Bitmex is not required to shut down unless the government tries to shut them down. I think it makes perfect sense that they are still operating as long as they are maintaining their innocence and maintaining that they are still in compliance. In terms of Arthur being at large, so, you know, I've heard reports that he is in Singapore. The U.S. has an extradition treaty with Singapore. So unless Arthur is the kind of guy, and again, we're sort of speculating here, You know, unless he's going to literally go on the run and try to hide from law enforcement for the next 20 years. I mean, and I don't see that happening. My guess is he's in contact with the authorities in the U.S. through his counsel.

Starting point is 00:46:31 And they're probably working out the details of a self-surrender. And that's very typical. So what you don't want, frankly, is to land at an airport and the FBI is waiting for you and you get put in handcuffs. You lose all your leverage. Right. Yeah. So what they're doing probably is talking about. out the terms of pretrial release. So, you know, the question is, is Arthur going to be held in

Starting point is 00:46:52 jail pending trial, or is he going to be released on bond, meaning if he flees and becomes a fugitive, he has to give up some amount of money, or is he released on some other conditions that will, you know, try to stop him from fleeing? They're just going to work those terms out, and then my guess is Arthur will show up and turn himself in at some point. And then we'll see what happens in litigation. You know, we heard reports that Bitmex was being investigated as early as July of last year. So that was the first time that there was a public report of a CFTC investigation. Also, the documents that were filed last week imply that there have been depositions and subpoenas that have been responded to. So it seems like Bitmex has been working on this investigation

Starting point is 00:47:38 for a long time. My guess, and you saw this in my tweet last week, was that Bitmex, was probably trying to work out some kind of settlement, just like these other players have. And it sounds like the deal just fell through. And they couldn't work out a deal. And that's what led to the government filing charges. Interesting. Interesting. Well, one thing that concerns me, Jake, is this was, funnily enough, on the eight-year anniversary of the Silk Road deal. I think that's actually a coincidence more than anything. But, you know, for those, just a quick recap, the Silk Road was the dark net marketplace that leveraged Bitcoin in order to facilitate the purchasing of, you know, illicit things, you know, whether it be drugs or, you know, fake documents or whatever.

Starting point is 00:48:23 And then Ross Oldbrook got sentenced to eight years in prison and the Silk Road got seized and taken down. And then a thousand Silk Roads came up in its place, right? Like do new different dark net markets that, you know, now those get seized every once in a while, but then 10 more crop up in their place, right? And so what I'm worried, what I'm worried about, about and what I think why maybe they haven't taken down the bitmex domain yet is because as soon as you take down bitmex you create the incentive for you know a hundred other people to make you know bitmex round two right and then those become also unregulatable what is there any sort of you know previous action or historical lessons that we can learn about how this can be managed

Starting point is 00:49:03 yeah I mean you know look bitmex is not the only bitcoin derivative exchange in the world it's not the only one that I think is accessible from the U.S. It's also not the first one that's been the target of an enforcement action. So, you know, one of the one of the sort of unknown or lesser known pieces of this is in 2016, BitFNex entered a settlement with the CFTC for basically equivalent charges, right? Operating an unregistered derivatives exchange that was available to U.S. customers. It's just that BitFNex complied with, you know, cooperated with the investigation and reached a settlement with the CFTC. and set up much better processes to exclude U.S. citizens.

Starting point is 00:49:47 So, you know, Bipfinex already went through all of this. And as time has gone on, we've seen enforcement orders against any number of other derivatives operators. So, you know, there was one broker. That was a Marshall Islands derivatives exchange that was allowing trading of equity swaps. So like Apple stock denominated in Bitcoin. There was ABRA, which was pretty recent. So this isn't really a new story.

Starting point is 00:50:11 And, you know, it does seem just sort of like with the SEC and all these tokens, that this is just the CFTC going one by one by one, cleaning up these unregistered derivatives exchanges. Bitnex just happens to be like the big one, right? So it's almost be like if the SEC were to file an enforcement action against Ripple for XRP. It's like this is a big one and we finally, you know, got it last week. Jake, we're going to come back and talk about the implications for DFI because I think, the question on everyone's mind is, what do all of these actions mean for Defi? But before we do, we want to show you a couple of our sponsors for Bankless that made this episode possible. Zapper is this new tool that I use to check out all of my assets in Defi. As you guys have known,

Starting point is 00:51:01 Defi has absolutely exploded recently. And so managing your assets is getting harder and harder because there's so many different places and so many different assets that it could be. So I'm going to put my Ethereum address in here. And Zapper is going to tell me where all of my assets are across Ethereum, right? So here are all of the assets in this wallet. There's a decent amount of them. And it's also going to tell me where I've deposited assets into various DFI protocols, right? So there's some yield farming going on. There's some liquidity pooling going on. We can also look more granularly at the specific protocols that it's involved with in this explore feature. So it's got some assets deposited into uniswap. It's got some assets deposited into balancer. And also with

Starting point is 00:51:44 Zapper, you can just exchange straight from the Zapper interface, right? So this is just another layer on top of Uniswap or other exchanges on Ethereum that allow you to swap assets, right? So check them out at zapper.fi. It'll give you a nice clean portal to invest your assets in DFI. And you can also connect to multiple wallets if you use multiple wallets all at once. And it'll give you an aggregate of every single wallet that you own. Check them out at zapper.fI. Also, this is definitely not my wallet. Unstoppable Domains is helping the world become censorship resistant and

Starting point is 00:52:17 permissionless. If you are looking for a censorship resistant website that no one can take down, go to Unstoppable Domains.com and type in the domain that you think that you want. So I'm going to type in the domain that I think that I want, trustless state, and it's going to tell me some of the options that I can get to get a permissionless domain. Trustless date. And so what you can do with trustlessate.cropto or whatever domain that you want is you can purchase it,

Starting point is 00:52:42 and then it can be a URL that you direct people to that no nation state can take down. That's what unstoppable domains is all about. What's also really helpful with unstoppable domains is that wallets can integrate unstoppable domains so that the addresses that you send your crypto assets to can become human readable. And this doesn't work for just Ethereum. You also can do this for Bitcoin or like coin or any blockchain at all, where wallets can resolve to your human readable name. So you can tell Bitcoiners to send you Bitcoin to trustless date.cropto or your name here.eath.

Starting point is 00:53:14 Check them out at unstoppable domain.com. Okay, guys, we are back. We've got Jake Turnvinsky, and we are talking about regulation and what it means for defy. You know, Jake, part of me wonders, like, is the kind of regulators, is it sort of like the Eye of Soron from, like, Lord the rings where it's sweeping the land and right now it's it found bitmex and its eyes turned to bitmex and i think the question in everyone's mind is when what what are the regulators going to do with defy because defy is no longer a small niche market right so we have we have uniswap and it just last month surpassed coinbase in terms of uh trading volume i think that's a pretty large market for crypto how long

Starting point is 00:54:05 until the eye of Soron turns his eye on like decentralized exchanges, for instance, maybe a uniswap and Defi as a whole. And once it does turn its eye on defy, what does it do? Yeah. So it's a funny comparison. I guess it's more like the eye of Sauron with a two-year lag, right? And also, I mean, it's not really the eye of Sauron because I think we have a little more respect for our regulators than that. But look, regulators are already paying attention to defy. There's no question about that. There are different levels of understanding about defy depending on which regulatory agency you're talking about. But as you're showing here, you know, there is some concern about defy and compliance with anti-money laundering laws like the Bank Secrecy Act. I think this article is a little bit

Starting point is 00:54:57 sensational, and I disagree with that headline, which seems a little bit clickbaited to me, but we can get into that. But, you know, FinCEN in particular is very sophisticated in thinking about DFI. I guess if the question is, when, if ever, do we see enforcement actions or settlements related to DFI? My sense is... Before you go on, Jake, just for the podcast listener, so the headline I'm pulling up is called Booming Decentralized Finance, a potential haven for money laundering, and this was published in Bloomberg. That was the headline you're referring to. Yeah. So, yeah, I, I respectfully disagree with the author on that one. We can sort of get into why. I think the risk is a lot lower than that might represent. But, you know, I think enforcement

Starting point is 00:55:43 actions are a little bit far off. I think that it will just take longer for regulators to understand the technology and then figure out who the right subjects are for regulation and whether and to what extent, there have been actual violations of those regulatory frameworks. I think it's, you know, it's the early days. But just like in 2017, there was a lot of identification of activity that seemed pretty clearly to violate the securities laws. You know, I think there are various elements of I think what people may call defy, but which I would dispute as to whether it's really decentralized, that, you know, in a couple of years, we'll be seeing some pretty obvious enforcement actions related to So Jake, what are what are like the carve-outs for defy right now, right? So it seems to be there

Starting point is 00:56:28 is one like point of differentiation from a bitmex versus a something that's more defy is certainly custody of assets, right? So with bitmex you have to deposit your Bitcoin. They retain custody of your assets in order to use their derivative services. With most defy you don't have to like with with defy that's actually more on the decentralized spectrum, you don't have to do that. A smart contract, ideally autonomous, non-controlled, smart contract kind of takes ownership of that. Is that a key carve out, I guess? And maybe in particular, I think it's more interesting to talk about sort of the I have Soron with respect to like the Bank Secrecy Act and FinCEN. Is that going, is that a difference? And what other differences

Starting point is 00:57:14 will a group like FinCEN kind of make? Yeah, so I wouldn't call it a carve out. I I would say it's an important fact that changes whether regulation applies or not. And we always have to remember a couple of things. One is decentralization is not a magic cure, right? It's not a perfect defense to all regulation. Decentralization is a tool that reduces risk in certain ways. And some of the ways in which it reduces risk means that traditional regulations no longer apply the way they do to centralize the systems.

Starting point is 00:57:47 You also have to remember regulations don't apply to technologists. they apply to people and their conduct. So the question isn't necessarily, is Defi regulated or is a DeFi protocol regulated? The question is, are there people using DeFi protocols who are subject to regulation? In the example you give about whether a system is custodial or not, that is really important for some regulatory frameworks and some classifications of regulated institutions under those frameworks, including the Bank Secrecy Act. So the main question that we look at under the Bank Secrecy Act and that FinCent has provided a lot of guidance about is whether or not crypto systems are money transmitters or money services businesses. A money transmitter is an entity that receives

Starting point is 00:58:40 funds from one person and transmits those funds to another person or location. And a money transmitter needs to be registered with FinC, and it needs to have an AML compliance program, including KYC. A centralized exchange is a money transmitter. It's probably a number of other regulatory classifications as well, but for starters, it's a money transmitter. It receives funds in the form of deposits from its customers. It transmits those funds back to customers at different wallet addresses. Therefore, it is regulated under the Bank Secrecy Act. A DeFi Protocol, is non-custodial, arguably does not perform money transmission. And FinCent has actually put out some really helpful guidance on this, in particular in May of last year, May of 2019. They put out

Starting point is 00:59:30 sort of a summary of their analysis of the different categories of market participants in crypto, including users, administrators, and exchangers of digital assets. And basically, from that guidance, the lesson to be learned is a purely non-custodial platform that does not have a centralized operator that is performing this service of money transmission is not a regulated financial institution and therefore does not need to have an AML compliance program. So that's why being non-custodial is very important. One thing I'll add to that, though, is being a money transmitter is one of many types of regulated financial institutions that has to comply with the BSA. Another totally different classification is a futures commission merchant, right?

Starting point is 01:00:22 What Bitmex was classified as by the CFTC. If you are a futures commission merchant in FCM, you also have Bank Secrecy Act obligations whether your FCM is custodial or not. So being non-custodial is not a cure for Bank Secrecy Act regulation. Wow, okay. So like following the first category, I guess traditionally you'd think of something, something like a wallet, right? So like a MetaMask, for instance, you know, not to put specific companies or projects on this, but that would be something that probably falls outside of the

Starting point is 01:00:58 Bank Secrecy Act and FinCent's jurisdiction. Yes, and FinCent actually said in their guidance pretty clearly that a quote unquote unhosted wallet. And by that what they mean is a wallet that is that is purely under the control of the user is not money transmission, right? The creator of that unhosted wallet is basically just a software developer that put out a piece of software, but that developer does not have custody of the user's funds. And the user, as long as they're using cryptocurrency on their own behalf, right, for their own account, their own purposes, and they're not performing money transmission for other people. So that's why an unhosted wallet is not subject to Bank Secrecy Act regulation.

Starting point is 01:01:41 And that's kind of, Jake, the case of, like, so far, right? That's how Finson has issued guidance that so far that seems to be the case. I guess, you know, maybe the question is, right? So we talked about earlier what the SEC and CFTC, what their goals are, right? But FinC, the Bank Secrecy Act's goals are completely different. They're really like, we're trying to prevent, like, terrorist types of events. We're trying to prevent a category of financial activity that, like child pornography, these sorts of things, that kind of goes against the laws and ethics of the United States. So, like, is it possible that this kind of mandate starts to creep into these other, like, transactions?

Starting point is 01:02:28 Like, what about individual civil liberties, right? So like Ken Finsen or like the Bank Secrecy Act or the DOJ start to broaden their mandate to say, well, individual U.S. citizens cannot use, say, a uniswap or some decentralized exchange. Like how broad is their mandate when their entire reason for existence is to stop terrorist activity? It seems pretty broad. Yeah, you're hitting a really important point. And this, I think, is going to be the policy battle for our space in the coming years. And it's been heating up a lot in just even the last couple of months. So I guess a couple things on this.

Starting point is 01:03:11 The first is FinCEN is a regulatory agency. They do not make the law. They interpret the law. They also can pass their own implementing regulations. But if you want to have a change to the Bank Secrecy Act, that would have to come from the U.S. Congress. Right now, the Bank Secrecy Act, to the statute is what says that only regulated financial institutions are subject to the AML compliance program obligations of the law. And an unhosted wallet just doesn't fit any of those definitions of a regulated financial institution. So the question is, number one, to what extent might FinCEN want to exert more authority over unhosted wallets or peer-to-peer transactions? And number two, how could the law change to be more restrictive of these kinds of

Starting point is 01:03:59 these kinds of transactions. I think stepping back from the technical legal analysis, it is important to note that what we are building is a parallel financial system that allows the transfer of basically any amount of value to anyone, anywhere, almost instantly, almost for free without any ability of governments to censor or surveil those transactions. That is a threatening sounding type of technology. And there is just a really big ongoing policy question whether regulators are going to be okay with that. David, you look like you have something to add there. Yeah, so this is kind of just like in stark contrast with Bitmex.

Starting point is 01:04:41 Like the reason why so many people like Bitmex and why Bitmex is under the view of the nation state in this present moment is that in addition to the service that it provides, which is regulated by the CFTC, it, also provides this byproduct service of like a money laundering institution to people that we maybe don't want and like this take for example the iranian people that were using bitmex and from what from what i hear were inappropriate ways according to what the united states regulators view as appropriate right and that's that's why they're going after bitmex but uniswap is no different right and and and or any or insert your you know decentralized exchange here like there's no there's no uniswap the protocol will not be doing any reporting or K-Y-C to any sort of regulatory body at any point in time, right?

Starting point is 01:05:29 And so the value proposition for people that want to escape the nation-state control, that why there was going, and in motivation to go after Bitmex, is going to be that same motivation to go after some sort of decentralized exchange on Ethereum. But now the game is just different. The playing field is just different. Things are constructed differently. And so that's why we're talking about, like, the issue of, like, a custodial wallet versus a user-controlled wallet.

Starting point is 01:05:57 And unless we want to tie off that previous conversation with anything, let me know. But I think what I want to hear about is like there are platforms on Ethereum where you need to deposit your assets into them in order to participate. And then there are also platforms that you don't, right? For example, Uniswap. You can use Uniswap without depositing your assets there versus an application more like D-Y-D-D-X or loop ring where you actually do. your funds into their system and then use their system and then you withdraw.

Starting point is 01:06:29 Right. So like this seems to be like the new line that we need to differentiate in order for regulators to come in and really understand what's going on here. Is there a line there or is there or is that just kind of an arbitrary difference? No, I think you're, I think you're on the right track. I mean, I guess, you know, the world we live in right now is a world where regulators are more or less comfortable having surveillance of the on-ramps and off-ramps into the crypto ecosystem, right? So if you want to get U.S. dollars into Ether or Ether back into U.S. dollars,

Starting point is 01:07:05 you're going to have to do that through a regulated exchange. That's why you have an account at CoinBase or Gemini or Cracken or, you know, name your on-ramp or off-ramp into crypto. But then the transactions, once you're in the crypto ecosystem, right? Once you have your Ether in your Metamask wallet, and you're, you know, moving it around between different Defi protocols, there is basically no regulation or at least no requirement of reporting or KYC at that point. I think where we're heading, there's basically two directions we can go from here. One is policymakers understand the benefits and the value of that kind of financial activity, right? The whole point of what we're building is a system where people can actually own their own assets.

Starting point is 01:07:53 They don't have to rely on trusted third parties, centralized custodians, to manage their assets for them and also manage their personal identifying information for them. We know how that goes, right? Not terribly well. And also policymakers who understand the civil liberties issues that Ryan was mentioning, right? I believe that financial privacy is a really important right. And I believe the right to own your own assets is really important. And the other version, though, and this frankly is what we're hearing more from policymakers now. And I can tell you, you know, I do a lot of work here in Washington, D.C., where I'm based, you know, talking to regulators and legislators about these issues, is a desire to create a fully custodial system, right? Where you cannot withdraw crypto assets from a traditional intermediated financial system. And the way that they're sort of right now thinking about creating that barrier between the custodial system and sort of the open defy system is to say that exchanges, those on-ramps and off-ramps, are not allowed to perform transactions with unhosted wallets or that they have to K-Y-C unhosted wallets before they can do the transaction.

Starting point is 01:09:12 In other words, you have to prove that your ledger hardware wallet or your Metamask account is yours before the exchange can allow you to withdraw to that wallet. Or there could be transaction limits, right? You can only withdraw $500 a day, something like that. And this is actually heating up as an issue, and I think in the next six months or so, this is something that we need to start arguing about. That sounds like a direct attack on the bankless nation. It is.

Starting point is 01:09:40 And look, it sounds pessimistic, but this is what has happened in Switzerland. So there is the Swiss rule, which says that VASP's virtual asset service providers have to verify the beneficial owner of an unhosted wallet before they can do a transaction to that unhosted wallet. This is all under the auspices of the travel rule, which you've probably heard about before. And the result of this basically is Swiss institutions refuse to process transactions to unhosted wallets because they don't know how to comply with that requirement. This is, okay, so David, you wrote a piece of Bagless on Monday about kind of the Bitmex case being sort of like, like dividing the crypto community a little bit. And I've got to say I'm somewhat divided on it too, right? So on the one hand, I totally agree with regulator mandate to basically, let's let's get the bad actors out of the space. So to the extent that Bitmex can like, you know, cheat or like, you know, take funds away or. You know, basically have their service operate as a black box. You have no transparency into what's going on. And therefore allegedly trade against their own customers.

Starting point is 01:10:50 Exactly. So to the extent they were doing that, like that's a bad actor. Okay, regulator. Like, you know, there's a bad actor in the space. Do your job. And thank you. Yes. But the other side of this is to the extent that regulators,

Starting point is 01:11:04 not just regulators, nation states, want to clamp down on civil liberties. Like things that like if I pay you in cash money, David, right? There's no AML KYC going on. If I give you a bar of gold, the transaction has completed and the nation state doesn't need to get involved. And that's where, like I'm, I got to be honest, I'm pessimistic. And it's concerning to me because like even this week, we get stuff like this. I'm going to show it on my screen.

Starting point is 01:11:33 I tweeted this. But the Earnit Act is in front of Congress right now. This is basically legislation that is attacking internet encryption and privacy on the internet. This is in front of the house right now with some supporters, bipartisan support. And it's like we need help with COVID. We don't need this kind of thing. So I'm worried, quite frankly, Jake, that our boomer legislators are going to go with option two. And instead try to institute this whole authoritarian.

Starting point is 01:12:07 we need to know every single transaction in and out. There are no peer-to-peer money transmissions that the government doesn't have an eye into. There's no such thing as financial privacy anymore. Now that it's digital, we somehow have a right to see everything that happens if you're a citizen of the nation. And quite frankly, that is terrifying to me. Jake, is there any hope here? Like, please, say that someone is willing to preserve our civil liberties at the nation-state level. there is hope. There's definitely hope. I am worried. I'm probably one of the more worried people, you know, working on these policy issues. And I do think we need to take it seriously. But I do think there's hope. I think we have really good arguments. And, you know, I hate to, you know, I hate to

Starting point is 01:12:53 be sort of like too much of a patriotic American, but I do think especially we have really strong constitutional arguments, you know, arguments that really speak to American principles about First Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights. I think financial privacy is something that we care about a lot in America. I don't think we want to have a system like a more authoritarian country like China has set up where the government can see absolutely everything that everyone is doing at all times. So I do think we have good constitutional arguments, good principled arguments. I also think we have to look at this from the other side of the equation. So when you go to policymakers and all you do is handwave about how amazing this new innovative technology is,

Starting point is 01:13:37 they don't really hear those arguments as much as they do when you say the risk that you're concerned about is actually pretty low, right? Think about what the policymakers are concerned about. They're concerned that terrorists are going to use this technology to perpetrate attacks on our country, to hurt innocent people, to carry out crimes that none of us want to happen, right? We do not want to see child abuse in the world or terrorist attacks in the world. We don't want to see D-Fi being used by ISIS and Hamas and al-Qaeda. That is not something that we want. So what we have to do is also make arguments about why those risks aren't that serious right now and why concerns about some future world where terrorists are all of a sudden doing all of their business through D-Fi, which is not what's happening now. Don't get me wrong, right? There is basically none of that happening. right now. There's very little actual use of crypto. I mean, they're doing it with bills, right, with Benjamins, with cash money, U.S. dollars. Yes, dollars. By far in a way, the most used

Starting point is 01:14:40 currency for criminal purposes. And so you want to say to policymakers, look, we understand the risk. There are ways to mitigate those risks. We're fine with regulation of those on-ramps and off-ramps, right? It's okay for something like BitMex to have to perform KYC of its customers. But also don't kill the innovation that's happening in this new world that is trying to compete with the centralized version that China is building, right? Or that other, you know, I guess you could call them foreign adversaries of the U.S. and the sort of Western world where they will control everything that happens on these systems. Don't kill that version of this technology for fear of something that isn't really happening right now. and instead consider other ways to attack the problem other than the overbroad act of just shutting down all innovation completely. I feel like it's the case, Jake, that we have a kind of a fight on our hands.

Starting point is 01:15:37 And what I mean is like so many in kind of crypto, they want to remove themselves from nation state politics, right? Personally, I don't advocate that at all. So like I think that if we want to preserve our civil liberties, right, we actually have to engage in political discussions. We actually have to vote. We actually have to persuade lawmakers as to our case. It's almost like we have to refight for our constitutional rights in the digital age, because they do seem to be eroding all around us. So like, what can people do, Jake? I mean, it feels like so much of this is just pushed on us and foisted on us. Are there groups talking to legislators in Washington about these issues?

Starting point is 01:16:30 Like, should we inform ourselves on who to vote for? What kinds of things can the people do, the bankless nation do, to push these in the direction of option one rather than option two, where we go full authoritarian? Yeah, there's a lot that we can do. And I think everyone needs to be engaged in this issue, because if they're not, it is very easy. for elected officials to crush this space, right? At the end of the day, our politicians say what you want about American democracy and the state in which it finds itself today. They are supposed to carry out the will of the people. And so we need to make clear what the benefits of this technology are and make clear what we want to see happen in the space. There's a couple organizations to know about

Starting point is 01:17:16 that are working on these issues. One is CoinCenter. CoinCenter has put out some amazing research and papers on this very issue. One of my favorite papers is by their executive director, Jerry Brito, on digital cash and financial privacy, arguing why this is extremely important to a free society. That's a really important piece of work to read. There's the Blockchain Association, which is a trade association here in D.C. I'm one of the co-chairs of its D.I. Working Group, along with Jason Somensato at ZeroX. and Brian Avello, who's the General Counsel at Maker. And we are engaging with policymakers often to discuss these issues

Starting point is 01:18:00 and argue about why onerous regulation isn't necessary. There's the Chicago Defi Alliance. We're working on a task force to also advance some of these policy arguments. But really what people need to do is start getting educated about what the policy arguments are, why it is important to a free society to have digital cash, why we should not treat a public blockchain like Ethereum like a wire transfer system in the traditional financial system and sort of why we should allow innovation to flourish

Starting point is 01:18:35 what the benefits are and why they outweigh the risks. You know, I guess dangling that carrot in front of our lawmakers is important. And this is not all bad news. we saw STC chair Clayton talk about tokens, like all stocks becoming tokenized at some point in the future. So on the flip side to what you're saying, Jake, there does seem to be kind of a carrot in front of the U.S., the nation state lawmakers to say, look, you don't want to get left behind of this innovative technology. The future is quite clearly digital. It's Internet native. it's programmable. If we can somehow preserve our civil liberties in the process,

Starting point is 01:19:20 then the bankless nation wins. But that is, I guess, the challenge that's in front of us. Last question for you, Jake. And thank you so much for spending time with us on these subjects. It's hard to wrap our heads around where we hear these headlines and you've distilled it quite well. But I guess the question is, how long will it take for all of this stuff to shake out, do you think? So are we talking on the order of years? like are we talking on the order of decades? If things go the optimistic route, where do you see us in 10 years? I do think it's years to decades.

Starting point is 01:19:58 It depends on a lot of different factors. It depends on how effective we are in making these arguments. And I mean, just to wrap up the thought that you just put out about Jay Clayton, sort of seeming to approve for the first time I've seen about, you know, tokenizing securities, there are policymakers who are on our side. This is not us versus them. Brian Brooks, who's the controller of the currency, is a big fan of crypto in general. The deputy director at FinCEN is, you know, sort of a fan of what we're doing. So there are people who sort of identify with the mission, or at least are, you know, interested in sort of the benefits that.

Starting point is 01:20:42 these technologies can offer. But, you know, where do we go in the next 10 years? I think that it partly depends on what the traditional financial system's response is to crypto as it grows. So one of the fights we haven't really had yet is with the banks, right? So, I mean, bring this full circle, right? We're on the bankless state of the nation today. The question is, does J.P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America and et cetera, et cetera, did they all decide that it's us versus them? Did they decide that they need to start pushing policymakers to tamp down on what we're building in the defy space? Or is there some world where we play together, where there's some new role for those banks to serve? And that's something that we've been

Starting point is 01:21:32 talking about a lot in the defy space. You know, there are ways where it's not necessarily a bankless world. It's just that banks look very different from how they look today, right? They're not custodying our assets. They're not performing this very capital-intensive role. They're serving a different purpose. They're service providers. They're sort of launching their own products and services on top of blockchain-based decentralized finance protocols. I think if we can get to that world, where this doesn't seem like such a threat, and we can then make a really strong argument that supporting innovation in defy is good for American citizens, and it's good for free enterprise and for fair and open markets,

Starting point is 01:22:22 that in a way it is a good response to the geopolitical threat that we're facing now, where there are other countries going more toward a socialist or even more of a communist approach to their own financial systems, then in 10 years we could be in an extremely good situation. where DeFi is the financial infrastructure of the Western world. And no one even thinks twice about the fact that under the hood of the app that you have on your phone is a defy protocol, as opposed to a traditional financial software on a server or something like that. We just really need to pay attention to what the risks are that we go in the other direction

Starting point is 01:23:03 and do our best to sort of guide policymakers to the right place. I'm glad we're ending on an optimistic note here, because I do think everything you said is optimistic, Jake. And one other thing I'll say is we largely got through the open communication protocol of the internet with a fairly free and neutral and open internet. We did that with the help of regulators and legislators. There were bumps along the road. It was not perfect.

Starting point is 01:23:32 but largely the internet that we had in the 1990s and the 2000s came through relatively unscaped. It's possible we might be able to do that with Defi and these open finance protocols. David, you have anything else that's optimistic, man? Yeah, Jake, you're talking about how a lot of this depends on what legacy financial institutions do. And I'm reminded of the podcast that we just released on Moloch, where it would take a lot for every single legacy financial system to all agree to be on the same. page as be anti-crypto or anti-defi, right? Because the more banks that sign up to be anti-crypto or anti-D-Fi, the more likely it is for one to defect and become like the the C-Fi-D-Fi bank that spans across both, right? And so that makes me optimistic that there's always going to be the

Starting point is 01:24:23 incentive to be that one bank that's crypto-friendly and then hopefully the market rewards them. And then I think the other thing that makes me optimistic, Jake, is that you rattled off a list of of defy working groups, along with Coin Center, that there are actual people like you. So thank you, Tip of the Hat, Jake, for defending the nation. There are people coordinating around the need to get ahead of this problem, right? And to make sure that when the boomers leading this country get informed with what's actually going on from people that are in the space. And so, Jake, I do see that as your role as perhaps protector of the defination.

Starting point is 01:25:02 So thank you with everything you do. And also thank you for coming on the bankless state of the nation to get us educated as to what's going on in this world. My pleasure, guys. Great to talk to you. Cheers. All right, guys, this has been State of the Nation. Thanks so much. Of course, none of this was legal advice as Jake will be the first to tell you.

Starting point is 01:25:21 This was also not financial advice. Eat is risky. crypto is risky so is defy it's clear that we have some things to work out in the years to come with the nation state you could also lose what you put in but we are headed west this is the frontier it's not for everyone but we're glad you're with us in the bankless journey thanks a lot i don't think we've done it to that live stream or podcast that was more accurately reflected that your sign off trying. I'd say.

Bankless - SotN#17: RETREATING! w/ Jake Chervinsky (BitMEX REKT, SEC Action, is DeFi safe?)

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.