Odd Lots - Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong on the Two Big Challenges Facing Crypto

Episode Date: March 6, 2023

Crypto is facing two distinct, yet related problems. First, a bunch of people have lost money due to the decline in coin prices and the collapse of major firms, such as FTX. At the same time, regulatory scrutiny is also increasing. And of course, the reason that scrutiny is increasing is in part due all the lost money. So how is the industry dealing with all this? On this episode of the podcast, we speak with Brian Armstrong, the co-founder and CEO of Coinbase, the biggest crypto exchange in the US. He talks about the trajectory of the industry, where he sees it going, the impediments it faces, and much more.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thanks for listening to Odd Lots. Follow the show on Amazon Music for more future episodes or just ask, Alexa play the Odd Lots podcast on Amazon Music. You have the desire to help a real difference? The College, LaCity, you offer the program Dependence and Sententenital. Acquare the competences essential for accompany and support the people confronted to health and dependents. Construise a career enrichinger, on service of the community francophone of all the country. Don't the science in French, it's possible, with the assistance.

Visit the Collage Lacetka right now. An initiative of the Consortium National of Formation in Health, supported by Santee Canada. Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I'm Joe Wisenthall. And I'm Tracy Allaway.

So Tracy, obviously a lot going on in crypto, but I would say the two big things are like, I guess the crypto winter. There's been some recovery, but obviously all the coin prices are way lower than they used to be. And then there's just everything going on. on the regulatory side.

Yeah, it's sort of a double whammy for the industry. And I guess it's hard, it's hard to determine causality when it comes to price and extra regulation coming in. But yeah, it is not a great time for crypto. Well, I would say that the historical patterns would suggest the regulators like to come in after people have lost money, after people have lost money in scams, their investments go down. So it kind of makes sense that you see the uptick in regulation. right after just like the lines have been going down for a while.

Right, but it does prompt these big questions about should the regulators have been more proactive, should they have been doing things before people lost money? And then what should they do now? Anyway, we have the perfect guest to talk about this because we are going to be speaking with Brian Armstrong, CEO and co-founder of CoinVase, right in the middle of all this, the preeminent American crypto exchange. So, Brian, thank you so much for coming on. odd lots. Yeah, thanks for having me. I want to ask you a question. We've actually asked other executives in the crypto space this question before, but I'd love to get your take on it.

What is yield farming and where does the return of it come from? Well, I mean, yield farming has a little bit of a bad name, I think, in this environment. There was obviously with the collapse of, you know, Tara Luna and BlockFi and some other firms like that, I think that's a very valid question to be asking, and I'm not sure I couldn't even answer it on their behalf. But, you know, I think there's a lot of other pieces of crypto that people are still excited about. And, you know, there's lots of things we can build beyond that. So one of the things we've talked about on the show quite a bit is this idea of crypto is kind of the ultimate momentum asset. And when money is flowing in, prices go up and everything is great. When money flows out, prices collapse quite quickly, which would seem to make the business

of being a crypto exchange, extremely cyclical. But one of the things that stood out from your most recent results, you just reported relatively recently, you talked about how you want to be profitable through the cycle, through the upturns and the downturns. Can you talk a little bit more about how you plan on doing that? Yeah, well, historically, most of our revenue has been from trading fees, which you're absolutely right. It is cyclical, and crypto has been a fairly volatile asset class, and goes up and down. Now, what we've done is, we started shifting more and more of our revenue to what we call subscription and services in our financials and our earnings calls. And basically what that means is things like USD coin, a stable

coin. That's been a nice growth mechanism for us, even in a down crypto market, things like custody fees, fees that we earn on Coinbase card. People are using it for spending in merchant commerce activity. So these things are, I wouldn't say there's zero percent correlated with overall market and crypto, but there are certainly a lot less than trading fees. And that's allowing us to build a more predictable business. So we started in the industry also talking about the regulatory side. And I want to, you know, we'll definitely talk a lot about that. But in particular, I think yesterday I saw that Coinbase, you had some new program.

I think it was called the 435 program about, you know, call your congressman, like let people know that you care about crypto policy. And of course, like Uber sort of famously started the strategy, like telling people on the app, like tell your local regulators you want to drive an Uber. And I'm going to try to ask this in the most diplomatic way possible. And I have many friends who are into crypto and I like many of them. But when it comes to crypto, do you want the type of person who would call their congressmen to tell them to do better crypto policy?

Is that really the type of person that you want sort of being the voice of crypto regulation? Well, I think the average person in crypto and, by the way, there's a lot of them. You know, one in five households now have used crypto, about 50 million Americans. This is becoming a major constituent, you know, lobbying group and everything that's going to shape future elections. They want to, you know, these average people, they may not have the exact solution for what the legislation should say around regulation of crypto, but they do know that they want

elected representatives who are going to ensure that this industry comes within the regulatory perimeter, offers consumer protection, but also, you know, allows this innovation to flourish so that we can update the financial system. You know, 80% of Americans now believe that the financial system doesn't work for them. It's either too slow, it has too high of fees. It doesn't, you know, nobody has equal access or not everyone has equal access to it. And it's not surprising that's the case. I mean, the technology behind the financial system is sometimes 40 years old. It's, you know, written in Cobalt and these mainframe computers. And the laws for it are sometimes 100 years old. They were created before the internet even existed, right? So it's time to update the financial

system. I think the average voter in America is now realizing that crypto is one of the great technologies that can help update that. And they want their elected representatives to bring that legislation and clarity to the U.S. Just on the political side, I mean, Joe and I kind of alluded to this in the intro, this idea that now that we have losses and we have big scandals and the industry regulators seem to be becoming more active in the space. Can you talk to us a little bit about from your perspective, what is it like dealing with Washington now versus, say, in 2020 or 2021? Yeah. Well, I would say compared to 2020, many more people that I meet with in Washington are actually pretty knowledgeable about crypto now. It's no longer a niche thing. Some of the conversations I had five years ago, they were very basic.

But most people that I speak with now actually have a reasonable understanding of crypto. I think there's two camps. One camp is saying, hey, in the wake of FTX, I'm afraid of being associated with crypto, and I'm just kind of wait and see what happens because it's too dicey to even go near it. The other half of the folks I speak with are saying, you know what, this is an opportunity.

I want to be one of the people who helps bring this within the regulatory perimeter, and we can see how important that is now with the collapse of FTX. And so they're actually drafting legislation. They're trying to get, gather bipartisan support to get some clarity going. And, you know, I'm personally much more in favor of that latter group. So actually, I want to ask you, you know, you talk about this impulse, it's like,

okay, in the wake of FTX, bring it inside the regulatory perimeter. And part of my question is, like, why? Because I look at FTX collapsing, one of the biggest, like, sort of, like, crucial exchanges in the industry. And nothing bad happened after that. There was no fallout or no bailouts. It didn't have any spillover. So part of my thing is, like, I don't want this in any perimeter because that seems to work pretty well in terms of the lessons of 2008, avoiding too big to fail. What about the argument that it's like from a sort of like structural, like, yeah, like financial contagion standpoint, regulators have done a pretty good, a pretty good job not letting this volatile product, this volatile industry, create problems for the financial system. The let it burn strategy.

Yeah. Well, you know, I would disagree with the idea that nothing bad happened. I mean, a lot of people lost money. That's absolutely. And I'm glad you said that because I did not. You're right. People lost their like, yes. Yeah.

So there were certainly some bad activity there. And I think that's the kind of consumer protection we're talking about. I don't think there should have been bailouts or anything like that. Nothing in crypto is too big to fail. And it's kind of antithetical to crypto, frankly, to, you know, have a bailout or something like that. if you the first Bitcoin block that was mine, right, had a message in it about that, you know, chancellor on the brink of bailout. So crypto was kind of founded almost, Bitcoin was founded as a result

of a reaction to the 2008 financial crisis. But I think those two ideas can come into unity. I mean, we can have, and again, I'm talking about for the centralized actors in crypto, you know, the custodians, exchanges, companies like Coinbase, it's pretty clear. Everybody generally, there's broad consensus. Those should be regulated. Apply some of the best practices and standards so we don't have fraud and corruption and you know, wash trading or AML issues. But the decentralized pieces of crypto, that's different. I mean, we need to have decentralized protocols so that we can have a global, more global and fair and free financial system. And that piece, you know, I don't think those are going to be regulated because

there is no central authority for Bitcoin or Ethereum, for instance. What should consumer protections look like in crypto, in your opinion? And especially, you know, when I think of something like Dogecoin, you know, it's hard for me to come up with an economical use case for it. And so it's like, well, you can put all the disclosures that you want on there, but it seems highly likely that people will be losing money on that product at some point in time. Yeah. So again, I would say, you know, the regulation and the consumer protection probably should happen with the centralized actors, the custodian exchange, not necessarily Dogecoin, which would be another decentralized coin, right? But yeah, I mean, I think the exchanges and the firms that are being

built around, you know, custody or trading of things like that. they are going to have to have some of these best practices from the traditional financial services world. So, you know, let's have audited financial. Let's make sure customer funds are segregated from corporate funds. Let's make sure that there's AML KYC programs and avoiding wash trading. And yeah, appropriate disclosures are important as well. So those are all just kind of good general best practices. But again, it's focused on the centralized players as opposed to the decentralized pieces. It's interesting. You make this distinction, obviously, between, you know, there's sort of centralized players and then decentralized defy stuff.

You're kind of becoming a hybrid and you recently launched a layer two roll up to help scale Ethereum. And I'm curious, as a regulated entity and one that has to abide by like FinCEN and anti-money money laundering laws, can you explain if the tension or is there any tension between, I believe these sort of like, you know, roll up layer twos have some sort of centralized sequencer so that the transactions made of them, then get batched to the main Ethereum chain. Are you responsible for that? And do you, how do you deal with that as an regulated entity? What if someone wanted to or tried to launder money through this layer two? Are you facilitating that by putting those transactions onto the main Ethereum chain? Yeah. So earlier, you know, I mentioned that

the centralized players like Coinbase should be regulated. And I, and I was really referring to like, you know, our primary revenue stream today, which is a custodian exchange. But you're absolutely right. We are embracing decentralization at Coinbase. We have a number of different products and legal entities and different ones working in various areas. So we did launch this really exciting thing, a Layer 2 solution called Base. And our goal with that is really to help provide more scalability and better usability for layer two solutions. So we want to get transactions and Ethereum down to, you know, a penny or less and help that scale to hopefully a billion or more people someday.

Now, I guess the core of your question was really around the responsibility from a, decentralized decentralized piece. And I think, you know, so base is, it has some centralized components today, but it's going to be more and more decentralized over time as it grows. And so, you know, I think we have responsibility in terms of, you know, transaction monitoring, things like that that we have to look at in the early days. But as it decentralized is, I think that, again, the centralized actors are the ones that are probably going to have the most responsibility there to avoid money laundering issues and having

transaction monitoring programs, things like that. to help to make a real difference? The College, LaCite, you offer the program Dependance and Scenta Mental. Acquare the competences essential to accompany and support the

people confronted to the challenges to health and and dependance. Construise a career enriching to service of the community francophone of all the

country. Donnay of quality in French, it's possible with the CET. Visit Collage LaC.A.

right now. An initiative National of Formation in Saution in SOUTH Canada. The news doesn't

stop on the weekends. Context changes constantly. And now Bloomberg is the place to stay on top of it all. Hi, I'm David Gura. Join us every Saturday and Sunday for the new Bloomberg this weekend. I'm Christina Rafini. We'll bring you the latest headlines, in-depth analysis, and big interviews, all the stories that hit home on your days off. And I'm Lisa Mateo. Watch and listen to Bloomberg this weekend for thoughtful, enlightening conversations about business, lifestyle, people, and culture. On Saturday mornings, we put the past week's events into context, examining what happened in the markets and the world.

That on Sundays we speak with journalists, columnists, and key political figures to prepare you for the week ahead. Join us as soon as you wake up and bring us with you wherever your weekend plans take you. Watch us on Bloomberg Television. Listen on Bloomberg Radio, stream the show live on the Bloomberg business app, or listen to the podcast. That's Bloomberg this weekend. Saturdays and Sundays starting at 7 a.m. Eastern. Make us part of your weekend routine on Bloomberg Television, radio, and wherever you get your podcasts. So speaking of responsibility, you know, there are thousands, I think, of coins and tokens listed on Coinbase now.

More like hundreds. Hundreds. Okay. About $2.50. I didn't flip through all the pages, but there's a lot. And you guys say that you never actually list securities. But it feels like nowadays there's so much uncertainty over, you know, you could wake up tomorrow and the SEC says this is a security or that's a security. or that's a security.

I mean, just a little while ago, for instance, they were, I think there was an enforcement action on Kim Kardashian for unlawfully touting a crypto security. So how can you say with confidence that you don't list any securities when it feels like that's a very fluid thing at the moment? Yeah. So I think, look, the best thing for us

and for the whole industry would be, here's a clear rulebook. Everybody has to follow it, you know? And if the rules change, change, give us a new rulebook, we'll follow that one, right? We've actually been requesting that, and we filed a petition with the SEC on this. People can read it on their website. And we sort of enumerated, look, these are the ways that the current securities laws don't really address some of these underlying questions in crypto. Like if there is no common enterprise or centralized

entity behind this thing, who publishes the disclosures, you know? So there's questions like that. Now, what we've done in the absence of that clarity, which again would be the best case scenario, is that we have created our own internal process to review assets. And we developed something, I think it has like 72 points in the legal analysis and kind of one area it looks at is securities law. It also looks at compliance risk, you know, cybersecurity risk, things like that. And we've evaluated probably roughly 1,000 assets through this process. About 800 of them we have rejected.

And for various reasons, whether securities or compliance or cyber, about, you know, 200, 250 or something like that, we've decided. to list. So, you know, I guess the heart of your question is what happens if the SEC comes out and says, okay, so if they come out and they, again, we're asking for more clear rules, right? So if they come out and say, you know, we think this asset is a security, that's great. Okay, now we have clarity. And assuming, you know, it's not, if it meets the legal definition, it's not going too far, we would be happy to sort of update our process and our system based on that new information. Now, ultimately, if, if they, if they,

they publish something and they say, well, we think all these assets are securities. Well, that's not really our understanding of the law and of the third parties and external counsel we've worked with. And so there is a line here where I think as an industry, and it's not just us, it's these asset issuers, which are even more primarily affected, you know, they would have to say, okay, well, let's let a court decide that. Because, you know, we have to follow rule of law, so does the SEC, right? And so if they put out, you know, their opinion about something, that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. It just means the court ultimately has to be the decider on that. Can you give an example, not necessarily of a specific coin, but of something that you

have seen in tokens that you've rejected, that to your mind said, nope, we cannot list this because this is a characteristic of a security. Yeah. I mean, there's, so there's a variety of I mean, there's many prongs of the Howie test, right? I mean, and I don't want to get into like an in-depth legal analysis here. Sure. We've never done a Howie Test episode. So this could be it, but no, go ahead. Yeah. So, you know, there's multiple prongs there, right? I think, you know, if people are buying it primarily with this expectation of profit and it's,

there's, you know, there's a common enterprise and, and, right? But is there something in the, like, speaking in terms of patterns that you see within crypto projects, that when you look at it's like, no, this team, like the type of things the teams do that would say, you know, this token is not going to be kosher. for Coinbase. Are there things that you see in the industry where you think teams are crossing that line into, I don't know, whether it's the common enterprise aspect, that preclude them from at least your judgment being safe to list? Yeah, I mean, so I'll give you a security example, but there's others in cyber security and others. So, you know, look, if you're legitimately just

trying to raise money for your company or for some project like an apartment complex or something like that, that is a security. That's the point of securities law. There has to be an investment, of money into this thing and for, you know, in a common enterprise with an expectation of profit, you know, based on the effort of others. So that should exist, by the way, and we want that to exist in the world. We've acquired a broker-de-o license. We're dormant right now. We'd like to activate it. We're working with the SEC to hopefully make that happen. Crypto is a technology that could make, you know, crypto securities could offer benefits and update the financial system and improve all kinds of things, you know, time to settlement and various things like that.

that's an example. If people are out there kind of really hyping these things like on YouTube and the tokenomics look sketchy and there's really low float and the insiders are selling these are all bad fact patterns. And those are the things we try to avoid for consumer protection. You know, there's other ways, there's other reasons we may reject assets too. I mean, another example would be cybersecurity risk. So we often will evaluate the smart contracts for, you know, is there some exploit in this or there's an ability, you know, if the acid issuers, not even like in a malicious thing, but an accidental thing. If they lose the key, everyone's funds could be swept or something like that. That's not secure enough, right,

to meet our standards. So those are examples. Is crypto shooting itself in the foot in some respects by like resisting the security designation? Like is that a tacit admission that maybe there isn't a reasonable expectation of profits here? Sorry. Loaded question. Yeah, yeah. I mean, we want actually crypto securities to exist. So we're not saying none of these things are securities. But on the flip side is not true either. It's not that all of these are securities. Both of those are inaccurate statements. And I guess the thing I would say, too, is that

just an expectation of profit alone does not make something a security. It has to meet every prong of the Howie test is my understanding. So an example, you know, people might buy a Picasso painting hoping it goes up in value or by goal. By goal. or something like that. So those aren't securities. So, yeah, I mean, basically Bitcoin Ethereum and the assets that we trade on our platform today, we believe our crypto commodities. And it's, you know, people trade those.

Some of them they want to go up in value, just like they buy gold. Other times they're using it for various utility aspects. You know, this is sort of a – I want to get back to the regulatory question. But before I forget, can you talk for a second about how you view Bitcoin specifically? because it feels like the crypto industry in many respects has moved on from Bitcoin. And I'm sure your mentions on Twitter are filled every day with angry, laserized people that think you hate Bitcoin. But it is also true that, you know, you launched an Ethereum layer two. I don't know if do you have a light, do you, is there a coin-based lightning node?

We'd like to do more with lightning for sure. But haven't yet. But haven't yet. Yeah. And, you know, there's all these issues with like, funding for core Bitcoin devs, like frustration that they don't get enough and can't maintain it. What is your view towards Bitcoin? I mean, I love Bitcoin. Honestly, I don't really understand why anybody might think the opposite. I've kind of like dedicated. But people do, right? I mean,

I'm not wrong that you think. There is kind of a meme. We've all been abused by Bitcoin Maxis at one time or another, I think. That's unfortunate. I don't know how seriously to take that. I mean, I do you do see people say this on Twitter sometimes, but I don't know if it's like a widely believed thing. I mean, it would sort of defy credulity, right? I mean, I've kind of almost dedicated my life to, like, Bitcoin and helping it grow. I mean, literally, I read the Bitcoin white paper and then decided to quit my job and found this company. Now, of course, the industry has evolved into many things, right? I mean, there's lots of new innovations coming out in crypto, but yeah, I'm very pro-Bitcoin, and I think, look, I think there's a very simple base case for Bitcoin,

which is that it's the gold standard in the crypto economy. And I think that it'll probably always be true and it'll keep growing. Now, if things like lightning continue to get traction, I think it could also become like a settlement layer. There's people now creating NFTs in Bitcoin. And so it's evolving. I'm as an operator of an exchange and custodian, I try to just be agnostic. My job is to say, is not to tell our customers which coin they should use. It is to list and make available every coin that meets our standards, the legal tests I discussed. And then we need to be agnostic. So I think some people, because I'm not pro one coin or another, they sort of take that as like, you must hate this thing, but those are two different things.

Just going back to the SEC for a second, you know, we talked about how it does seem like SEC is sort of an enforcement mode, and there's a chance that you wake up tomorrow, and there's a bunch of new announcements. Wouldn't you think the ultimate goal is for the SEC when it comes to crypto? Do they just want it to go away entirely? or are they aiming for, you know, the industry to still exist, but maybe in a different, in a different way? Or a JP Morgan and city instead of Coinbase and, you know, in uniswap? Well, I mean, I always want to be hesitant to kind of speculate on the motives of people within the SEC.

I mean, I think we have a pretty good relationship with different people on the staff and commissioners. And I guess the real answer is I don't know. I suspect that there are different people, with different views inside the SEC. I think it wouldn't surprise me if some people, their view, they actually just want it to go away. They wish this whole thing would go away. I think, I would hope that that's not a majority view. I know it's not the majority view of Americans and I don't see how it would be in the interest of America or, you know, protecting consumers to wish it would go away because clearly it's not one in five households in the U.S. are using this stuff and they're just going to

use unregulated things offshore if we don't get our act together in the U.S. So I think the majority view is more like, we know that this is going to exist. We just need to bring it within the regulatory perimeter. I wish that they were doing that by just, again, publishing a clear rulebook and going through a rulemaking process with industry. But it hasn't happened as much to date. And so, you know, if it needs to be more enforcement-based and then some of this stuff gets figured out via case law, I mean, that's okay, too. It'll just take a little longer. Why do you think that regulatory response has so far been kind of disjointed? I think it's fair to say, like maybe disjointed or unclear. Was it a lack of resources or regulators just didn't

understand the space? What was it? Maybe can clarify. What do you mean disjointed? Well, I guess slow, maybe, and unclear. You know, to your point, we don't have, we go in and ask them questions and they don't give you answers. Right. Oh, man. I, frankly, I, you know, I'm spending a lot more time in D.C. I'm trying to figure this out, too. Perhaps I was a little naive coming in. I kind of assumed that, you know, when you're running a business that the regulators just give you the rules and then you just follow them. And that would have been like how I assumed it would work. But it seems to be more complicated than that. Maybe it's like there's various political motivations. There's different factions within the government who have different goals. You know, people who've gotten legislation

passed, they've told me it's kind of like a small miracle whenever it happens. You have to kind of get the House and the Senate and the president. aligned and there has to be a real impetus for it to happen. I kind of believe this thing with FDX is maybe that impetus. Maybe this is our moment to finally get some clarity in the next year. Let me ask you another regulatory question, not about, not SEC related. It seems like some banks are debanking crypto companies, but I do not get the impression that that is a risk for Coinbase. Do you perceive that to be a regulatory advantage for you that's small, exchanges may have a harder time getting a banking partner in this environment?

Well, look, I mean, I'd hate to consider that to be an advantage. We haven't had any issue with any of our bank partners. I do think that there's a general moment in the wake of FTX where, you know, reasonably so, bank regulators are asking tough questions and they're basically coming in and saying, what are the liquidity risks if you're going to take crypto deposits? you know, is it okay to be making loans against those deposits or are they too risky? And I think those are totally fair questions to ask. So, yeah, I don't think that we would have any kind of major crackdown and say, well,

you can't bank crypto companies. I haven't heard that from anybody. And by the way, that would be probably exceeding their authority because Congress has to make those kinds of decisions about what is allowed in the economy. But if they're coming in and asking questions about liquidity, I think that's probably reasonable. Quick a follow-up on that. Would you or have you put any lobbying or any of your D.C. efforts towards guaranteeing or making sure that anyone provided, you know, provided other basic checks that, like, that crypto can't be, I guess, discriminated against within the banking system.

Is that an effort you've made? Well, certainly in our messaging and in our conversations with members of Congress and the Senate, we have made that point to them, which is we want to just be treated on a level playing field, right? Don't unfairly penalize crypto versus traditional financial services, but you know, you shouldn't like allow us to have a lighter weight system or anything like that either. So it's a balance. You know, we've mentioned this a couple of times, but I'd be curious to get your take on what happened to FTX. Like when, you know, that one week in November, I think was shocking for a lot of people for very different reasons, depending on who you are. But what was it like for you when you saw, you know, it happened so quickly. You had the

Twitter exchanges and then you had a bankruptcy file, I think filing within like seven or ten days. Yeah, I mean, that was a wild week. I was actually in Japan at that time, meeting with our team there and talking with regulators and government folks in Japan. And I got a call from somebody who said, it's bad. Like, we think FTX is going to go down in the next 48 hours and say, I might go to jail. And I was like, okay, tell me more. What happened? And I kind of started a it all together. You know, I had a chance to chat just briefly with Sam, actually, and CZ during that whole thing.

And I was just doom-scrolling Twitter, I suppose, like a lot of people. And I mean, really, that's not true. I mean, the first thing that I really thought about was, okay, what is our exposure to any of this? So we immediately went and, you know, underwrote any of our counterparties, including FTCS itself, but any that might have secondary effects. And then we started to think about, okay, well, this is actually quite validating of our strategy over the last 10 years of being built in U.S., trying to embrace compliance, not trying to cut any corners. How can we make sure that people understand that Coinbase is not like FTX?

And I basically thought about it as there's going to be a, it's going to be a black eye for the industry, but this is ultimately, Coinbase stands to be a huge net beneficiary of this because it's going to bring an increased focus. on compliance and trust, which is what we've been doing for the last 10 years. You have the desire to help to make a real difference? The College, LaCite, you offer the program Dependance and Scenta Mental. Acquare the competences essential for accompany and support the people confronted to the difficulties of health mental and of dependence. Construise a career enrichicent,

to service of the community francophone of all the country. Don't know the soin of quality in French. It's possible with LaCite. Visit Collage Lascit.orgia. Today, a initiative of the Consortium National of Formation in Santee Soutenue by Sante Canada. You can get the news whenever you want it with Bloomberg News Now. I'm Amy Morris.

And I'm Karen Moscow here to tell you about our new on-demand news report delivered right to your podcast feed. Bloomberg News Now is a short five-minute audio report on the day's top stories. Episodes are published throughout the day with the latest information and data to keep you informed. Yes, there are other products like this from a variety of news organizations. But they usually rerun their radio newscasts throughout the day. That's not what we do.

We create customized episodes that can only be heard on Bloomberg NewsNow. And we don't wait an hour to publish breaking news. When news breaks, we'll have an episode up in your podcast feed within minutes. So you're always getting the latest stories and developments. Get the reporting and the context from Bloomberg's 3,000 journalists and analysts we're all over the world. Listen to the latest from Bloomberg News Now on Apple, Spotify or anywhere you listen.

I want to ask a little bit about, you know, the price, crypto winter. And obviously there's been a bit of a bounce. But the bounce has basically just been like because the NASDAQ has bounced too. And it looks, many of these coins sort of look pretty highly correlated to other risk assets. And for years, I feel like there was this case to investors that they should buy crypto for two reasons. One, it was this new uncorrelated asset class. And two, in the case of Bitcoin specifically, it was really good as an inflation protection thing. And we just got, you know, we had the highest inflation in 40 years.

And Bitcoin really hasn't gone anywhere. It's flat over the last several years. And the coins all seem to, by and large, at this point, seem to more or less be correlated with, like, the NASDAQ or QQ or whatever. What is the case? And what do you feel about like, so what's the new case to be made after people have these old narratives that the industry was pretty loud about making. I'm not saying you, I don't know, but many in the industry definitely were, have not held up in terms of like the case for investing in it. Yeah. Well, I guess I'm just sort of laughing a little bit because, you know,

crypto being has been roughly as volatile as the stock market recently. And I can tell you, there was many years of Coinbase where people would constantly ask me, it's so volatile, no one will ever use it. And so now that it's just on par with volatility of the stock market, I'll take that as a slight win, at least a step in the right direction. We don't use Tesla shares to buy coffee either. Yeah, yeah. But anyway. Well, okay, so obviously we have stable coins for commerce now, which is a good piece of the puzzle.

But let's go back to your question about an inflation hedge. So, you know, I think there certainly was this belief. And frankly, I shared this belief, too, which was that crypto or Bitcoin specifically, actually, this is where people, hopefully the Bitcoin Maxis kind of align with my thinking, is that that is sort of the new gold standard in the crypto economy, and it would be something that people flee to in times of uncertainty with guaranteed scarcity or things like that. Just, you know, similar to like real estate has a, you can't make more of it. So at least the land part of it. So there is sort of a guaranteed scarcity component. It's a nice insulation hedge.

Now, I think what happened is I was frankly surprised to see how quickly crypto came down in an in an environment of high inflation where I thought maybe the world has shifted, maybe we're ready now where this would be considered an inflation hedge. It turns out we were way too early for that. Now, I guess my current updated thinking on that is that we still need probably, crypto is still too small a percentage of the global economy. It's being treated more like a growth, you know, asset or something as opposed to like a true, like a gold standard or something.

And so, I mean, we probably really need the crypto economy to grow 10x, 20x or something from here to start to have that sort of a role in the broader macro environment. You know, you mentioned stable coins there, and I just remembered once upon a time, I guess a few years ago, we had Sam Bateman Fried on, and we asked him to explain to us what would happen if Tether just suddenly collapsed. And I'd be curious to get your, I guess in retrospect, we should have asked SPF what would happen if FTX actually collapsed. But in retrospect, Can you talk to us about your impression of Tether's role in the crypto ecosystem? Well, look, I'm not here to sort of criticize anybody in the ecosystem.

I don't really, you know, we've utilized Tether in various ways on our platform in different times. I know they've been investigated by various parties and they reached settlements and they sort of had, they got comfortable with various ways. You know, look, our focus at this point has been on USD coin. We have a partnership with Circle. that and I think that's been a that I feel very comfortable saying I you know I understand more about it and it feels it's well backed it's one-to-one backed and it's audited and all these things I just don't have as much information on tether but I

don't have anything negative to say certainly at all I have no no beef with them let me ask you you know look obviously after all this time and even well before the FTCs as you know there's been there's just a lot of skepticism still to this day about crypto and I think many people say yeah it's not it's not going to go away But like, it's still, it's just speculation. People are just in it for the money. And there's no real use case outside of maybe some niches. But, like, Web 3 isn't really a thing yet.

And I'm curious, like, a lot of people in crypto have done fantastically well. And, you know, like, you know, made an extraordinary amount of money, despite the fact that by and large, these coins aren't really used for much outside of making money. and there's not a, you know, decentralized Facebook that exists. You know, there's a good reason why it would be nice to have one because it's sort of scary to think about, like, how much power is in the hands of Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg and all these people. But by and large, like, nothing exists. Like, when does that happen?

Because there's, like, tons of money has been made, but when do we get, like, this sort of, like, okay, now there's a thing that's been delivered that people will use for non-speculative purposes? Yeah, so I guess, you know, I'll disagree a little bit with this idea that it's all speculation, right? I think that was probably a fair thing to say five years ago or so, but, and there's not going to be some moment where it all flips. It's a gradual thing. And so we've actually tracked this inside Coinbase, you know, what percent of our active customers are doing something other than trading with crypto? And it's now over 50 percent. And what's an example of that? Like, is buying an NFT something other than trading?

Yeah, that's an example. And there's lots of other examples. I'll kind of give you a framework for how I think about how it's evolved over time. But, you know, obviously there's people doing commerce. They're doing borrowing and lending. They're, you know, earning money. They are doing things like staking. And here's how to think about it over time, right?

So the first use case of crypto was really a new form of money or this new asset class that got created. and a lot of the activity early on was speculative, although just I don't want to undersell that first point because by having a new form of money that is global and decentralized and guaranteed to be scarce, that is no small thing, right? I mean, we sort of take it for granted in the U.S. that our currency is relatively stable,

even though it inflates more recently. Most people in the world, that is a luxury they do not have, and it would be an incredible benefit to humanity. The only thing crypto ever did was have a form of sound money for the world that anybody could have as long as they have a smartphone. That is a game changer. So let's not undersell that.

But beyond crypto being just a new form of money, it also became a new type of financial services, right? Defi and we saw different ways for people to do borrowing and lending and, you know, commerce payments and staking and various things like this. And so that was all very good. Now, the third realm is kind of what you touched on about decentralized social and everything. We call it Web3. It's not only a new type of money, a new type of financial services, but a new application

platform, even things that have nothing to do with financial services. And, you know, I'm pretty excited about, for instance, decentralized identity with ENS. That's a foundational component. So people's identity doesn't have to be sort of owned by a big tech company. Once you have decentralized identities, you can connect them in a social graph. You can make decentralized social networks. You can have public profile pages with badges and accreditation. And, you know, your badge, you're accessing to buildings like proof of attendance, concert tickets, like all these kind of things. new business models for, you know, the music industry and like YouTube, Spotify, you can imagine all these things being built in a new way.

We can imagine them. Yeah. I guess the question is why hasn't it happened yet? You know, we're talking, it's been like a decade. More than a decade since the white paper. So why, why, if this is such revolutionary technology and it's so much better than the way we've been doing things, why hasn't the adoption been quicker? Yeah.

Well, I think one reason is the scalability of the blockchains has been one. thing that we could unlock that would help it move even faster. I think the usability needs to get a lot simpler, right? The average person doesn't really know what a private key is. They don't want to, you know, install a Chrome extension to understand something. Like they, it needs to be just simpler for the average person. And I guess, you know, look at the internet as an example, right? I think like the very foundational pieces of the internet might even go back to like the 60s or something. But, you know, you started to see Telnet and like these very early, types of things come together, like in the 80s, I think it was.

So we think of the internet as really happening from like the year 2000 or something like that. And again, that's, by the way, 23 years now. But it took a lot of foundational work to happen before that. Scalability, broadband had to happen, right? Another thing, another internet analogy. It's true of crypto as well. I mean, people are working on hash, cash, and all those for decades in some case. I mean, the prehistory of Bitcoin is pretty long as well.

Well, those were like research papers. I mean, they, you know, TELNET was like a real thing that had, I don't know how many people, maybe a million people using it or something, but, or like that first, you know, fiber that had to get laid in the ground and everything. But yeah, look, I would love it to happen faster. I mean, let's be honest, like the regulatory environment has not helped either. It's like there's a, there's a fear in this, in the United States that if you start a company in this space, like you're just going to be have a bunch of legal bills and, you know, subpoenas in your in. or whatever. So that's not helping either, but we can't blame it entirely on that. It's the technology needs to be more scalable, more usable. And it's all happening. It's just taking a while.

And I want to ask, I have one last question, and it's a Coinbase specific question and is inspired by another guest that we've had on in the past Jim Chanos, who has been critical. I don't know if he's ever short Coinbase, but he's certainly been critical to the company. And he says two things. He's like, A, how is it? in like these most incredible, some of the most incredible bull markets ever for crypto. Company hasn't been profitable. But also that so much of the revenue you do make is because of the huge gap between what institutional traders on Coinbase Pro pay versus the commissions on regular Coinbase.

And it's pretty easy, or at least was, to switch back and forth, but maybe people didn't realize how much cheaper one could trade just by like a few clicks on the website to get over to the pro side. Like, how much compression is there going to be and have, you know, what do you say to the argument that retail investors have sort of gotten a raw deal compared to the more, more professional ones? Yeah. So I'm not sure I caught the first part exactly, but I think, I mean, in 2021, well, I wasn't

coin-based profitable during this insane bull market. Right. That's what I thought I heard you said. But in 2021, we were actually, very profitable. Did about $4 billion of EBITA and grew revenue, 600. in 2021. 2021. 2022, we were not. Okay.

Because the market came down quite a lot. And we've made some really some cuts and adjustments to try to get to an environment where we can generate even hopefully in any market environment. But I guess the core of your question is really around fee compression. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So there's a number of pieces to this.

So the first is that it's true. There are difference in pricing amongst our customers. If they want to trade through more of a pro interface or a simple interface, there's also a difference in pricing, of course, based on how much trading volume they do, tears. There's tears of that. And so I think what we've seen is there's a willingness for customers to pay, basically, for ease of use and simplicity and trust. And so, and I don't think, by the way, our fees are not really out of line with the rest of the market. I mean, there's sometimes there's firms that kind of advertise like zero fees or whatever. And, you know, their payment for order flow,

or there's like different things that you're paying a fee one way or another. It's sometimes not always obvious, right? One other thing I'll mention is that we actually, we actually launched something called Coinbase 1, which is like an Amazon Prime type subscription. And for customers who pay for that, I mean, they get a number of things like a million dollar account protection and all these kind of things. But one of the things they get is, you know, reduced fee trading, basically. And that's something we're sensitive to as well for our power users, basically. Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase. Thank you so much for coming on AdLOT. We've wanted to have you for a long time. I'm thrilled. We finally made it happen. It was great. Yeah, this was great.

One of the best set of questions I've had in a while. Tracy, that was a lot of fun. I really enjoyed that. Yeah, I'm glad we were finally able to do it. And I guess kudos to Brian for coming on and answering our questions in the midst of a deep crypto winter. Yeah. It is interesting. There's just the myriad regulatory things right now. And I have to say, I do have sympathy. And I've heard it from other people in the industry, particularly with this idea, because it's one thing to let go to the SEC and want to clarify rules around security. getting any answers. But then you also hear entities in the industry and they're like, no, we didn't even want to launch until we were sure we'd be on the right side of the law. And then,

like, they're still in like pre-launch phase three years later while other people have made the audience. Right. You get punished for engaging. Whereas if you don't ask questions and just launch, sometimes that's better. Yeah. And then the only thing that, you know, they do go after things like the Kim Kardashian token, which was not that big. And so it's like, you know, I have some sympathy, I feel like, for entrepreneurs on this particular point within the industry. I mean, I do think the lack of regulatory clarity is worth discussing, but the argument for why a regulator might want to do that is because, well, if you start imposing all these rules or unveiling all these new rules, then you de facto legitimize it. And maybe they don't want to do that. But, you know,

if they don't want to do that, then they should also maybe come out and say that because it is, I don't know. But like I said, and it is definitely true that a lot of people lost money. Like, I do think there is perhaps this view that we should take it more as a win, that the collapse of FTX didn't have like a broader macro contagion, especially, you know, given what we saw in 2008 when the collapse of Shadow Banks then had this huge impact. And so like this idea of bringing it in the perimeter, like maybe there are some perimeters we want to keep it out of. I don't know. People lost money, but at least the financial system didn't collapse.

That's like the best we can hope for now. It's not terrible. All right. Shall we leave it there? Let's leave it there. This has been another episode of the All Thoughts podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me on Twitter at Tracy Allaway.

And I'm Jill Wisenthall. You can follow me on Twitter at the stalwart. Follow our guest, Brian Armstrong. He's at Brian underscore Armstrong. Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez, at Carmen Armin and Dash Bennett at Dashbot. And check out all of our podcasts at Bloomberg under the handle at podcasts. And for more odd lots content, go to Bloomberg.com slash oddlots where we post transcripts, Tracy and I blog, and we have a newsletter. It comes out every Friday. Thanks for listening.

This is Tom Keene, inviting you to join us for the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. It's about making you smarter every business day. I'm Paul Sweeney. We bring you complete coverage of the U.S. market open. We cover stocks, bonds, commodities, even crypto, all the information you need to excel. And I'm Alexis Christophorus. Bloomberg Surveillance also brings you the analysis behind the headlines. We do that through conversations with the smartest names in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. We do all this live each and every weekday that bring you the best analysis in our daily podcast.

Search for Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or anywhere else you listen. On the East Coast, listen at lunch. And on the West Coast, listen as soon as you wake up. That's the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast with Tom Key, Paul Sweeney and me, Alexis Christophores. Subscribe today, wherever you get your podcasts. Bloomberg Surveillance, Essential Listening, each and every business day.

What separates good leaders from transformational ones? I'm Jessica Chen, and in season two of Leading By Example, we'll sit down with executives like Grace Chen of Bertie Gray to find out. It's important to understand where you spike, but also really acknowledge where you've been. don't and find people who can fill those gaps. Listen to leading by example executives making an impact on the IHeart radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.