The Wolf Of All Streets - Abolish The SEC? Senator Warren Has Lost Her Mind | Crypto Town Hall

Episode Date: June 1, 2023

Crypto Town Hall is a new daily Twitter Spaces hosted by Scott Melker, Ran Neuner & Mario Nawfal. Every day we discuss the latest news in crypto and bring the biggest names in the crypto space to share their opinions. ►►OKX Sign up for an OKX Trading Account then deposit & trade to unlock mystery box rewards of up to $10,000!  👉 https://www.okx.com/join/SCOTTMELKER ►►THE DAILY CLOSE BRAND NEW NEWSLETTER! INSTITUTIONAL GRADE INDICATORS AND DATA DELIVERED DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX, EVERY DAY AT THE DAILY CLOSE. TRADE LIKE THE BIG BOYS. 👉 https://www.thedailyclose.io/   ►►BITGET GET UP TO A $8,000 BONUS IN USDT AND GET MASSIVE DISCOUNTS ON TRADING FEES! 👉 https://thewolfofallstreets.info/bitget    ►►NORD VPN  GET EXCLUSIVE NORDVPN DEAL - 40% DISCOUNT! IT’S RISK-FREE WITH NORD’S 30-DAY MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE. PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY! 👉 https://nordvpn.com/WolfOfAllStreets   ►►COINROUTES TRADE SPOT & DERIVATIVES ACROSS CEFI AND DEFI USING YOUR OWN ACCOUNTS WITH THIS ADVANCED ALGORITHMIC PLATFORM. SAVE TONS OF MONEY ON TRADING FEES LIKE THE PROS! 👉 http://bit.ly/3ZXeYKd  ►► JOIN THE FREE WOLF DEN NEWSLETTER, DELIVERED EVERY WEEK DAY! 👉https://thewolfden.substack.com/   Follow Scott Melker: Twitter: https://twitter.com/scottmelker   Web: https://www.thewolfofallstreets.io   Spotify: https://spoti.fi/30N5FDe   Apple podcast: https://apple.co/3FASB2c   #Bitcoin #Crypto #Trading The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own and should in no way be interpreted as financial advice. This video was created for entertainment. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision. I am not a financial advisor. Nothing contained in this video constitutes or shall be construed as an offering of financial instruments or as investment advice or recommendations of an investment strategy or whether or not to "Buy," "Sell," or "Hold" an investment.

I think today's show we're going to be talking about a very close friend of yours and someone you've admired for a while. One of the politicians doing the right thing by crypto, right thing by the US that you've been pretty vocal on. So I'm genuinely curious why you decided to bring her up today. He's talking about Elizabeth Warren, I would imagine. Yeah, I'd be critical. Actually, now I'm on a mission to get her on the show, which I know will never happen. But I'm tweeting at her every single day. This is day one of me tweeting to get Elizabeth Warren on the show. This is day two of me tweeting to get Elizabeth Warren on the show. I know we have a lot of fans of her here, so it's going to be, you know, I'm sure very, very controversial takes.

But we will get into that, I think, momentarily as a few more people file in. Oh, my God, man, I can't. I know, Dave Weisberg, I know you always have some choice words that we like to share. I would love to get Scaramucci up here for that topic because he's a lot of fun whenever we get into her. But yeah, should I go ahead? You want to launch? I can give a quick market update, then we can get into it. Yeah, guys.

So this is the, what do we call our show? The Crypto Town Hall. So we do this. We did it yesterday on my show. Today on Scott's. Tomorrow on Ran's. So we're going to, I don't know. What do we call the show?

Seriously. Is that what you just said? What do we call the show? I keep calling it. I've called it many different things over the last. Look, Ran, I forget your name every few days. So be happy that I'm remembering the show. But let's go back to the...

It must be an oxygen mask thing that you wear on Twitter. Ryan, Ryan, Ryan, your name is not the easiest to remember. Scott is basic. The update, just kind of an intro. You've been on the show yesterday, most likely. So we're just rotating it between different accounts, playing around. gonna be on scott's account and we've got a pretty killer panel you can see all the panelists here we have ryan selkis joining in a bit and anthony scaramucci as well and um yeah we're gonna be talking about um uh scott's favorite

politician we're gonna do a quick market update um and what else what else is on the agenda today scott we're going to be talking about spf fighting back obviously the opening of hong kong today i think because we have eleanor and john we're obviously going to talk about the status of the ripple uh action with the sec get more deeply into that i think and of course the uh the conversation will take its own turns i'm sure sure later as we add more guests and continue on. But I would say those are the main topics for today. Oh, quick question. And this is not me. I genuinely don't want to shill.

Actually, first, let me shill Rand's show. Rand's got an incredible YouTube channel called Crypto Banter. If you just want to hear Rand speak for two hours, check it out. It's genuinely one of the best, on a serious note, it's one of the best shows there is in crypto. And I been watching it for for a pretty long time um but so i'm mentioning i'm shilling rand's show just so i can mention this it doesn't sound like a show i've got vivek ramaswamy who comes on my show a lot and he's coming today at uh on on the show and my question is do you know what his views are on crypto should i press on that? He wants to come in and talk about China and US-Chinese

relations and Elon's visit to China. But I never thought to ask him about crypto and never did. Should I or he doesn't talk much about it? I mean, he was at the Bitcoin Miami 2023, I think. I think he spoke at Bitcoin Miami 2023.

I think he's bullish on freedom and super bullish on Bitcoin, definitely. I think he's bullish on freedom and super bullish on Bitcoin. Definitely. Okay. So, I think maybe a good format

is maybe I should just kick off here and just quickly cover what we spoke about on the show. Yeah, I think it's good.

Always, I think it's a good way to start, Rans. Just say, mention your show, mention your YouTube channel,

and then give us an overview. It's a good way to mention it and brief the audience as well for anyone that missed it yeah we we try cover you know the biggest news of the day so i think a couple of things that we have that we that we covered today uh we started we started off by being very disappointed that we didn't get one june hong kong uh china asia that everyone promised us i being sarcastic. For those of you who don't know that I'm being sarcastic.

Because today is the day that Hong Kong officially opened a retail trading for retail investors. But I think what the market now realizes is that today is the day that the applications start going through. And that it's not actually the day that all the trading starts to happen. Right now, there's two licenses that have actually been issued. One of them is issued to OSL. going through and that it's not actually the day that all the trading starts to happen right now there's two licenses that have actually been issued one of them has is issued to osl the other one is issued to hash blockchain but then you've got all the other exchanges like hobby okay i but

bitmix bitmark gate but get all that have applied uh for that so we spoke about that we covered the debt ceiling so the debt ceiling i think as we know has been passed by the house it's now going to the senate and what i said about the debt ceiling is that the debt ceiling has been passed and now the real scary stuff actually begins and the reason why the real scary stuff actually begins now is because now treasury has to raise as to has to go out and replenish its account so for for those of you who haven't been following, what effectively happened is the treasury account ran out of cash or is running out of cash.

Last reading that I've got, they had $38 billion worth of cash in the treasury account. And that's the account that the government effectively uses to pay all its accounts. Now, while they're waiting for the debt ceiling to be increased, they replenished all their funds. And now they basically need more money. So the way I said it on the show is I said that the first part, the debt ceiling negotiation is like when you're at home and you go to your wife and you say, look, honey, we've got $200,000 worth of debt. I want to take on more debt to fund our lifestyle.

Can we raise it to $300,000? And the first thing your wife says is, are you crazy? We can't have debt. We want to have more kids. We definitely can't take on more debt. And then you negotiate. And eventually she says, okay, you know what, honey? We can take $250,000 worth of debt so we can increase the debt.

But now what happens is you actually have to go out there and get the debt um and that's what's going on now is now they have to go out and actually get the debt um and that means taking liquidity out of the market so you know they've got to go and sell t-bills um uh they've got to sell t-bills to try and raise this capital. And people said that they wouldn't try and raise about a trillion dollars to replenish the account, which means that they're going to take a trillion dollars of liquidity out of the market. Now, I played a clip from Jerome Powell before he was head of the Fed. And in that clip, he said, how do you get people to buy T-Bills while effectively you crash the markets?

And when people leave the markets, they run into T-bulls. And so one of the theories we spoke about is, are they going to try and crash the market to drive people into T-bulls because they need to raise another trillion dollars in a market where liquidity is pretty scarce? And so that was one of the other things that we discussed today discussed today also one of the things we discussed um there was a ruling by u.s federal court that the irs is within its rights to to access coinbase user data a lot of there was a a suit filed by a guy called james harper he lost the lawsuit. And basically what that lawsuit means is that Coinbase can subpoena trading data for users. And I don't think that's anything new.

I mean, you know, the IRS can subpoena data as much as they want. And then we also covered ETH liquid staking and derivatives, but that gets a little bit technical. So, yeah, it was a big show today. I think it's been quite a quiet day on the price front, but quite a lot actually going on behind the scenes. Yeah. Speaking of price, I mean, we're completely flat on all markets.

Effectively, the S&P completely flat right around 41.75. Dow Jones 32, 754. NASDAQ 12, 956. Yawn. Boring. Bitcoin down 0.32% at $26,879 last 24 hours. So the market, not much to talk about there, as you said, but we can talk about my favorite person in the entire world,

who I love dearly. That's obviously Elizabeth Warren, who has pulled off a feat worthy of Evel Knievel. She managed to fit fentanyl, crypto, and China into one single FUD sandwich at one time. All the things that Americans are terrified of in effectively one sentence. She came out and said that she needs to stop the use of crypto in funding the lethal fentanyl trade. Guys, this was her quote. I am not making this up. She actually

said this in the Senate Banking Committee. This group sold enough precursor drugs in exchange for crypto to produce 540 billion worth of fentanyl pills. That is enough fentanyl to kill nearly 9 billion people all paid for by crypto. Really impressive because the population of the entire planet last I checked was 7.8 billion people, but we are going to manage to kill 9 billion people with crypto-funded fentanyl from Chinese companies. Now listen, there's some truth to this. There were millions of dollars were used to pay for this fentanyl from Chinese companies, the precursors. That's ignoring the fact I watched Miami Vice my entire childhood, and I don't remember crypto being used in the drug trade

in Miami. I remember it being dirty United States dollars. So I don't think that the medium here matters particularly too much. But this woman is on such an anti-crypto crusade, she will literally make up or utilize any FUD humanly possible to come after us at this point. This is so nonsensical. It's making my brain hurt at this point. Brian, I see you have your hand up. Feel free. Yeah. I'd love to jump in on this. This just infuriates me. Maybe that's the whole point she's going for, but it's one of two things. She's either completely clueless or she's obviously trying to mislead people that don't understand how blockchains work. You know, as we know here, they're trackable, immutable ledgers.

But and yeah, there's some privacy features. But guess what? Here's the headline. Cash is the most private and anonymous currency of them all. And there is direct evidence that crypto is not superior to traditional money when it comes to criminal activities or drug purchases. That's a fact and evidence based. So if she really cared about this problem of illegal illegal activities occurring with when it comes to criminal activities or drug purchases. That's a fact and evidence-based.

So if she really cared about this problem of illegal activities occurring with people that pay money for drugs, we should be going after cash, not crypto. It's just way more... Yeah, it's just so ridiculous. There's no comparison here. It's a terrible attempt at blaming crypto for drug problems to unsophisticated people we've had drug problems forever and if it were true about crypto facilitating drug use or sales it'd be like blaming car makers for people speeding or running people over so it's just this whole red herring thing um in this whole argument about she also goes into this thing oh it's a form of accepted payment and she quotes this 450 percent increase number but she doesn't really give much data behind it. So it's

just, it doesn't compare at all to the traditional cash for illegal activities. 90% of US bills carry trace amounts of cocaine. That's from the American Chemical Society. It's literally almost laughable, but guys, 9 billion of us are at risk from death

by crypto. But Dave, I see you have your hand up. I just want to point out, outside of this, it still baffles me that progressives, liberal left side, and by the way, anyone who knows, I'm unaffiliated politically. I'm critical of both parties. I don't really do politics. But this should be an issue that they take the other side on, obviously, because the entire ethos of Bitcoin and why this was created was to help people who are unbanked and don't have the ability to transact to do that cheaper. We can get into that more deeply. Dave, I see you have your hand up and

I'm sure you're going to go in on that. Dave, I don't know if you're there. You can hear me otherwise. Here we go. Is it working now? Yeah. Okay, good. Yeah. I mean, look, she's following and I hate to say it because it sounds like I'm being, you know, hyperbolic, but she is literally following the following principles of propaganda. Avoid abstract ideas, appear in the emotions, constantly repeat just a few ideas, use stereotype phrases, give only one side of an argument, continually criticize your opponents, pick out one special enemy for special vilification. Now, that sounds like exactly what she does. I hate to tell everyone that's coming from, it's coming from Joseph Goebbels, who was

Hitler's propaganda minister. So I'm not calling her a Nazi, but I am saying she's following the same principles. The fact is that the FBI themselves, and I've seen two different FBI agents love when people use Bitcoin as opposed to cash, because it's dramatically easier for them to find the bad guys. And there've been multiple stories where they've done that. So essentially what she's doing is, you know, realistically actually telling the criminals, Hey, you know, you know, if she was successful, then it would be harder for them to catch people because the point about cash is so incredibly obvious. But the big point here is that she literally is constantly looking for half-truths. Yeah,

sure, some dumb criminals use it, but at the percentage, it's radically lower. And it's the same thing she did with the environment. So yeah, Bitcoin uses a lot of electricity, but it also uses a lot of renewable electricity, a lot of wasted electricity, and it also helps stabilize grids and provide economic incentives for renewable production. But she completely ignores it. So it's literally the same thing. It's always one side, always taglines, always appeals to the emotions. And unfortunately, in today's society, too many people who only read the headline and not the stories, it can be somewhat successful. So it's really important to educate people.

John, I saw you had your hand up before. I didn't know if you had a comment here. Yeah. Thanks, Scott. Brian said that it's one of two things, that either she's clueless or she's misleading people. And I can tell you it's the latter. She's misleading people. What a lot of people on this call don't understand is how everyone on this call gets it. But when you go to the non-crypto world, her message resonates with the ignorant. For example, I went to a New Hampshire hearing where they were introducing a bill on crypto. And you would be amazed at what these state senators, the types of questions they were asking. They literally were asking, this is just less than two months ago. They literally ask questions like, but I hear Bitcoin is only used for terrorism and for drugs and for the cartel in Mexico.

And those are the types of people that she's reaching out to. So and the other thing I comment, I've dealt with Senator Warren's staff, I represent like 400 XRP holders in the Ripple case. And I reached out to her office and I said, listen, I got 400 of her constituents. I don't care about Ripple. They can still go after Ripple, but they're actually going after and hurting retail. And when they got back to me and they found out that the two executives were sued and they're billionaires, they literally told me Elizabeth Warren, the senator, will not get involved and be seen as helping or defending any billionaire. And I said, and I tried to focus that that's not what I'm arguing. I'm talking about 400 regular people who their investments have been frozen on high gross capital and others. There's, you know, she's on the banking committee and they literally laughed at me and said, basically, go away. We don't care. So she will never let truth get in the way of the narrative that she wants to portray. I mean, Dave and I have spoken about this before. Both of us have some connections on Capitol Hill,

certainly in the Democratic Party. There seems to be sort of an impression that she's actually running the show with anything financial. I mean, Dave, maybe you could offer more clarity on that. But we talk about the Biden administration, their attacks, the SEC attacks, but there's pretty credible evidence that she's kind of the most powerful person behind all of that.

Well, I mean, look, they made a deal. And, you know, the deal was she would and you see her nominees are in a variety of places, notably at the SEC, et cetera. I've heard from at least three different lobbyists who say that she's controlling purse strings vis-a-vis the DNC. And, you know, I don't know what to make of any of this stuff. Everything I know is secondhand. But the proof is in what you see. I mean, nominees who are completely against digital assets. I mean,

to me, you made the point before about they should be pro it. I mean, look, I continually am reminded by the fact that it's almost impossible to find a human being with a pulse and an IQ where you could walk and chew gum at the same time, that thinks that the current analog financial market structure is going to exist in 25 years, yet pushing digital asset market structure out of the United States when the U.S. has enjoyed decades of dominance, partially because our financial services system was the most efficient, is just so mind-bogglingly dumb,

it's almost impossible to understand. So there has to be a reason behind it. And the reason generally is power and money. And I think that that's what it boils down to. Yeah, that seems logical. I mean, listen, I think we can harp on Elizabeth Warren all day. If anybody else has any more thoughts on this, please jump in. Otherwise, honestly, I feel like puking every time we talk.

Yeah, I think, to be honest, I'd prefer to move on. on this uh please jump in otherwise uh honestly i feel like puking every time we uh talk yeah i think yeah to be honest i'd prefer to move on i think elizabeth warren is an exception but generally when you're sitting there shitting on politicians i don't i don't do it as often anymore i don't do it in general i don't like doing it but now when they're being critical on crypto and they're being unfair to crypto i just think after everything we've done in the last couple of years and after the the shit that we saw last year with ftx and the rest of them um i i think we deserve a lot of the criticism so i've just been a lot less critical now obviously elizabeth warren's uh her statement is is it's not something i could defend i i usually i intentionally play devil's advocate

when needed um but this one is a bit hard for me so i'm not gonna play devil's advocate well then let's go positive and take the flip side of this right which is this one is a bit hard for me, so I'm not going to play devil's advocate. Well, then let's go positive and take the flip side of this, right? Which is you asked a bit about Vivek. He spoke at Bitcoin 2023. RFK spoke at Bitcoin 2023. DeSantis, obviously you hosted and had 6 million people listen to his announcement. He was asked about Bitcoin. He has a position on it. We both know where Biden and Trump stand, not the positions we want, but they do have positions. So let's talk about- Trump has NFTs as well, man. Don't forget. Yeah, but he, yeah, yes, of course. Right. Yeah. We know he doesn't like Bitcoin unless someone on his team can make money on NFC, right? But beyond that, let's talk about the point here that Bitcoin and crypto are now a fundamental part of the political platform of every single

meaningful candidate in the United States of America. I would have never expected that to be the case in 2020. Were they ever mentioned or were there questions about presidential candidates' position on crypto in the last election or the one before? No, absolutely not that I can recall. I mean, the fact that, listen, I mean, like I said, you were there for obviously DeSantis and I think he was playing to the crowd, but Saxon Musk did not have to ask him about Bitcoin at all. It makes sense that RFK and Vivek are on stage at Bitcoin 2023 talking about Bitcoin and their position because they're playing to the audience that's there. I do believe they're both pro. But there was no reason in that DeSantis announcement for him running for president

that that even had to be mentioned. I found that astounding. Yeah, I agree. Now, I think, do you expect to see it to have crypto mentioned in the next round of debates? I do. Eleanor, I see you have your hand up. I would love your thoughts here. Hey, yeah, sorry. And if you have trouble hearing me, it's because I'm in the middle of New York City, so it's kind of loud. But I just wanted to go back quickly to the point of Elizabeth Warren. We also have to remember that she's very close to Gary Gensler, right? So, you know, her, Gary Gensler's daughter actually interned for Elizabeth Warren. So we know that they're close outside of politics. So whatever, you know, Elizabeth Warren is saying, you can bet that Gary Gensler is listening. So I just wanted to make that quick point. Yeah, I mean, she put him in power. Justin, go ahead. I think what we're seeing is quite remarkable with RFK announcing that he will be accepting lightning payments as donations. This is absolutely unprecedented. And to see that now a

presidential candidate can accept donations in a cryptocurrency creates a completely new paradigm. And I think finally, when I was in the crowd listening to that speech, and obviously I know Bobby, it felt like a monumentous occasion that a candidate is finally speaking to me, speaking to my interest, speaking to how my assets matter for the world. And I think that matters for the world generally. And that to me is very unprecedented. Yeah, I tend to agree. So that's clearly the positive narrative that we have here surrounding these candidates. I mean, I would love everyone's opinion here on whether they think that this is genuine, whether they think that we're hearing those comments because of who they're speaking to. I mean, do you think that this, I do believe that this will become a

legitimate part of the next platform, but maybe that's me and my excitement inside my own echo chamber. I would love some thoughts from any of you guys. Jump right in. I believe 100% you will see a question at the presidential debate, and I believe Bitcoin and digital assets will be asked. So exactly what the last guest was saying, speaker was saying is 100 percent. It's as much doom and gloom as we've seen in the last year, especially with FTX setting us all back. That is a monumental shift. So that I believe and I think the Democrats unfortunately picked this battle. I think the Brad Sherman's on the bank, the Financial Services Committee went this way.

And then you saw we got the Warren Davidson's and we got the Tom Emmer's on the opposite side. Elizabeth Warren on the banking committee with Jared Brown. They chose to attack bitcoin and attack digital assets and make this false narrative and i think the the republicans are just picking up on it and you couple that with the freedom and and privacy issues and and i think uh we're going to see more and more of this i don't think this is as political issue as people think i think that there's plenty of pro-crypto democrats who are just now at this point quieter because they have egg on their face from SBF and FTX. And I think that there's plenty of Republicans who probably hate it.

Am I wrong? I don't think that this is a partisan issue in the same way that a lot of people believe it is. I think it's just very vocal minorities on both sides that make it appear that way. By the way, can I ask you a question unrelated to this? I want to move away from politics a bit. Scott? Scott, can you hear me? Have at it. I covered FTX. I covered all the drama that happened back then, but to be honest,

since we kind of moved on from this, I haven't covered it since. It's been months and months and months. Can you give me a latest update on Sam? It's a selfish question. Well, apparently he's now making a move to blame his lawyers to get himself off. And that's effectively where we're at. And then there was some news that he was effectively some of the fraud cases might conflict with his extradition from the Bahamas.

So he might have some of that dropped that, John, I mean, you're the lawyer here. Have you been looking at this at all? I would imagine. I mean, I'm not surprised when you're talking about fraudulent intent, right? They have to prove, they have to get into Sam's mind and prove that he had fraudulent intent. So the last ditch straw when you have such strong evidence, and of course, all his post-FTX bankruptcy interviews killed him because there's so much that you can discern. And let's just say at least circumstantial evidence and then admissions of co-mingling and things of that, which were in direct violation of the user agreement. So when you're faced with that kind of monumental evidence, what do you do? You say, hey, the genius goes

to the dummy and like, I'm a lay person. I just relied on my attorneys. My attorneys, you know, told me to do it this way. And, and you know, that's his get out of jail free card. He's trying it. It gets tried quite a bit and it usually fails. You know, as far as the extradition thing, there's enough charges there i think there's 13 founding counts but uh the bottom line is it's going to come down to just your basic fraud case and you know i'm someone who thinks that you know sam's gonna you know be facing minimum of 30 years so good luck to him i was about to ask so you do think he's gonna face 30 years because i've heard some other opinions that people do think he's going to face 30 years?

Because I've heard some other opinions of people that think he's going to get off scot-free just because of the political connections and the strength of the lawyers that he has. So I'm glad you're saying that you think he's going to get 30 years. Yeah. And, John, I have the same question. I used to get arguments to people like for me when people say his political connections will will will allow him to walk away i just think they're over exaggerating the corruption that exists in the u.s judicial system i know there's corruption there but there's no way sam's gonna walk free no i mean they're they're lacking i mean listen that just is a sad testament to the lack of faith that uh people have in our system, both our government

and our judicial system. But, you know, yes, you can try. He gained access. Let's just call it like it is. He was the second largest donor. He also donated to Republicans. He bought access. I mean, why does Brian Armstrong not get a meeting as the CEO of Coinbase, right? An American exchange in America trying to comply, yet Sam Bateman fraud gets two meetings with Gary Gensler. That's not SEC. That's just him and Gary. And so he bought access, but he also put egg on their face, as was said, and he's embarrassed them. And so they have to prove the opposite. Now they have to prove that they're tough on him. And so I think they're going to throw the book at him. You know, maybe I'll eat these words and I'll be shocked, but yes,

I think that he's, he's going to be spending 30, 40 years. Well, Ross Elbrecht is in jail for 4,000 years for his involvement in Silk Road. And you think that Sam Bankman Freed is going going to get $30,000, he should get $300,000. No, no. I'm saying that if he cuts the deal, then maybe he's getting $30,000 to $40,000. I think that's fair. $30,000 to $40,000

I think is fair for what he's done. I know he's done a lot, but $30,000 to $40,000, he hasn't gone on a killing spree and massacred 20 people to spend the rest of his life in jail. I think it's easier for us from the outside to say, hey, put him in jail for the rest of his life. There's criminals that have done worse and

maybe not to the same extent numerically. You got to remember, there's somebody who you're talking about people, there were several suicides. I know, I know. I don't want to diminish, again, what I said is very controversial. Many, many people will say don't want to diminish, again, what I said is very controversial. Many, many people will say it. And it's like the cool, sexy,

the cool, sexy thing to say, he should go to jail, he should rot in jail, he should spend the rest of his life there. Which is, again, most people would say that. I think a few decades in jail,

his life is already over. Like when you spend 30 years in jail, what, he's 20 now, he comes out as 50. All right, that, you know, what, what are you going to, find a wife and get married

and have kids at age 50 and 50 whatever so i think he's his his life is pretty much you could almost say it's over when you go to jail for 30 years i mean the real interesting question for me isn't sam is is and it's not uh caroline and all and they've played guilty but uh is there going to be any repercussions for others? I mean, when you look at that scheme that he put together, you know, that's his father's doing. His mother was involved. They had the real estate in their names in the Bahamas. That's the more interesting question. Are they going to suffer the consequences?

Are they facing any charges at all? Again, I've been out of the loop for a while. Not that I've heard it, but that's the issue. For me, are there political connections? Because his mother runs a PAC for the Democrats, and so that's where the political get-out-of-jail-free card might stem. But there's no way that Sam's parents weren't complicit. Have you, Scottott i'm not

you probably both you and ran covered this ran dropped out as always he'll be back up shortly but you guys have covered the um the binance investigation the cftc investigation what was your conclusion guys and panelists as well feel free to jump in and put your hand up but on the whole binance fight i know it happened a while ago but i you know we never had the chance to speak about it so be good to talk about it now because we also know that reuters just a few days ago put out a piece which i thought was pretty uh kind of a nothing burger about binance hit piece seemed like yeah it seemed like i mean uh i i've been loving uh what's his name phil uh whatever the guy from comms from binance his responses have been just completely incredible to to of these non-sensual things. Listen,

I can't speak to what's true, what isn't. I can only go by what we've seen. And I think to a very large degree, and I've said this about a number of players in the crypto space, I think that they started off in a Wild West mentality in an environment where there was zero regulation and it was either move forward or wait 100 years until the United States came around and gave some sort of clarity. And so I would imagine that there were a lot of things that happened in the past at exchange and companies in crypto that were, I wouldn't, definitely not nefarious, but probably outside of the realm of what would be considered regulated or in line at this exact moment. I mean, CZ himself has made the point many times. I love it. I tell the story all the time. When I was speaking with him, he said, listen,

it's like the automobile. He's like, first they had the Model T and it was slow and there were five of them on the road and you didn't have to worry about it. But then cars got faster. There were a lot more of them. And the regulator came around and started to add seatbelts and speed limits and traffic laws. He was like, we were starting this exchange as the car before there was any law. And now we're getting in line with all of those regulations. Bill, I mean, listen, you run Abra, obviously. You probably know more about this than anyone else. Do you think that aligns or do you think that there's actually something nefarious here?

That Reuters piece recently was just a hit piece in my mind. Yeah, I'm going to skip commentary on the Reuters piece. It was just so awful. I couldn't even get through it in one sitting. I got angry and then came back and then read it again. Anyway, look, I think when it comes to CFTC and derivatives, and it's not really that different from the SEC, except the CFTC has probably less staff to do investigations. These things aren't really that complicated when it comes to offerings, right? I mean, either you're offering leveraged derivatives to Americans without DCM, or you're not. And I think at one point they were, and then they

stopped. And, and so that's the end of it, right? I mean, if, if they admit that they did it, which I'm guessing that they already have, uh, then in theory, that's the end of it. Then the question becomes, okay, uh, their, their KYC is, and, and, they're KYCs and geofencing is, from what I understand, is pretty top-notch now. And if you're not an American, you have very little chance of using finance.com as I understand it, unless you go buy an ID in the dark web or something like that. And so I think we're talking about past transgressions. The only other option here, and I don't want to spread fraud because i've heard no specific allegations which would be fraud and i i have not heard anything specific that would

lead me to believe that there's anything there so so other than the very earliest days of of finance where everyone knows that it was just like a perpetual ship at sea and anything went, there's really nothing there that I can see. And everybody's had this company under a microscope for so long. At some point, you just have to say, okay, give the guys a break and the gals a break. They're doing what they say they're doing, and let's just get on with it. And yeah, okay, there's a little bit of a mea culpa for past transgressions, but honestly, that was at a point when anything meant in crypto, BitMEX was doing it and Binance was doing it and OKEx, I think, was doing it, et cetera, et cetera. So let's just get on with it. Yeah, that's exactly my point. I mean,

I love to draw that sort of corollary to Tether, right? I mean, we saw Tether over the years become fully backed and compliant and change how they were backing. I just think that in those early years, there was really no rules. People were doing wild things. I mean, BitMEX literally had a prop desk counter-trading their customers. Yeah, Tether is another one that ironically, if you're an American company or individual, high worth family office, they won't touch you with a 10-foot pole as a direct counterparty for onboarding to acquire and maintain unbent tether, which puts Americans at a very distinct disadvantage because tether can de-peg on marketplaces, but in theory, the mints can't depict. And so it's just to get another example of where a company that should be able to operate within the confines of the law, similar to Circle, has effectively been pushed out for no viable discernible reason that I can ascertain, at least none that makes any sense. I'm sure that there is a legal reason why they

don't want to deal with this. But as an American, it's infuriating and makes no common sense to me. Right. But all of this FUD and whether true or not about Binance, Tether, both of those companies sustained 5 billion plus 48-hour bank runs without a hiccup. And we saw what happened in U.S US banks that are regulated when that happened. Yeah. I think in the earliest days, I do think there was validity to the lack of transparency with Tether. I think they've come a long way since then. I think to your point, they've survived multiple negative black swans, you could almost call them, probably not the truest form of black swan, but pretty bad. Binance as well, but certainly

Tether. I mean, I'll give them a lot of credit for not only surviving, but trying to be transparent. And no big five audit firm will touch them at this point, right? So they're kind of relegated to doing disclosures that probably don't look as polished or as kind of first rate as what a public American company would be used to, even though they're managing tens and tens of billions of dollars because the traditional big five auto firms won't even take them as a client, which is very unfortunate. Yeah, especially when you see that they're doing billions of dollars in actual earning on a quarterly basis now on the back of high interest rates. Yeah, look, at the rate things are going,

they're basically now the Uber of money, right? Uber is a taxi company with no taxis, and these guys are a bank with no banks. And at the rate they're growing, they're going to be the biggest bank in the world and basically be outside of traditional regulator oversight because they refuse to pull them in and give them a path to make it super easy to operate directly with Western counterparties. And I sincerely hope for everyone's sake that changes before they get much bigger. Speaking of regulators, John, Eleanor, I want to talk about Ripple, obviously, because this seems to be coming to a head. Can you guys give us an update as to when we might actually see some clarity here, a final answer, what the prognosis is, and then we'll dive into everybody thinking, you know, I guess giving their opinion on what it could mean for the market.

Take it away, John. Well, we're waiting on a day from Judge Torres's summary judgment decision. All the paperwork is in both sides. The SEC has asked for summary judgment. Ripple has asked for summary judgment. On the 13th, a lot of people don't believe her decision will come before June 13th because on June 13th, the infamous Hinman emails and SEC comments that 63 emails, 52 unique drafts of that June 14th, 2018 speech, all of that is going to be unsealed with very limited redactions. She's ruled that way, which implies that, and she said in her order that the court declares these judicial documents if they impact her decision-making on summary judgment.

And so what role those emails are going to play or not play, we know that the CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, has tweeted that it will shock the public. We know that Stuart Stuart Alderody, the general counsel, has said it was well worth the fight of like millions and millions of dollars in litigation. So conventional wisdom at this point is that we won't see the summary judgment ruling until after the 13th of June. You know which way it's going to go. Who knows? I've said someone, I've been someone who said that the SEC may have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory because of the way they charged the case. They could have absolutely, in my opinion, proven that in the early years when, you know, there was the ecosystem, the XRP ledger was only controlled by Ripple, and they held all the coins that those initial distributions, sort of just like an ICO of each 2014 ICO, that that, in fact, satisfied the Howey test.

But instead, they went with this overarching theme that all sales of XRP, including secondary market sales, regardless of the seller or the circumstances surrounding the sale. In other words, XRP, they said, represents a security itself. And so I believe that the SEC is going to lose on that. That is an absolute unconstitutional expansion of the Howey test. It stretches Howey beyond any recognition. And a lot of people believe that she'll split the baby and that she'll come up with some early sales that Ripple made, find them for them,

and then argue that, you know, rule that today and ongoing and secondary market sales are not. You know, we're all guessing. It's up to Judge Torres. So that's where we stand. an ongoing and secondary market sales are not. We're all guessing. It's up to Judge Torres. So that's where we stand. The secondary market sales will be the key thing, right? Because that's got to be the precedent that's set as to whether other crypto tokens are or are not security.

It's the whole reason I got involved is why in the library case after the SEC law won, the judge's order could be implied to be uh to be all cells of lbc tokens and then the injunction that the scc was seeking said all persons in interest well that could be every lbc holder so that's why in the penalty phase i went in on behalf of Naomi Brockwell and said, look, judge, fine. You ruled against Library. Not here to argue that. Just like I'm not here to argue against ruling against Ripple. But it is absurd. There hasn't been a case in 76 years since Howie where an investment contract was held to be a security in perpetuity and that in every therefore every cell thereafter it's always around the circumstances surrounding the cell and the judge and library we don't know yet but i have a transcript i can't publish it he promised that he would make it clear that his

ruling was limited to library and direct sales and did not impact the secondary market. Now, there's some people who believe Judge Torres may leave that issue alone, and I'm confident and hopeful that she won't because that's why I got in as amicus and said, hey, you know, do whatever you want against Ripple, but, you know, saying that XRP itself or that secondary market sells our securities is absurd. And please basically make sure that you clarify that. And the judge in Telegram, her friend Judge Costello, basically said, look, the gram itself, even though they were written contracts, gram initial purchase agreements. Those aren't the securities. It's the scheme surrounding the sale and all of those things.

And so, you know, we'll see. Can I ask a basic question? You know, very telling, I believe, because the SEC has tried for so many years to hide the contents of them. So, you know, what is in them that they're trying to hide? I think, you know, whether it's a smoking gun, we don't know. And John, I think we've talked about this, but, you know, there's definitely gonna be something in there that brings light into the fact of, you know, kind of why this one. I've known Chris since pretty much day one. This has gone on before the lawsuit for, I believe, almost seven years in terms of both primary, secondary sales, usage of XRP in the platform. There was a settlement, I believe, with either Treasury or DOJ where they had to make code changes even, I think, in the earliest days. Which is proof positive that clearly the government was not ignorant of what Ripple and XRP was all about. How does the judge justify saying, okay, the SEC allowed this to go on for seven years plus before they decided to bring these charges?

I mean, that just makes absolutely no sense. That's it. Go ahead. Yes, I'm sorry. And why has not been brought up and used as some type of defense to say, hey, look, regardless of what you may think, how could they allow this to go on for seven years if they're so confident in their case? Anyway, no, it's a great it's a great question. And I'll take the two things you brought up. What people need to understand, Chris Larson went to the SEC in 2013. The Treasury was there.

Federal Reserve was there. CFTC was there. Chairman of the SEC was there. And he said, I'm introducing to you this decentralized payment system. Two years later, that's when the FinCEN settlement came down and they said, you must apply. These are virtual currency cells. You must apply to the banking laws. The SEC was in a sharing agreement with the FinCEN. They knew then in 2015, 2014, the year before the United States government accountability office lifted XRP as a virtual currency utilized in a decentralized payment payment platform called Ripple. So you're 100 percent right. The government knew of this on and seven and a half years of publicly trading, why all of a sudden you bring this lawsuit and you allege this way, that goes to their fair notice defense. the way that this all went down, she can rule that even if she finds that there were cells that met the Howey test, that Ripple did not have adequate notice based on all that government, you know, inaction and action that didn't have fair notice.

And therefore they have a they can win on that that would be a jury trial so the great scenario for ripple other than a flat out win which a lot of people don't think is going to happen a great scenario for ripple would be hey for 2013 to 2018 or whatever date uh let's say before their odl pro platform whatever these meet the howie tests but based on everything that you just brought up uh it's going to be a question for the jury whether or not ripple received fair notice under the law uh and then that would go to jury trial that's a complete win for ripple uh at that point i would never see the SEC going to a jury verdict where jurors are going to hear all of this conduct, plus the stuff that's in those emails. At a minimum, we know that XRP was

discussed in those emails. At a minimum, we know that senior people at the SEC advised against giving the speech by simply saying that it's going to create more confusion you know why does e you know and bitcoin only what about the third largest what about these other cryptos there's going to be all of that dialogue going in there and so the one thing i should say i'm very confident chris and brad are going to win on the reckless charge because in order to prove they aided and abetted Ripple in selling illegal securities, it must meet a recklessness standard, which means it's so obvious to a lay person that XRP was a security. So if these emails and these 52 drafts going back and forth at the SEC in 2018 are debating it. If the experts in securities are saying, hey, XRP doesn't look like a security or doesn't

meet all the Howey tests, how could these two individuals know it back in 2013? And so the only other comment I would say is that the SEC wrote a memo. Now it's been sealed as privilege, but they wrote an XRP Howey memo on June 13th, 2018. And we don't know what it said, but we know what it didn't say. So there was no recommendation to issue a cease and desist letter to Ripple. So you can bet if the SEC enforcement lawyers said, hey, we've analyzed XRP June 2018, it is absolutely a security. Meet the Howey test unequivocally. They would not have not done anything. Instead, they just launched an investigation that went for two and a half years. So, yeah, I think what's interesting to me here is that I think there was an impression at the beginning within the crypto community that it was very polarizing. There's a lot of people that actually cheered for Ripple to lose because for whatever reason they hated Ripple.

It was a polarizing company. Now, I think that the silver lining is that seemingly everyone has galvanized and come together behind them. Also, of course, with the SEC going after Coinbase, people have, I think, are largely supporting them. But maybe the silver lining here is that the industry has had enough and they're all coming up behind this to support. But before you jump in, John, I want to say that was a great summary. Should we even care? This is the question. That was my question. Should we even care?

Because if Ripple wins, and then that just goes back to the SEC, and the SEC just changes the way that they come after Ripple in a separate, right? So does it even matter? Will it affect the industry? Why is this important? That's what I want to hear people say. And John, as well, I want to ask exactly that same question, Scott. So I'm glad you asked it. What does it mean for projects that are sitting listening to us now, John? Well, the first thing, a great question.

The first thing is how many projects can afford $200 million in legal fees? Not many. And I've always been hesitant to defend Ripple because I really don't care that much. I care about the XRP holders. But let's not forget that there was a two and a half year investigation and they didn't allege fraud. So I know that Ripple is a very controversial company, but you can bet your ass I'm a former federal prosecutor. If there was a way to allege, if we're going to sue them anyways, and we can allege fraud on a good faith basis, we would have. And they didn't. And so why should people care? Because we know Coinbase is up on deck.

We know there could be a case against Binance coming up. This war on crypto is not ending anytime soon. And so this case, as each day progresses progresses gets bigger and bigger. If in fact Ripple wins or the judge accepts the fair notice defense, that helps Coinbase because Coinbase was given permission to give an IPO two years ago in April of 2021. They submitted an S1. They showed the SEC what their business model was. They even went to the SEC in January of 2019 about XRP and said, we're going to list XRP unless you tell us

otherwise, because we want to go public, you know, and we don't want to run afoul of what you think. And the SEC didn't discourage them. Yeah, John. Yeah, I agree. I think we all concur. Like the history of it is suspect at best, right? Bruce, I saw it. Sorry, I just want to jump to, yeah, Bruce, you got your hand up. I know that you have some takes on this. Yeah, I mean,

this is a great panel, by the way, but a couple of things. What I can't believe is in this standard of, you know, in the financial world and in compliance, you know, anybody who's a professional knows that you have to be accurate with your statements. I mean, that's like a thing, you know, so I'm a registered broker. I learned that at like, you know, age 19 or something like, you know, whatever you do, never, ever, ever, ever lie be accurate that's what like any good compliance person lawyer will tell you and you know as a as an sec registered firm we have all kinds of uh responsibilities our email is monitored our communications are monitored any any any um finra member sec member you know all kinds of uh you know certain certain advertising has to be approved. You have to have communications with customers approved, advertising, even my tweets, even this, me appearing on this. All of this has to be approved by some kind of supervisor. And in some cases, you have're SEC registered, like I am, and my firm is, or you're just a regular participant in this industry, you're held to this very, you know, high standard of truth.

And then you have the regulators themselves who are not held to this standard, and they can outright lie. And we have this statement that John probably can give you more details on it. But like, what was a couple weeks ago, where they said, basically, you can't rely on these statements. So like the Hineman speech and stuff like that, you know, it seems like the SEC is like, well, you know, oh, you know, it doesn't matter what the chair says. It doesn't matter what the commissioners say. And you can have, you know, just outright, you know, false statements. You know, Gary Gensler makes false statements all the time, all the time. I mean, he's like, you know, some of the worst actors in our space. And if a registered firm or even an unregistered firm like a Coinbase had even a junior employee,

I mean, if you had an intern who went on a crypto account and made a material false statement, they'd be in big trouble. And if a registered firm like us did, it doesn't matter. There's no excuse we'd have. It doesn't matter if the employee is not registered or whatever. So it's just, to me, it's just astonishing. I don't know if, you know, hopefully the judges will look at this, you know, kind of thing, but I'm just astonished that we can have, you know, this double standard where, you know, regulators are basically just allowed to lie and nobody's there to

hold them to the fire on it. So Bruce, here's my next question. Okay, Brian, sorry. I want to tell you something. I want to just maybe voice something. You may know that I moved to the United States. I was living in South Africa. I moved to the United States. One of the reasons I moved from

South Africa to the United States is because there's a lot of corruption in South Africa. There's a ton of corruption. One of the reasons I moved from South Africa to the United States is because there's a lot of corruption in South Africa. There's a ton of corruption. It's an African country with a ton of corruption. I just felt like there was no point in being in a country that was getting pillaged by the leaders. You're kind of

fighting against the tide. Then I moved to the US and I spent two and a half, maybe close to three years in the US, something along those lines. and I spent two and a half, maybe close to three years in the U.S., something along those lines. And what I realized when I got to the U.S. is that there is much more corruption. It's just

done at a much, much, much, much higher level. I just couldn't believe the level at which this corruption and politics was taking place. made it made africa look like it like like africa was was a very uh let's call it an uncorrupt so that the corruption wasn't as sophisticated and i will just give you like like one example which i keep using which

for me is like a really like um like a really good example g Gensler wrote and lectured an MIT course on blockchain. And it wasn't an MIT course on Bitcoin. It was an MIT course on blockchain. I've listened to it. I've listened to whatever'sured this course with such passion and enthusiasm is a person that is now so much against crypto. Here he's being used as the puppet to whoever the puppet master is. And I don't know who the puppet master is in this case. To not actually do what he thinks he's right, but to do what the politicians, lobbyists, money. I don't know who it is because the corruption is so sophisticated in the US. At least in Africa, you know. If the president's stealing, you know because he's got private jets and Ferraris and he's got 25 wives and the 25 wives all have new cars. And the US is just so sophisticated

that you actually don't know. No, but I think this is unfair. I criticize the US all the time in my spaces, okay? But this is giving you some numbers and you know better than I, but give you some numbers. you know better than i but give you some numbers the u.s is ranked 25th out of 180 countries with a score of 67 out of 100 so that's in terms of a corruption score south africa is at 69th and i don't want to you know degrade south

africa i don't mean that so so don't get angry at me but it's a score of 44 out of 100 so my point my point is around my point the system is corrupt and and many examples of this but when you talk about the the the corruption in the u.s being sophisticated doesn't isn't that a good thing i'll tell you why doesn't that mean that the system in the u.s is so complex that the only way they can get away with corruption on a smaller scale than countries like south africa which are significantly smaller countries smaller economies making it making corruption less prevalent than the u.s which is the world's biggest economy. But the sophistication is a response to how advanced and how mature the system is in the US. So while we can be critical, I think it's fair.

And I got in an argument with a few notable people, whenever they compare the US to a third world country, I'm just quoting exactly what they say. Do you agree with what I just said or you still disagree? I mean, I agree with you. I think, as I say, I think it's just about the level of sophistication of the corruption, you know, and I think the depth of the corruption. I think corruption exists in all countries, I think. I say all pretty loosely. I think the depth of the corruption. I think corruption exists in all countries, I think, I say all pretty loosely.

I think all governments. And I think it's just, you know, I was quite disappointed because I think when I went to the US, I actually thought it would be different. And what I realized is that it's actually, it's exactly the same shit. It's exactly the same shit. So maybe I can give you a perspective on that.

Bill, before you jump in, sorry, I don't want to be rude because I know Brian was trying to speak before Ryan jump in, sorry, I don't want to be rude because I know Brian was trying to speak before Ran jumped in. Brian, I know you wanted to comment on something else, but if you can stick to this point because I don't tend to disagree a lot with Ran and I'm a bit happy

when I can finally disagree with him on something. I want to get your stance on this because we talk about corruption in the US, but a counter argument is like, hey, the US laws are too strict. The requirements are too strict. It's difficult to operate in the US with all the loopholes you have to jump through, which is kind of, they're there to prevent corruption, to prevent fraud, et cetera.

And then some people, so the argument, the old argument was, and in some cases still is, is that the US is so strict on crypto and other spaces. Let's just talk about crypto for now. So strict that people are moving out of the US. But then a counter argument is that investors are more comfortable investing in US-based companies rather than companies based abroad. So then doesn't that make two points? US corruption is not as bad as people make it out to be. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I know I'll get hate for this. I'm saying things that people don't like to hear because I'm not running for president. So I'm just stating my opinion as is.

And number two, is that a good thing for the US? It just makes it more lucrative for investors and large floors of capital, especially post crazy hypes and bull runs. To me, there's two points. There's, if this was another country, country, I think what would the headlines be? Huh, why is this country going so aggressive against crypto? It seems kind centralized crypto, right? I think there's some argument there that some regulation would actually be positive because it would bring in more money. You know, Coinbase stated publicly that they tried to go into the SEC and register, but they said they couldn't. So to me, that's a problem. Because if they could, if there was a way to do it, without just getting sued in response,

or whatever is happening, then more money would be comfortable coming into the markets. But obviously, the regulator doesn't seem to want that to happen. So it seems like to me, there's inherently a problem. I do think that some regulation would be good on the centralized, you know, because then maybe another FTX doesn't happen, even though that was an offshore problem. But I could see an argument there of why that would make sense. But I think that the bigger problem is why is it seems so conspiracy-ish

on the general crypto side of that there's just so much resistance, you know. Brian, Brian, Brian, Brian, Brian, you know, considering what happened in the last 16 months, do you blame them for the crackdown that we're seeing? Like it's, they need to do this first as an immediate response. So they say face number one, because they failed in terms of regulation. And number two is to, you know, voters are not too happy. People lost a fuck ton of money. So they're kind of forced to respond

in that way. Because what happened is that we ruined, you know, we caused so much shit, like more than any of us expected all of us expected the market to correct all of us saw how frothy it is none of us saw what we what happened with ftx so we've caused so much and then when the regulators responded the way they did and by the way it could still you know it's the conspiracy behind it that this is a direct attack on crypto and that bill the the restrict act being targeted to crypto etc they make sense i'm not saying it's not true. But what about the other way of looking at it is that we're getting what we deserve.

And Bruce will probably hate me for what I'm saying to you because I know Bruce's take. He's been on the stage a few times. And Bruce, feel free to completely shit on me. I don't mind. And Scott, maybe give Bruce a question where it gives him the opportunity to chat. Yeah, I'm ready.

Here, Bruce, here's the question that I wanted to ask that I put the private chat. And I know you have a passion about it. But with all of this said, should we abolish the SEC? Yes. They see the thing is what Brian said is that that, you know, maybe we can prevent another STX. And what Mario said is basically like, you know, we've got to do this or the regulators have to do this to save face. But both of those statements are based on the premise that this would work. It doesn't work. The mistake that people make in evaluating regulation, they say, well, it's really hard and it hurts business and it costs a lot of money and it drains productivity and it stops startups from growing and it stops flowers from booming, but at least it stops the fraud. But that's not the real trade-off. It does all of those horrible things, but it doesn't stop the fraud. It doesn't

stop the fraud. In fact, it encourages the fraud because the more stupid regulations you have from nitwit Karen Statists sitting in fancy offices that they paid for with the money they stole from us, the more that you have people trying to weasel their way through with loophole. Can I ask you a question? Sorry to interrupt, but it's a question on something you said. You say the SEC doesn't stop fraud. Now, I can list a whole list of frauds where the SEC took action and brought them down. But more importantly,

how many times do you hear people saying, hey, man, Scott, hold on. Scott, we've had this discussion where we talk about different things like, yeah, Mario, but I need to be careful because of the SEC. And I've had anyone I've talked to in the US, yeah, but I can't do this but i need to be careful because of the sec and i've had anyone i talked to in the u.s yeah but i can't do this i need to be careful i need to think two three times talk to a couple of lawyers because of the sec so people are scared of the sec people people worried people worried about stalin too it doesn't mean that he was doing a good thing people worried about oh no i better not say this bad thing about stalin

i better not trade my food certificates with the other person's food certificates because then i'll have too much toilet paper and the party will come and send the gestapo into my house and kill me you know that doesn't mean it's good just because people are worried about the gestapo doesn't mean it's good you know the the you know the the regime that we have yeah sure people are worried about it but it doesn't prevent fraud their best pal sam bank Sam Bankman Free, had unprecedented, unfettered access. He had more access than anybody. He helped them write their legislation. And this goes back for decades. The biggest fraudster in history is not Sam. It's Bernie Madoff. And Bernie Madoff was head of the largest regulator. He was head of the largest regulator. So regulations don't work.

All of these apparatus, all they do is hurt the honest people. They allow the Sam Bankman Freeds and the Bernie Madoffs to weasel their way through and commit even more fraud. And it gives people a false sense of security that they think like, oh, well, I guess the government's saving me. The SEC is out to help me. They're not. They're out to help their cronies. And they hurt people. They hurt all the honest people. And they don't do anything. So when you say the SEC is out to help me. They're not. They're out to help their cronies and they hurt people. They hurt all the honest people and they don't do anything. So when you say the SEC, you know, has stopped some fraud,

but net net has it stopped fraud? Absolutely not. The whole ICO wave came about because it's so difficult to do anything in the US. So people looked at, you know, ways to say like, OK, how can we not be a security

or all of these other things? But ultimately, the stuff just doesn't work. Okay, okay. So let me do this. Hold on. Before you jump in, I've got a good response. I know this is a lot of hands up, but I've got a good response, Scott. And I don't have good responses often.

So what I do, I use them. Scott, you mentioned yesterday. Let me see if I got the numbers. All right. Share of total crypto market. These numbers are weird. What's the list of top 10 countries with the most crypto users. Oh, wow. Okay. What was the share of the US, Scott? You did it, you said yesterday, of the total crypto market. Do you know the number, Scott? You mentioned it yesterday. I'm not sure. I know the numbers. I know the trading volume.

Okay. Give me a number for the US because it makes my point. If you remember. Okay, give me a number for the US because it makes my point. If you remember it roughly, Ivan. About 15%. No. Okay, let's go 15%, even if it's 10%. I'm going to go through. The source here is chain analysis.

I want to mention my sources to be careful, but chain analysis. No, that's not it. Where is it? Yeah, chain analysis. Percentage of crypto frauds per country so total crypto fraud split per country north korea unsurprisingly is number one at 10 percent of total crypto frauds were from north korea again that's chain analysis number two is the u.s

at no number two is uh nigeria 2.1 percent number three is vietnam at 1.9 percent um india at 2.1%. Number three is Vietnam at 1.9%. India at 1.5%. Indonesia at 1.1%. Thailand at 1%. The U.S. is sitting at... So Russia is 0.09%. U.S. is 0.01%. The U.S. has one of the biggest shares in the market.

I think China is above the U.S., isn't it, Ryan? Ryan? Not China. No, no, no. Not China. We classify it as Asia. China is very, very small. Despite the fact that it's a whole lot of bots. Okay. So as a country, would you say the US is number one in terms of total percentage

share of the crypto market? No, I don't think so. It could be Korea or Japan. Let's put it in the top three. Top three or top five. It's not even in the top 10 of total percentage of crypto fraud. So it kind of goes back to the point and you've got a great panel here that could disagree with me as well. But Bruce, this is the point what I'm saying is that, again, there's a lot of flaws in the SEC. Maybe the world will be a better place without the SEC.

But there needs to be some other alternative because, you know, I'm giving anecdotal experiences where people are like, I can't do this. this i can't do that i have to be careful whenever they want to you know there's that the founder of a bunch of meme coins what they do is they leave the u.s or they launch the meme coin they leave the u.s they come to places like dubai and stuff which are still strict but not as strict as the u.s which i think is a vote of confidence and you see vcs are more comfortable investing in v in u.s based companies we're the same so this is where i'm trying to make a counter argument bruce maybe i'll let you quickly respond before going to the rest of the panel, Scott. Yeah, I think that the success of the U.S. is in spite of this. We used to be a free country. We used to let people in. We used to embrace economic freedom and opportunity. We let people start

businesses. And that's been degraded as you know, as we've marked, you know, towards communism and socialism over the last several decades and especially this, you know, most recent administration. So it's kind of like in spite of it. I mean, we're a great country. We have the potential to be a great country. And in our blood and in our bones is freedom. But we're not living it now. You know, the Statue of Liberty is just a symbol now. We don't let people in. We don't allow people to do businesses. It's much more like, its past as a previously very free country that embraced these kind of things. But I just don't see any argument how these tyrants, the Elizabeth Warren crowd, helps us in any way. And Gensler and Warren, they don't help. They're a net negative, in my opinion. Go ahead, Bill. You were up. You were waiting.

Yeah, sure. So look, I think I understand historically why this problem has evolved the way it has. Right. If you think about the history of the United States, I think one of the things that historically made the United States so great and jokingly is relative to all the freedoms that Bruce claims we used to have is that the checks and balances in our executive, legislative, and judicial branches actually work, right? Under normal circumstances, Elizabeth Warren going off the deep end and making shit up actually doesn't really, sure, shouldn't really matter, right? The problem we have now is that we have regulatory agencies that over the past 50 years, and I'm not just talking about financial services, right?

And financial services, obviously, we have the SEC. We have the CFPB now and the CFTC, and the list goes on and on. We have the FDA. We have the FTC. These are all unelected, nonpolitical actors who answer effectively to no one. And there's been voluminous work done, for example, on how the CFPB in financial services has literally no oversight, runs more or less any way they want, finds banks with basically no checks and balances and no recourse. And that is the crux of the power base problem in the United States,

because that gives Elizabeth Warren a power base that she otherwise wouldn't have. In other words, she can put Gary Gensler in her back pocket, even though there's actually very good, decent people in the trenches at these agencies, but the political appointees end up in the back pocket of politicians and do their bidding in a way that throws 100 years of checks and balances out the window and that's what we need to figure out as a society how to can anyone back me ryan can you back me up like i'm am i the only optimistic one about the u.s uh you know if you look at various sources for example and i want to go i want to focus on US? If you look at various sources, for example, and I want to focus on crypto, but if you look at the US is rated number one for entrepreneurship and building businesses based on various sources. I'd love to comment on that.

Yeah, sure. I'll go to Ryan and then Justin. Go ahead, Ryan. Yeah. Thanks for having me, guys. And I wanted to make sure I got at least one comment in here before I rejoin in a little while. You know, I think Bill's right. One thing that I would note, so I'm bullish on the U.S., obviously. I'm an American. And one of the things that I'm spending a lot of time on, as many others on this call, is fighting for sensible pro-crypto policy. And even if the numbers are only 10%, 15% in terms of users, we still have an outsized influence on the capital markets.

We still have an outsized influence just in terms of raw capital and the percentage of holdings that Americans have. And I think from a rule of law standpoint, we have a constitution on our side in a way that other countries, even those like Europe, which is a little bit more forward thinking from a regulatory side, just do not. So I still think that there's plenty of reasons to be super bullish on crypto in the US if we can educate policymakers and have these hard conversations with them and as an industry to figure out what is common sense regulation and what should we be advocating for aside from leave us alone. The point about the SEC is a good one,

and I agree with Bill in terms of how we've got here, but the SEC is fine as an agency if it would just abide by its stated mission. The stated mission and the mandate of the SEC is to promote capital formation, protect investors, and ensure that markets are fair and efficient. No one is arguing that that should not be a priority for crypto and for every crypto marketplace, for every crypto custodian, for every innovator, for every community that's issuing an asset. You want some proper checks and balances, you want disclosures, you want fair governance, and you want security and safety. And the problem with this conversation and the reason it goes in circles so many times is the US institutions and the good actors have been handicapped by this lack of clarity and this lack of policy in the US. And instead it has pushed everything offshore, but in the most counterproductive way. It's not that innovation is fleeing America. A lot of the entrepreneurs are still here. A lot of the core builders are still here. Innovation is not fleeing America yet. That could change at

some point if things get too hostile, but the good innovators have been handcuffed and they've had to see their market shares erode, or they've had to see kind of competitors emerge overseas that have taken shortcuts. And it's because there hasn't been any sensible framework that would allow US companies and even European companies, I guess, to the developed West to provide safe, sound, secure, regulated services without crippling the underlying tech. So I think that's the battle that we have. And it's going to be, I think, a long haul battle. But the next 18 months is pretty formative in terms of just changing the narrative and making sure that we get back on track from a sentiment standpoint, because the sentiment goes, so goes policy, unfortunately, in the US. Well, Ryan, I'm looking forward to your run for Senate, right?

After I've exited Masari and we've solved this problem and run a successful campaign for crypto, you know, then I will, then I'll, I talked to Bruce too much. So I know- I was going to say Bruce already did it. Yeah. I know how little I want to run for Senate.

I'll be back online in a little bit, guys. But yeah, thanks for letting me speak. Perfect. Justin, then Joe, please. Just my comment is a little bit, guys. But yeah, thanks for letting me speak. Perfect. Justin, then Joa, please. Just my comment is a bit of a disagreement to Bruce. You know, I'm a first generation American. My parents fled Iran in the revolution. And within one generation, I was able to sell my first business at 27.

I'm working on my second one. Built generational wealth for my family that was not possible, I don't think, anywhere else in the world. So to comment that America is losing its freedoms and losing its lack of entrepreneurship, I think it's completely wrong because I'm the epitome of a case study that counteracts your argument, Bruce. I mean, there might be a little bit of, I don't know where your lineage is from. I don't know if you're a first generation American, but for me as a first generation

entrepreneur, for my parents coming from Iran to be able to build what I built is only available in this country. And I, and I just say that from personal experience. But they couldn't come now. I mean, I agree with you. We we've been great, but, but they, they couldn't come now. We won't let Iranians come here now. We don't let anybody come here now.

You know, we we've done a lot. And then, you know, I don't want to say that it's all like the whole thing is lost. I'm optimistic about America like Ryan is. I'm American. My business is here. As crazy and stupid as it is, maybe I'm a masochist, but I've been trying to bang my head against the wall for five years now trying to do a compliant business, you know, registered with the SEC in the crypto space, trying to do, you know, as Gary Gensler says, come on in and register. You know, I did that half a decade ago, you know. So I'm still optimistic in the U.S. I'm looking at, you know, GCC and others as like a backup, you know, so I'm not totally pessimistic on the U.S., but I think most of what's great,

and I still think we're great, you know, we're still one of the greatest countries, if not the greatest country in the world. But I think a lot of what made us great was from, you know, probably when you came over in the eighties or whatever, um, you know, and, and before that, you know, going back to, you know, fifties, sixties, um, you know, when we were much more entrepreneurial. So I, you know, I think that, yeah, we're still great. And I think that, but I don't know if your story would, would work right now. I don't know if people can come in right now. But where's better? Where's better? So you have this argument saying that we're but where is better now?

Yeah, that's a good you know, that's a good point. I think that in some areas, there's some places that are better and they're on kind of the upswing. You know, the trend is in the wrong or at least has been in the wrong direction in the US. You know, that's why I say we still may be the greatest country in the world, despite the problems. But, and it depends what for. If you're looking at a crypto business, we're not the best place in the world. If you're looking at open immigration, we're not the best place in the world. You know, there's things that you just can't do anymore.

And I think that you'll see that places like UAE, which also isn't perfect, you know, they have, you know, they have their own set of issues. But as far as, you know, for the kind of like what we used to call the American dream, you know, you have people from Iran or from, you know, you know, poor countries or something like that, you know, like certain countries, there's just no way they can get in here. Even second world countries, forget about third world countries, but even like Thailand or something, you can't, it's almost impossible. Everybody I know where everybody I meet when I travel, especially poorer people around the world, they would love to come here. You know, it's like

a joke. You know, I'll say to a driver or something like, Oh, have you, have you been to America? It's like, Oh no, no, no. I really wish I could. They all want to come here, but they, you know, it's, it's hard now. And then for the upper end, richer people, it's a different issue. They're going to places like Dubai because it's easier to do business and not have the hassles that we have. So yeah, I mean, I still love America, but I think we've gone in the wrong direction for a while. Dave, you want to jump in yeah I think that it's it's important to understand what's actually going on and bring it back down to the digital asset and crypto world the fact is we have a market difference today versus what we had under Clinton same party by the way uh in the 90s and

then after the aftermath of the internet bubble to the aftermath of FTX on last year's issues. And it's really important to understand those differences. So look, the internet was a new technology and both parties realized it made sense to take a light touch regulatory approach to it to allow entrepreneurs to do and grow. We then had a bubble in internet companies in the United States that was far larger than anything we've ever seen in crypto in terms of market cap, import, et cetera, to society, dentists, taxi drivers, everybody lost tons of money by day trading internet stocks. And in the aftermath, what did they do? Nothing. When I say nothing, I don't mean nothing horrible. They didn't stop.

They didn't put on regulations that basically forced Google, Facebook, and the next generation of internet companies to move offshore. Yet that is exactly what the current administration is doing in the aftermath of issues in crypto so that's a that's point number one and dave can i just add to that point is all the fraud that was conducted through the internet and they did nothing to stop that either that's right and it's the same fraud anyone who remembers i'm old enough to remember tokyo joe look out b-row people i mean it's literally the same thing as you see it on Telegram. So it was in chat rooms like Silicon Investor and Yahoo Chat, but same, same thing. Look, the reality is bad people will do bad things.

Now, where I disagree with Bruce is there is value to principles-based regulation. It's just that we just tend not to do it very well, but there is value to principles-based regulation. It's just that we just tend not to do it very well, but there is value. Forcing disclosures in the 30s and 40s made a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the SEC disclosure rules haven't changed since the 30s and the 40s. And these silly things called computers that have come along since then, social media has come along since then. The fact is our disclosure rules that the SEC has are 100% useless. I don't know one human being who's rather respect us except for the lawyers who prepare them. Not to mention the fact that when Gensler talks about, well, the rules will

work. It's like the rules for disclosures for issuers assume equity or debt. They don't assume utility tokens and it assumes corporate structures. It doesn't assume DAOs. So the reality is you can't even fill out those forms. So there are massive need for modernizing the actual rules, but the principle of disclosures, I mean, Scott, if- Yeah, I was just going to say, yeah, I was literally, let me, I'll just say it. I'll just say it. I just said to you, I was going to say, I mean, the point here is disclosures and transparency is what they're in charge of. If the SEC was actually good at their mandate, then Voyager and Celsius and BlockFi, these things, even if they had happened, people would have been able to react in advance. Steve Ehrlich, as I've said a thousand times, had said, hey, everybody, I'm giving Three Hours

Capital $700 million uncollateralized because I can't find yield elsewhere and I need to give yield to my customers. Just want you guys to know that. I would have pulled my money out so fast that they would have literally like... But Scott, hold on a second. Scott,

I know we're blaming this on the SEC, but hold on a second. Maybe this is not the SEC. I know the popular view is to this on the SEC, but hold on a second. Maybe this is not the SEC. I know it's popular. The popular view is to go against the SEC. But the SEC is working under a set of rules and a set of findings that they have. Not true. Not true. I mean, isn't it the regulators that should put regulators?

The NFA is not a monolith. Hester Peirce, in 2018, put out a proposal. And unfortunately, Jay Clayton didn't want to, you know to and he has since realized he was wrong, by the way, put out a proposal to create a safe harbor to work with the industry to create rules that work. And she has been constantly saying it ever since. And that's a proposal.

That's a proposal. I mean, with respect the problem is it's become politicized. That's the issue. What is it? Everything is politicized. That's the issue. What is it, Dave? Everything is politicized. Isn't the problem with the lawmakers? Isn't the problem with the lawmakers that we don't have the right laws in place for the new SEC class? That is a fair assessment because when, if we're going to be honest, when everything looks like a nail,

you know, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, that's the position that the SEC is to some degree in, or at least the TAC, taken by Gary Gensler because he doesn't have clear legislation. But that said, to say, as Gensler continually does, that he's protecting people and protecting the industry and doing these things for protection, after the fact, when the disclosures required were not there in the first place that is a different conversation so scott let me put on the second thing so we talked about disclosure the second arguably the first rule that the sec should care about is investor protection and being able to ring effects client assets and not only does cancer not care about that sadly but the fact is the SEC is ahead of you in, or ahead, not out of you,

ahead of investors in multiple bankruptcies right now, which is literally insane. Nobody would vote for that, but that's- And the IRS is stepping ahead of creditors, unsecured creditors in the FTX for more than the entire case. Right. So we're looking at a world where we need legislation. Absolutely right, Rand, 100%. But the legislation needs to be able to do principle-based things. It needs to be able to allow companies to protect client assets in a way that doesn't require you to meet some definition of transfer agent and custodian that was built in the 40s, right? You need disclosures that apply to the industry.

You need fiduciary roles defined, not the way the New York Attorney General is doing it by using the old way, but basically saying, okay, who is responsible for what? Do I have a duty for best execution if I have a customer order? Do I have a duty to understand customer suitability if I have someone who is a retiree in in their account if they're giving me their discretion very basic stuff marketing that can i make claims that guarantee returns these are all basic things so so dave what's your what's your complaint i just want to be honest what's your concern or complaint like is it the lack of clarity from the sec is it that you know their inability to crack down on on fraud and and the fraud still

being prevalent the complaint is that there are basic principles of regulation that we most people agree with ryan would he's not here anymore would agree with this as well the fact is the sec needs new rules not not necessarily laws for them. The CFTC would follow. Yes, we can give them whatever, but instead they have focused on technical violations. In fact, the vast majority of the cases that they have brought have had no allegation of investor harm. They haven't been able to bring cases except going after Do Kwon when he's in Montenegro or wherever the hell he was beforehand, knowing that he wouldn't be able to defend himself. I mean, pretty much everything the SEC has done has been more based on jurisdiction

than protecting investors. DeFi is a great example. What are the rules and what is the threat? Everyone's moving offshore for a reason. It's like there are many, many things that clarity would be helpful for and the disingenuous tripe that people say, oh yeah, well, we have clear rules. It's like, yeah. So I'll bring up Promethean and Bosonic both claim, oh yeah, you know, Gensler's right. They actually said this in a podcast with Laura Shin on yesterday. It was unlistenable because it's wrong. I mean, they're basically not allowed to trade Bitcoin on their platform. They're not allowed to be multi-currency. They're not allowed to support on-demand settlement.

They're not allowed to do pretty much everything that makes digital assets digital, yet they can trade things that are called digital securities that have no volume. And that's kind of the thing. The point is that a clear, crisp approach that works with the industry could work. It absolutely could work. And that's what they're trying to do in Europe with MICA. And the US is at absolute risk of pretty much every rational entrepreneur, if not moving completely overseas, moving a lot of jobs overseas. That's the issue. What about, last question, Dave, and I think we should wrap up soon, Joe or John, give your final words. But Dave, what about, I've heard that

argument made by a lot of investors is that money flows into the US because of the strict regulation, especially in industries like crypto that are at a very high risk. Do you see- Well, there's two points that, yeah, there's two points I want to make on that. First, there's an absolute truth, accounting standards. For example, you want to know what your companies are doing and notifications. And so those are better. In traditional finance, you want to understand accounting and it files in. The problem that we have with crypto in the US is we don't have standards. And that's why a lot of people in the industry want them. I mean, read everything Brian Armstrong talks about when he talks about what Coinbase is trying to do. And I find myself nodding and agreeing with most of it. It's because of that.

So yes, in traditional finance out there, we have the number one financial system in the world, and it has helped create trillions of dollars of US GDP as a result because of everything you're saying. That's in the analog world. In the digital world, we are well behind. And if the digital world becomes dominant, that's where it's going to lose. And as a patriotic American, I don't want that to happen. So that's thing number one. Thing number two, there's also a self-election bias here. The banks that are regulated cannot flow money into the US now or cannot flow money into crypto now either way because of the regulatory uncertainty. So we're kind of putting a hold on the industry from the big banks.

That's why more smaller firms are there. And to be honest, I had this conversation with the head of FINRA years ago. And I basically said, don't you want broker dealers to be able to offer crypto services because at least they understand Know Your Customer, they understand customer suitability, they understand best execution, they understand producer responsibilities? And his answer was yes. And I said, so why are you blocking them? And he couldn't answer me. I mean, I like Robert, he's a nice guy, but the fact, it's because the SEC has told him to block that. And that's the issue. It could be much, much better very, very quickly. All right. So John, I'll give you a final quick word as we wrap up. Just a reminder for the audience, I probably should have mentioned it throughout the show. I'm an idiot. So number one,

we do the show daily. We're not sure on whose account to do it yet, how to rotate it. We're figuring this out between us three, Scott, myself, and myself and ran the second thing if you do have a crypto project we incubate we work with crypto projects we're from from market making tokenomics token structure we're partnered with tdfi uh community building you can also come on the show here we're gonna start doing pitch tank you know shark tank like pitches as we've done on the other shows before. I convinced Scott and Ran to do it, but expect it to be pretty aggressive. Scott is not nice when it comes to pitches. But we'll be starting to do those here on the show.

But yeah, hit us up. I'm not sure if Ran and Scott, you've got a system, but if you hit me up, my team will respond whether you want to work with us or you want to come on the show. Second thing is, yeah, that's pretty much it that's the only thing actually um we'll give the mic to john and joe our final quick comments guys and we do want to wrap it up and then the the boys will will uh kind of wrap the show and we'll see

you again tomorrow go ahead john and uh joe yeah i think guys i'll make it i'll be brief i'll answer mario's question uh which was can can we blame the SEC? Absolutely. John, let me make it harder for you. Sorry. If you want to answer the question, let me make it harder for you. The SEC, so I'm going to quote Jay Clayton. He said this a few years ago, not too long. The SEC is severely understaffed. We have fewer staff than we did in 2008, even though the markets have grown significantly since then. Quote number two by Andrews, former director of enforcement at the SEC. The SEC's budget is inadequate. We need more resources to do our job effectively. Last one, I'll read one more. Let me read one more. The SEC's

understaffing and under, that was last year, that was by an SEC report. The SEC's understaffing and underfunding have serious consequences for our ability to protect investors. Again, I don't want to say they're protecting the SEC, but since everyone's attacking them and pointing out the flaws and many of them are valid, I do want to give a different perspective. John? No, you're doing a great job as host by posing it, but all right, look at the quotes you just made. Now let's look at the resources and where the resources are being spent. Then you triage that shit. You got 20,000 tokens. If you focused on the pump and dumps and the fraud that's going on in this industry, the people on this phone call would be cheering. Instead, you're going after non-fraud participants. Forget Ripple because they're controversial. They're hated. I

focus people on library. In the library case, how many people were out there speculating on the lbc token i will talk to anthony scaramucci's uh crypto day trader he had never heard of lbc and that's what he does for a living and in that case the fcc agreed. They agreed that there were thousands and thousands of LBC holders utilizing the platform, like Naomi Brockwell, who never bought or sold one LBC token. They agreed that she does not have an investment contract. She never made an investment. It doesn't meet Howie's first prong. Yet they refuse to give any clarity and they focus on

the not you do videos with Kim Kardashian about Kim Kardashian you're meeting with Sam Bateman free because he donated money so yes they are limited yes there are good people at the SEC who are staff people but the leadership is corrupt and Gary Gensler is a bad faith negotiator. Look at your resources. Mario, if you looked at how much manpower is being spent on the library case, the dragon chain case, the ripple case, all non-fraud cases, and then look at the fraud cases where it's being spent, you would have your glaring answer. Yeah, I think that there's a pretty important differentiation here, though, or at least something to consider, which is, is it the SEC or is it this SEC? Great. It's a great point. And I think until, listen, one thing that we have to do in this country is we have to end the revolving door, not just at the SEC, at the FDA, all of them. You can't go and be a regulator, regulating the industry, and then immediately you're going to companies that you were just

regulating. All right. We have to end that because the public has no faith, none in the SEC. And there's plenty to blame, blame on the Democrats nominee and blame on the Republican nominee. I put a lot of blame on Jay Clayton because it made no sense not to do what was brought up with that with that safe harbor provision. No sense. And instead, he goes and becomes an advisor at One River, which made a one billion bet on Bitcoin and ETH, right? So let's call it like it is. We got to end the nonsense and hold these regulators accountable and not give them a pass just because, oh, well, you know, we're applying 1930s law. You can apply the law we have today

in a way more efficient way that satisfies your mission. Just to tie it back to the beginning of the conversation, that's probably the one thing we can all agree with Elizabeth Warren on, which is to stop that revolving door between Washington and the private sector. 100%, Joe, go ahead. Yeah. I don't like the SEC. I think the SEC, if it did what it was supposed to do, which is protect people, it's quite simple. They would launch the Bitcoin ETF. You wouldn't have this problem with these exchanges. Instead, they were working with Sam Backman Freed, which allowed people to forget to write laws to stop the other exchanges. And that's what typically happens at

the SEC. You get big enough, the SEC becomes your partner instead of your enemy. And that's the way the SEC has worked even since the 90s. And I've worked on Wall Street of your enemy. And that's the way the SEC has worked even since the 90s. And I've worked on Wall Street during that time. And all the little firms get put out of business and all the big guys gobble up their customers and then they take their book to the big firms. And that's what happened on Wall Street all throughout. So America's great at one thing, amassing capital. And I think capitalism is a game, and some guys are really good at it, and some guys aren't. And Justin has said, where else is good?

A lot of places beat America on a lot of different things, but not on capital. But if they keep this up, that capital is leaving the U.S. The U.S. will not remain on top. Cool. I think it's a good place to wrap it up. Final words, guys? Ryan Scott?

Yeah. A, we'll be back tomorrow, of course, as you mentioned, 1015 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. We're figuring out what channel that will be on. We'll do it on Joe. Let's do it on Joe's channel. I like that idea. Let's do a lottery ticket for anyone in the audience. We will have it on your channel now. Trust you to do that. I just want to give a quick shout out and thank you to Melrose PR. They're at Melrose PR for handling the press release on this like overnight. And Eleanor, you covered us in Fox Business.

So thank you to you as well. I mean, yesterday we had, we're over, I think, 300,000 listens on yesterday's show. So I think it's fair to say we're onto something here. Yeah, I'm very excited about it. I think it's super excited. I think we're going to grow from strength to strength. I think tomorrow we're going to do it on my channel. So we'll see you guys.

Okay, guys, everyone, it's going to be on Rand's channel. So anyone that wants to take a day off tomorrow from Twitter, tomorrow's the day. It's going to be a day off. It's going to be a day off. It's going to be a day off. No, on a serious note as well. And if you want to come on the show as well, make sure you DM me or DM Ran,

and our teams will respond to you. And if you want to work with us for incubation, et cetera, again, we've all partnered with this together, all three of us. Just DM me, and the team will sort that out. I think, Mario, I think we should set up an email address. I think we should- No, you're crazy. I just went crazy.

No, bro, I just went crazy on Fred in the groups. Like, yeah, give them an email. Man, people are like now in the toilet, in the shower with their girlfriend, on the car, walking a dog. You expect them to find their phone, take it out, write an email, not misspell it, and then go to their Gmail and send an email.

You got to reduce friction, man. Yeah, none of you, I can just put it out there. Guys, don't bother me about any of this shit. You'll never get it done. No, guys, please mail us, mail a request,

mail a request at PO Box 113 in Brunswick East in Australia. This is my Australian business's head office. So just mail us there any requests you need and then we'll forward it

to Fred and Ryan in South Africa, and they'll attend to it. I think this is the best way to keep track of everything. Ryan, you're good with that? Okay. He gave up on us. Guys, I know, Mario, you need to go to sleep. By the way, guys, to do this,

we've put Mario four hours behind on his already non-existent sleep schedule. So thank you for that. To all the guests, amazing. You guys, I'm sure we'll be speaking a lot more in the future. And I think we'll just go ahead and wrap it now. Happy Friday.

Hope everybody has an amazing weekend. We will see you. And make sure, guys, just remember, the show will be on Rand's channel tomorrow. So make sure you follow him and put reminders, et cetera, there. And we'll see you tomorrow. Bye.

Yeah, we'll get that link up. Bye.