The Wolf Of All Streets - Binance Is Under Attack: Why Bitcoin Is Rising | Panel W/ Alex Tapscott, Dan Roberts & Ajit Tripathi

Episode Date: March 30, 2023

►►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/   -------------------------------- Live panel with Alex Tapscott, Managing Director at Ninepoint Partners LP  & Ajit Tripathi, Angel Investor, and Dan Roberts, Chief Editor at Decrypt.  -------------------------------- https://twitter.com/chainyoda https://twitter.com/alextapscott https://twitter.com/readDanwrite 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.

Biden is under attack from the CFTC, also arguably from the SEC after BUSD was shut down. We have Wells notices going to Coinbase and likely litigation there. We have reports of a banking regulator attack on the crypto industry with Operation Chokepoint 2.0, some FUD around Signet and Signature Bank and what's happening there. Basically, it seems to be, without being hyperbolic, all-out war against the crypto industry in the United States. Very difficult to keep up with the news cycle, very difficult to parse what is true and what is false, and very difficult to predict what is coming, which is why I always bring on at least three guests to share their opinions so that I

don't have to look like an idiot down the road when I'm completely wrong. So hopefully these guys will be completely right. We're going to discuss everything that's happening and what's likely to happen moving forward. Let's go what is up everybody i'm scott melker also known as the wolf of all streets before we get started please subscribe to the channel and hit that like button you know we're usually very jovial and light-hearted around here but it's hard to wake up in the morning super excited when you dig into the crypto news cycle and everything that's happening and really hard, as I said in the intro, to discern what is conspiracy theory and when we have our tin hats on and what's blatantly right in front of us and happening. Seems to me at this point kind of hard to dispute the fact that there's something very serious going on here. Why?

I don't know if it was something that was preplanned or if this is the wake of FTX. When in doubt, I like to just blame Sam Bankman-Fried for everything. Like if my kids are bad in the morning, blame SBF. If the banking system is collapsing, probably SBF's fault. But maybe it goes a little deeper than that. And this is something that was coming and inevitable regardless of the egg on the face that the United States government got from allowing somewhat the FTX collapse and not regulating them in advance.

As usual, I've got three amazing guests today because it's Thursday. I've got Dan Roberts from Decrypt, Al Tapscott. Can we just call you Chain Yoda because Because you have the best Twitter name ever. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. It's lovely. I don't ever want to use your real name. You're just Chain Yoda to me.

Chain Yoda, ladies and gentlemen. Good brand. Thank you. Yeah. So, Dan, listen, I have to ask you first because you're running a crypto news platform, Decpt and it's complete shit show, right? Not your platform, but this news cycle. So how do you, and this is like even a personal question because I have to attempt to do this on a daily basis.

How do you even at this point vet the news that's coming in, decide what's worthy to print, decide what's true and what's false? How do you even approach this at this point? Well, it can't just be from Twitter. I mean, you know, for years it's been crypto Twitter leads the conversation. I think that's still the case. But when it comes to actual regulatory agencies and whatever actions they're bringing or not bringing, you know, we can't get our information from tweets.

So it means talking to actual people in the know and sourcing stuff, talking to analysts, legal experts, and then looking at what they actually announce. I mean, let's remember when the Wells Notice news came out from Coinbase and we had a tip about that. The actual announcement took quite a while. It wasn't like when Coinbase announced we've received a Wells Notice, the SEC announced it too. For a while there was only Coinbase saying we've received it. And then you have to explain to people what this means and what it doesn't mean. And I guess I also want to answer what you brought up in the intro too, which is in some ways all this stuff was already happening. I mean, yes, it's shocking. Yes, every day is crazy and wild. You know, if we were planning this panel just last Friday, then it would have been about Coinbase receiving a Wells notice. Now it's Thursday, so it's about Binance and the CFTC.

There's some new salvo shot across the bow every week. But we already knew that all the US agencies hated Binance and were going to come at Binance and CZ hard. I mean, we've been covering for years the fact that CZ would say, we don't have a headquarters. We're not based anywhere. We're truly decentralized. He's been known to be the guy who was kind of evading regulation. But then he sort of went from regulation avoider to hero amid the Sam stuff, right? Because people said, wow, he exposed Sam. He exposed FTX.

Now he's gone from villain to hero back to villain again. So maybe a good way to shape our conversation today is, is this going to kill Binance? When it comes to Coinbase, we also knew that being publicly traded, which the company has, I think, very savvily used in all of its marketing to say, we're trusted, you can trust us, we're not FTX, that never meant that it was fully protected, untouchable, not going to be the target of regulation. That said, I do think Brian Armstrong made a great point. Why were we allowed to go public then? I mean, we mentioned staking 57 times in our 8K form, our S1, I should say, however many times it was. Well, guess what?

Gary Gensler took office three days after Coinbase went public. So I guess I would just say none of this is actually shocking, but it certainly is unpleasant to watch. Alex, go ahead. Yeah, well, you know, my perspective on this is slightly different. So I think a lot of people are trying to use this recent banking crisis we've had as evidence of this broader operation choke point. And I think that there is some subtlety in that. So it's true that Silicon Valley Bank, Silvergate and Signature were the three primary banking partners of the crypto industry. And it's also true that there are lots of people in the government who are not fans of Web3 and crypto.

But that doesn't mean that the government orchestrated a banking crisis just to piss off the crypto industry. And I think that there's some people who actually think that. And I think that's probably overkill. I'm sure Dan, like I can see Dan kind of nodding. So we've got to be able to use this. There is a lot coming at us hard and fast, but we need to be able to take a step back and try and parse out what's really going on. How orchestrated is this really? Is this part of some much broader attack? And I think that we need to wait to see the evidence coming out. I think anybody who's subject to an enforcement action by the SEC or by the CFTC is innocent until proven guilty, which is the law. But you can't dispute some of the evidence in

some of these cases. I mean, if it's true that people in Binance really said what the CFTC is alleging, then they've got some pretty tough questions to answer frankly about how they were operating here in the us and elsewhere um you know but you know overall i look at this whole thing and i think like okay if you were to ask me six months ago that there was going to be a banking crisis and that was going to come in at the same time as an orchestrated i think you know sort of regulatory crackdown or squeeze on the industry what would the the price action be? It wouldn't be that we'd be climbing this wall of worry and Bitcoin would be close to $30,000. So I think that's kind of interesting just to like look at the price action as evidence of how the market is digesting this whole thing. You know, I think that right now, at least, negative news is having less of an impact every single time it comes out than it has previously.

And maybe it's like a boxer who's punched drunk up against the ropes, just getting walloped over the head. It might still be doing a lot of damage, but he doesn't really notice it. But at least right now, the price is, the price is. He's already unconscious, so it's fine. Super bloody. He's okay. But it's interesting to see how the industry is seems to be kind of

or like how the price action seems to be shrugging off a lot of this stuff while while people in the industry like run around with their hair on fire worried about some massive government crackdown i don't know it's just interesting yeah i mean but i just want to jump in really quickly i agree with you a hundred percent that this that a manufactured banking crisis has nothing to do with crypto. But I will say that Elizabeth Warren dunking on Silvergate because of its connection to crypto and trying to politicize the crypto side of Silvergate's collapse helped cause the run on Silicon Valley Bank. And I would say that it is a bit suspect that Signature Bank was closed on a Sunday. So maybe they use the banking crisis as an excuse to go ahead and just clean out

this little slight inconvenience called crypto. I mean, the FDIC, one of the chairmen yesterday, I believe, was in Congress and completely contradicted himself as to what was happening with the signature bank crypto with Cignet, which is basically the 24-7 settlement layer. At one point, he said it was sold. And then the other point said, no, it's not sold. And we do know for a fact that with signature bank, all non-crypto accounts have been transferred. And anyone with a crypto-based account was told, get your money to another bank or we're going to send you a check in a week. Yeah, I definitely think there's truth to that, which is the, you know, don't let a good crisis go to waste. That's exactly right. We've got this banking crisis. We might as well clean house

while we're at it. You know, we've got some alternate agenda. Yeah. So I think there's probably some truth to that. Yoda, what are your thoughts? Call him Yoda. Yeah, so I have had the devious pleasure of watching the entire global financial crisis unfold. I was at Goldman and I watched Lehman go down. And then all of the regulatory overreaction for the last 10 years after that, they created Basel 3 and 4. They created Dodd-Frank, and none of that has worked. And crypto is sort of this high beta asset class that was just the first to take a hit of a rather thoughtless monetary policy. So we had the Fed print $7 trillion or something like that,

and then we had global central banks essentially printing a lot of money to artificially manufacture growth. Now, we were always going to have to pay the bills for it and crypto unfortunately was the first asset class to take a hit right so we had massive crypto uh banking crashes if you will with ftx and you know and and some of them involved fraud right so so so we saw a whole celsius go down we saw block fire go down we saw voyFi go down. We saw Voyager go down. We saw everything starting with Luna, right? So there were massive failures and there were certain incidents of fraud. Unfortunately, that's true. But we're seeing the same thing in banks now, right?

So now there is a tax fraud case in France where, you know, all of the French, major French banks are being audited and investigated by tax authorities. Now, you know, we are seeing reports come out from Hindenburg about Stripe manufacturing artificial growth. Sorry, not Stripe Square, right? Jack Dorsey Square. My apologies to folks at Stripe. So so we're seeing a lot of, you know, people. We have revolutes being revolutes, auditors and boards saying, hey, we don't understand these numbers. So there's a lot of stuff that's going on across, you know, when the tide goes out, then, you know, it's, then you find out who's been swimming naked.

And we're seeing that across the fiat ecosystem. And we are seeing that across crypto. Crypto was the first one to take that hit, right? So that has led to a crazy overreaction. And some of that is natural, right? So what happened with FTX is it made a lot, because FTX was spending so much money and time buying legitimacy, they made a lot of people look bad. It made a lot of politicians look bad. It made a lot of regulators look bad. The guy was meeting the chairs of both of the major agencies in the US and having lunch with them.

So now if they don't act at this time, they're going to look awful. So they have to react. But this is a pendulum, right? So we had a relatively relaxed, somewhat deregulated environment for the last five or six years. There were ICOs and there was a reaction to ICOs. There are like 30,000, 40,000 coins that no one can explain on CoinGecko. Now, I don't think we need all of those, right? But at the same time, there is going to be some rulemaking, there's going to be some discipline in this industry as well. And it's going to grow up because there's a lot of retail money involved. Now, at the same time, I think certain assertions that current rules are appropriate for this new asset class and for the technology that's being built, they're completely inaccurate. And I mean, it's like, you know,

if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So I think we need some rulemaking for sure. We need some legislation. There is stablecoin legislation in front of the Congress. There is a whole bunch of, you know, good proposals coming out of policy folks in the crypto industry. I think it's time to sort of, you know,

have a grown up conversations on both sides of this divide, as opposed to, you know, people trying to enforce existing rules that do not apply to this asset class or, you know, have a grown up conversations on both sides of this divide, as opposed to, you know, people trying to enforce existing rules that do not apply to this asset class, or, you know, people saying, Oh, no, we don't need any rules, because, you know, we clearly do. And you guys probably saw, you guys probably saw what Gary said yesterday, which I'm not saying, you know, I'm the first to have predicted this. But on this show, you know, a few months ago, I was saying, Gensler would say, Well, what do you mean that there's a lack of clarity? There's clarity. You just don't like it. We have existing rules. And people say, well, they're using this test from the 1940s. Fine. But they believe it still applies. I mean,

that's what I said when we talked about Gensler earlier. It's like, everyone says, it's unclear. It's unclear. We need new rules. He's saying, no, we have rules. You just don't like them. So to address Tapscott's point about the conspiracy theory, I do think a lot of people in crypto, these degens think that, you know, they kind of spin off into these conspiracies and they're mostly going overboard. However, I've come around to the idea that that Gary does basically hate every single thing in crypto and thinks everything other than Bitcoin is a token, even though for some reason he's unwilling to say it. I mean, when he first, you know, entered that role as SEC chair, a lot of people thought that he'd be a friend of crypto just because he had once taught one class on blockchain at MIT. We were so excited. Yeah.

He does not like any of what he sees. And so the people who were hitting the panic button for eight months already regarding everything he said, and I was saying, no, no, wait, wait, wait. Now I'm sort of I've come around to like, yeah, he is, you know, it's pretty bad under the Gary regime. Now, the problem people make is lumping in SEC and Gensler with every other kind of agency and with the banking industry. We're seeing separate things play out right now. But there's sort of Gary and there's everything else. But the vitriol from him is not. Just one comment there. Right. So I was watching the testimony, Chair Gensler's testimony last night. I think there were a lot of questions about overreach, systemic or systematic overreach across different things. So

there was this whole discussion about climate change, related rules, rulemaking, where essentially a whole bunch of companies are being asked to report consistently on stuff that pretty much no one in the industry, you know, in the investor community cares about. But that creates an unnecessary burden. And we're going to see this type of overreach. And there is, you know, existing, there was this West Virginia versus the EPA case where this the current administration lost on the Supreme Court said, you know, this is government overreach and under the major questions doctrine, the regulators should not be, you know, the EPA should not be, the Environment Protection

Agency should not be acting in this case unless authorized by the Congress exclusively. So we're going to see some of that, I think, you know, overreach and then we will see the courts correct that and legislation correct that. But in the meantime, we have to kind of deal with this. It's like the most important point is to remind people that we do every day is just because a regulator says it doesn't make it true. It still has to pass the courts. And we've seen definitely some at least seemingly sensible judges pushing back against the SEC in the Voyager case, Grayscale case, potentially the Ripple case. Certainly not in the library case. But elsewhere, I want to, you made a great point earlier about banks and obviously society. I don't know how to pronounce

French words, you know, so General, being obviously being one of the major French banks, maybe Alex here in Canada, you can pronounce those for us. But, you know, the sort of action for tax evasion and fraud there. I mean, listen, this is a violation tracker for J.P. Morgan, who has paid $36,129,286,132 in penalties since 2000. Right. We obviously had Wells Fargo. Was it January? Just paid a $3.7 billion fine. Like, it's not new that we're seeing this in the banking system. I just want to remind you. And so it's not. But that also goes back to the maybe this isn't just about crypto, right? I mean, regulators are going to regulate. Yeah. I wouldn't mind talking here just because what Ajit said earlier is, I think, quite sensible, which is that, you know, I think a lot of people were caught off guard by the things that have happened in the last nine or 12 months,

which I think have been driven in part by this massive rise in interest rates that we've seen. And the tide has come out. And when that happens, as he pointed out, there are plenty of good companies that are short cash or maybe can't work out. And then you also reveal a lot of frauds. And that's something that're now seeing across several different um parts of the financial sector and and also in crypto but to me the key point that um we haven't quite addressed yet is that there's a difference between wrongdoing by a company operating in an industry and the underlying industry itself or the underlying asset itself right i mean the south sea company went bankrupt it turned out to be a massive bubble and it led to a law being created that banned the creation of joint stock corporations for a hundred years um and people at the time were basically saying

the problem here is not that um huckster was duping people into investing money into a fraud. The problem was the joint stock corporation itself. Of course, in retrospect, that was a bad point of view because the joint stock corporation is an amazing vehicle for organizing capital and organizing capability, and it's the way in which all wealth and assets are organized today. And if you look at other crises like Enron, we're not blaming the natural gas market or power production for the failures of one single company. And even in the banking crisis of 2007, 2008, to be sure, there was definitely some assets there that were inherently worthless and shouldn't have been created and propagated and sold to investors, you know, talking about like mortgage bonds made up of

CDOs that were rubber stamped by, you know, the regular by the by the rating agencies, when in fact, their underlying assets were not of a high quality. But generally speaking, like we don't look look at that crisis and say, you know, the problem is like bank banking, as an industry, we say the problem is the wrongdoing of institutions and the individuals who run them. And I think the same is true here. So right now, there's a lot of noise and anger directed at crypto. And it's very difficult to separate for, I think, for a lot of people in government, apparently, to separate the difference between what is an underlying asset class in technology? What does it do? What kind of capability can it create in the economy?

How could it generate new innovation, new jobs and so forth? And the actions of a handful of bad apples. And I think until the temperature lowers a little bit and we're able to have that conversation, then we're gonna end up with some unexpected, or not unexpected, but unfortunate and negative consequences. And I think that's the thing that we need to guard against. But as an industry, we need to have the confidence to say not every not every allegation of fraud is fine,

because as we've seen, there are plenty of examples of bad behavior in this industry right like um so we have to like have some have some confidence and conviction in the in what we're doing here um rather than just saying like oh you know every single thing a regulator says or does has to be like untrue they may be um they may not share the same opinions as we do um and they and they may share the same opinions not everyone's the same like there are uh people in the sec like hester pierce who are quite um forward thinking about this subject but that doesn't mean that there that doesn't like therefore mean that every single thing is just like we need to like as an industry go up to the point where you can say yeah you know wrongdoers should be punished but as a whole whole, the direction here is an overreach,

and it's going to harm innovation. It's going to harm the sector, and we need to fight against that. Those are two separate things. And I think that's being lost in the mix right now during this conversation. And just real quick. Not our conversation. I mean in the general conversation. Well, and just real quick, I mean, I always like to say,

regulation does not equal necessarily shutting down. In other words, everyone in crypto fears the very word regulation. It's this big boogeyman. And it's like, well, regulation just means trying to do their jobs if you believe that they see their jobs as protecting regular folks from losing their shirts. Right. So putting safeguards and rails in place for regular retail investors, it doesn't mean, you know, shut it all down, which we know in the case of Bitcoin and Ethereum, they can't do anyway. But, you know, Biden's executive order,

all this stuff we've seen, this kind of grandstanding, they're not saying shut down crypto. They're saying we need to regulate it. Now that said, Elizabeth Warren hated crypto long before FTX collapsed. I mean, Gary Gensler thought anything except Bitcoin was a security long before FTX collapsed. And what Sam did was exacerbated it. I mean, I was

saying that the FTX meltdown was, I think, the biggest, the most mainstream crypto news story ever. I mean, right. Even bigger than Silk Road, probably. And the problem with that was the prominence of it led people to think, well, you know, especially politicians, oh, shit, I need to make clear to people that I'm tough on crypto, on this crypto stuff, because it's crazy and it's the Wild West. So Sam did no one any favors. But again, I don't think the regulatory environment was so friendly before Sam and FTX went up in flames. Yeah, I would add just one other thing, which is Ajit is good at talking in parables and metaphors. So I will add another one, which is that there's a good at talking in parables and metaphors so i will i will

add another one which is that you know there's a parable of like the scorpion and the tortoise and it's like the scorpion needs to cross the river and he asked the tortoise the tortoise says well i'm just going to sting you you're just going to sting me and the scorpion says why would i do that like if i sting you then i'm going to sink and drown too and so he says yeah fair enough and then they get on he gets on the tortoise and halfway through he stings him and as they're're both sinking and they're both about to die, the tortoise says, why do you do that? He says, it's in my nature. You know, it's like I think that part of that is in the absence of new legislation, regulators are going to pursue their mandate forcefully and their interpretation of it. Right. So and that's why we get this very humorous situation where according to the securities regulator,

every token is a security. And according to the commodities regulator, every token is a commodity, right? It's like, those things can't both be true. I don't think at the same time, I'm not a lawyer, but it does make sense, doesn't it? That the commodities regulators views, interprets the world in one way

and the securities regulator interprets in the other and will pursue their mandate as best they can. Right. But their mandate is to protect consumers. Right. We've discussed that. Dan made the very eloquent point that that is exactly what they're supposed to be doing. But they didn't.

This is all retroactive after the consumers got completely washed out. That to me is the problem. But Scott, to be fair, you know, the SEC did send Do Kwon a letter at the Misari mainnet elevator and everyone was up in arms. Right. At that time, all of us, the entire industry was trying to defend Do Kwon. And then the damn thing blew up. And now everyone is trying to distance themselves from Do Kwan. So it's hard. You know, being a regulator is like being a parent. You can't really do much when things are on the way up. Right. So your kids are getting good grades. They might be doing funny things on the side, but you don't you can't really say anything. So so I think being a regulator is hard. And unfortunately, the thing is, regulators mandate

is not to make the rules. Right. They have some discretion in enforcing the rules, which, you know, which rules and in which scenarios and so on. You know, they have a limited budget and so on, so forth. But, you know, so we do need new rules. Right. We clearly this asset class does not fit the existing frameworks. That's that's pretty clear. And the industry also so far hasn't really tried very hard to, you sort of to push for new legislation i think that's something we have to do now so this is a good thing and i think one thing people are not you know paying attention to is that regulation can be a very very good thing i think depending if we make good rules right if you look at section 230 uh for the web 2 platforms like social media

you know there is a whole set of rules which protect Facebook from the content that Facebook users post on Facebook. So they have no liability for stupid things people say. Now, crypto needs rulemaking of that sort from the tech front, where essentially if you build good technology and somebody uses it for bad purposes, you're not in trouble for that. So I think there is existing internet regulation that's quite applicable to the technology that we are building but at the same time when other people's money is involved right so so there needs to be some level of consumer protection and asset protection but obviously the current frameworks do not apply this tech you can't force the you know

the the the the 12 federal agencies and their frameworks and the 50, 100 plus state agencies, and they don't agree on most things. So right now, you know, the US regulatory architecture is not built for financial innovation, and it's not working for asset protection. Dodd-Frank is clearly not a success. You know, Basel III and IV haven't protected the banks. So we clearly need a more cleaner regulatory architecture and technology stack. And that's kind of what we're building, right? So there is an opportunity to kind of look at things from the first principles and say what do we need and that's what the industry needs to be pushing for instead of saying no we don't need any rules but we do need some rules but we need better rules than the ones we have today

i'd like to add on that point um because the the subject of section 230 is interesting and also some of the other laws that were created in the 1990s to set the conditions for the internet to succeed, like the Telecommunications Act. These are things that where the United States was a leader in creating the conditions for this industry to succeed. And I think that that's something that we can all agree is lacking here in the United States. You know, depending on your interpretation of regulations and so forth, there's some nuance. But what's obvious is that there is no consensus in government that this is a good thing or any sort of drive to put in place laws that will create a durable and lasting framework for Web3 to succeed. And that's a very interesting dynamic because the U.S. has long been a leader in technology and financial services, which are the two industries that this technology promises

to disrupt the most. And at the time in the 1990s, the U.S. had most of the internet connections, most of the PCs, most of the venture capital industry and so forth and so became a leader in web one and and web two uh this time is very different like technology tools are far more distributed uh dan just said in our in our private chat you know they weren't a leader in mobile payments that's true today the mobile revolution is happening everywhere um all at once right It's not just happening in the US and now they're a laggard in some respects. So there's no guarantee here that the US will succeed in spite of its lack of clarity in the laws. If anything, that could be

its death knell. And already we're seeing other countries stepping up and opening up. Hong Kong recently has reversed some of its laws around banking crypto companies. More dramatic is what's happening in the GCC, specifically in places like Dubai and Abu Dhabi. You know, Abu Dhabi launched a $2 billion Web3 fund to support entrepreneurs. There's nothing like that at all in the U.S. Now, the U.S. doesn't need that. We don't need the government to bankroll subsidized companies. That's what the venture capital industry is for. That's something that countries that don't already have an established culture of entrepreneurship or deep VC industry or talent needs to do in order to attract those things. But that's what other countries are doing.

And this isn't just a matter of regulatory arbitrage, which is something some people say, like, oh, we'll go to the place with the most lacks. We're seeing proactive, long, long term thinking from governments to try to drive adoption and innovation and company formation and capital formation in their countries. And that's something that people should pay attention to. So if, in fact, there is this massive government crackdown, it's just a self-defeating exercise in so many ways. We live in a digital world. All of these entities exist online. Geography matters less than it ever has before. So rather than trying to fight against the change, think of ways to create the framework for it to grow in the right kind of way so that it benefits the U.S., doesn't harm them. One thing I would add to that is, you know, we tend to overly anchor on the U.S.

And I think and there is a reason for it, right? Because U.S. dollars, I mean, crypto has driven a lot of dollarization. It's strategically important for U.S. national security and the adoption of dollar instruments around the world, right? So there's all kinds of benefits to the U.S. But obviously, there is quite a bit of exposure for the industry as well in the United States because of the stable coins and so on. Now, we are seeing some very negative attitudes in other parts of the world, too.

Like in India, it's not particularly crypto-friendly. Canada has gotten stricter and stricter over a period, over the years. So, so I think there is kind of global coordination we're starting to see. And, you know, even the policymakers and regulators recognize that there is need for, you know, this is fundamentally internet of money. So internet of value. So there is probably a need for harmonization and coordination. Now Europe has driven, you know, for once, Europe has kind of driven sensible rulemaking relative to what's going on in India and the US, right?

So I think there is, we are starting to see conversations between US regulators and, you know, European regulators around what's a sensible way to, you know, structure rulemaking around this. Most recently, we had U.S. legislators visit France and Belgium to sort of discuss what the European approach is. So I think there is an overreaction right now, but I don't see that lasting. I think a lot of people know the competitive value or the competitive advantage that this creates for this technology can create for their economy.

And it's going to happen anyway. Right. So when we talk about the market prices, I don't think of prices as a validation of anything in crypto. You know, we've seen some very strange things go up and down. But at the same time, I think what's clear from the market's response is that crypto isn't going away. You can't put this genie back in the box. So, you know, the market is pretty clear. Even institutional buyers are pretty clear that, you know, crypto is here to stay and irrespective of this overreaction. So people are quite, I'm quite comfortable, you know, in my own portfolio and everything that crypto is here to stay. But I think, you know, what crypto industry needs to do is it needs to mirror the kind of global coordination we are seeing on policy and then work across, coordinate on a set of standards around the world and not just focus entirely on the United States. Because regulators and policymakers are talking to each other all the time.

So we need to bring best practices. I'm glad we're talking about the global scene because just quickly, not only do we focus too much on the U.S., but for the longest time, the fear was the strict regulatory environment is going to push projects out of the U.S. It seems to me that has already happened. I mean, more and more, we're interviewing some DeFi tool or platform at a conference, and they say, well, we operate everywhere but the U.S. Because companies just say, well, that's it. It's too hard to navigate. I mean, again, look at the fact that the only publicly traded U.S. exchange still gets their ass handed to them on staking, something they've been doing for a while. So I don't see how you win. And I wrote a column about this recently after going to NFT Paris. It seemed to me, Ajit, you mentioned France. It seems to me that places like France

and other parts of Europe are just being much more welcoming. Yes, they have their own rules. Like someone replied to me and said, what are you talking about? France just said it's going to tighten the registration requirement. Fine. But they're still allowing companies to register and not making it take years like the SEC does. They say, oh, we have an open door. Where's the open door? How do we reach you? So yeah, the fear is the U.S. is going to lose in this area of technology to other countries. And I think that's that should be a legitimate carrot to motivate U.S. regulators. But it doesn't seem like it is. They've lost. It's a real concern. So it's over. They've lost. I'm sorry. This technology moves at the speed of light and we're going in one direction and everybody else is going in another direction. There's not a sensible new

crypto platform company that's saying, you know what we need to do? Go start in the United States. It's just not happening. Anyone who is here is moving or focusing offshore and anyone who's starting anything new, which you would think would be the next five to 10 years of development, right, is starting somewhere else. It's over here. I'm not saying that we can't have crypto, but I'm saying that we will not be leading in this space ever. So, Scott, I don't necessarily agree with that.

I mean, as an angel investor, I see some of the most bleeding edge technology and projects still coming out of the U.S., right? I'm not saying that the teams aren't in the US. I'm not saying the team's innovators are not in the US. I'm saying that they won't be operating in the United States. US citizens will be blocked from using it. It's not sustainable for them to live and operate in the US. And the US won't be in this area.

That's clear. The US will not be the leader in this. Exactly. That's all I'm saying. So listen, obviously, Binance is under attack. Why Bitcoin is rising? I want to talk about both of those things now since it is theoretically the title. Although I think we've talked around that.

We have addressed that very indirectly. But first of all, to Ajit's point, you said something which I love. You said price action doesn't alter your view of anything fundamentally happening in the space. I would love to say that Bitcoin is sitting at $28,500 today because people saw the banking system collapse and they're rushing it. No. Right. We've seen this in every single cycle. At this point in the four-year cycle, even where there's a move to Bitcoin and all the liquidity goes there and then eventually Bitcoin stabilizes

and it exits and it trickles down to all coins, all of those things. Even Michael Saylor on my Twitter space has recently said, this is a bunch of crypto people rushing into Bitcoin. It's not a bunch of new people rushing into Bitcoin, which I thought was a very shocking revelation for someone like him to say.

So I just want to outright say, I'm very excited that Bitcoin is rising, but I don't think it's because of it. We also know that like literally CZ could just be like having Binance buy enough Bitcoin to push the price up to change the narrative. I'm not saying that's happening, but this market is small enough that something like that could happen. Right. So I think that in general, I agree with Ajit, which is that, you know, we should be if you're interested in this industry, then you should be looking at what kinds of new applications and technologies that people are building.

The price will kind of follow from there. Like it's one fault, one should follow the other, not the other way around. But there are some interesting dynamics in this industry where the value of the assets actually does matter. You know, if the price of crypto goes up, then that means that the treasuries of DAOs and other applications increases, because still to this day, that's where they keep a lot of their assets. And that gives them the ability to hire more people and to spend more money in developing applications. The same is true in traditional, you know, capital markets, like the amount of venture capital raised and the valuations of

tech startups in and of itself doesn't lead to new, you know, is not is not the innovation, but it actually can help to to create some of the conditions. So I think that that is important to understand. And also, I'm not sure Michael Saylor probably knows more about the subject than I do, considering that's his business. But, you know, we have we run a Bitcoin ETF here in Canada. It's listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. And so we track what's going on in the Bitcoin world.

And there have been some interesting data points that have come out recently. The number of new addresses has hit an all-time high and has continued to move higher. But more importantly is the number of addresses with a balance of at least $100 worth of bitcoin has also increased so yeah that to me that suggests oh and and whereas the the number of addresses in other categories like in the sort of like larger dollar value have not increased that much so what that tells me is that you've got some net new um people coming into the space buying a a small to medium-sized amount you know a few hundred dollars maybe a few thousand dollars worth of bitcoin and i think that's that's kind of interesting. Another thing that we've been watching is that the correlations between Bitcoin and other asset classes has started to diverge slightly. You know, I think the story last year was the whole milkshake theory about

the dollar kind of sucking all liquidity out of the system and all risk assets kind of going to one in terms of correlations. The Nasdaq and Bitcoin, almost like Bitcoin is trading like a FANG stock. It wasn't trading like some uncorrelated store of value hedge asset. But now we're starting to see that decoupling. And I think that's a trend that you want to follow quite closely. And then the final thing, which I think is just an interesting thing in general, which is that the percentage of trading volume that is happening on not on centralized exchanges is happening on decentralized exchanges is nearing think long term is a positive thing, because it's been the problem recently has been that these things that were supposed to be on ramps and infrastructure have become the industry itself and they become these's more to um i can't remember who brought up the four-year cycle maybe that was you scott but basically like bitcoin right now is uh over time its share of overall market cap has been declining right over time with peaks and valleys but right now it's at one of

those points it was actually quite high so right now it's close to 47 percent and we saw in the lead up to the bull market of late 2020, early 21, that the share of market cap increased quite significantly in that period. Now, at the time, it was going from like 60 to 75 at its very, very peak right before the bull market began. Bitcoin was a staggering percentage of the overall market. So it's still much less now than it was then. But this is the kind of thing where we do see a lead up occurring. So like taken together. So, you know, I don't look at just the price and I don't think that's the most important driver, but taken together, you consider all these quantitative measures, the price action and what we're seeing in terms of

the development of some of the technology like decentralized exchanges. And I actually do think we're in a pretty good position. Right. And also, given the fact that there's all of this negative headline risk and yet the diminishing returns of that headline risk on the value of assets tells me that we're maybe running out of sellers who give a shit about this. Yeah, I mean, those are the like classic bottom signal is when like bad news is not bad news anymore. Right? It's just like there's no one left to sell. I agree with that 100%. I just want to make it clear.

I was saying I just don't buy the narrative that we're seeing like this mainstream move into the asset class because of what's happening in global events. I 100% agree with you that things are always trending up in the right direction for crypto as an asset class, Alex. And just to clarify, like since January, there have been 4 million new Bitcoin addresses with a balance of at least $100 created. So that's meaningful, but it's not billions of people all around the world. Exactly. And when we talk about how correlated Bitcoin remains to mainstream markets, a big data point I thought was, I guess it was already two weeks ago, but on the Sunday that Treasury and the FDIC and the Fed came out and announced we're going to backstop all depositors, you

saw crypto bounce back. And so the next day everyone said, see, crypto is up because people realize that the banks suck and you can't trust the banks. Not quite. I know, you know, that's what they want. No, no, no, no. If you look at the Binance volumes, right, it looks, I mean, Binance volumes are quite low.

I mean, we're looking at a probably I think a monthly or two month low on Binance Bitcoin trading volumes after they turned the fees on. So I still buy Scott's thesis that it's mostly crypto people buying Bitcoin. But by the way, the ultimate irony was, you know, crypto going up when the government stepped in to backstop a banking crisis. Right. I mean, what are we doing here? Because the whole point was supposed to be that crypto. They did save USDC, right, for all it's worth. So whether intentionally or unintentionally, but I do want to circle back to Binance, though, and Dan, sort of to the initial question of this conversation, which is, I obviously asked you how difficult it is to parse the news on Binance, but obviously you've dug pretty deep in the weeds on this, I would imagine. So we talked about, you know, what does the CFTC have, right? And when you actually dive deep and

read into the complaint here, they have quite a lot. You know, and it's clear that they took their time and waited to drop this until they had done a lot of kind of investigating. There's internal chats, right? There's stuff that makes CZ himself look pretty bad. I mean, the longtime meme of four different traders and they're all CZ but wearing different hats. I mean, it looks like that meme was actually what was happening in some cases. So it isn't great. You know, it's hard to think. And it is funny because, you know, Binance would say, well, we're not a U.S. company. We're not a U.S. company. I think the biggest takeaway from this for me is doesn't matter what you say. If in practice, 16 percent of your customers or maybe it was 16 percent of volume is happening in the U.S.,

then the U.S. agency can come after you and say, we don't like what you're doing here. And if you believe, and this is alleged, but if you believe that Binance U.S. is not a separate entity and is effectively an arm of the original, then I can see how that becomes a concern. But I guess the next logical question then becomes, and I don't think it matters so much in the eyes of the regulator or of the courts,

but CZ himself has said countless times that when they started, there was no real regulation in place. They basically, he said, you know, it was like the automobile. When they started with cars, there was no laws because you didn't need them. And then the Reyes cars got faster and bigger and less safe. You needed to. So they openly admitted that they did a lot of things that were likely not going to be compliant, waiting for regulation. So the question then becomes, is all of this stuff that happened in the past and perhaps finance started a bit shady and has evolved into really becoming regulatory and compliant. A lot of people would say the same for Tether, by the way, right? That Tether originally was shady and eventually with time,

they became compliant, got fully backed. Or is this an ongoing concern? I mean, they came out and said yesterday, I think the CFTC, one of them said this is ongoing fraud, which is why we jumped in now. But that was to address the concerns that people were saying this is all stuff that happened in the past. Well, I guess the question is, is Binance a bad actor now or was Binance potentially just kind of doing things that were seemingly normal in crypto four years ago? Or more importantly, for the future of this company, let's remember it's a giant business. Can Binance say, OK, sorry about the past. Tell us what we need to do to continue as a going concern? Or is it like, no, no, no, now you're done. And Ajit mentioned, you know, the

ICO era, I would say the ICO era hasn't ended in the sense that the SEC every week still announces some action against some company that did a token four years ago, right? So I guess the answer would be, you know, Binance can't really get away with saying all that was in the past and we're sorry, tell us what kind of fine we need to pay. It doesn't seem to me it was mostly in the past since the CFTC is concerned with allowing the derivatives trading in the U.S., which it still is or was doing. So that part of it is ongoing at the very least. Yeah, it's interesting because Binance U.S US does not offer derivatives, right?

So yeah, that's the part that I found a bit strange. But I mean, Alex, where do you stand on this? I know it's somewhat irrelevant on the long-term trajectory, I think. But I mean, what are your thoughts on everything you've read here? No comment. I'm going to take the position that innocent until proven guilty, but all the facts will reveal themselves

in the goodness of time on this one. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, except for SPF. But Ajit, I would love your... Yeah, so look, Binance... I mean, Binance, I'll take the fifth, just like Alex, Binance is an ex-employer. I consulted with Binance in the UK, so I cannot comment. I'm trying to find a tweet that I know John Deaton, the lawyer, had referenced the library case recently and saying, you know, this is I found it.

One second. I'm just going to pull this up because it's too good to what we're kind of talking about here. This was the SEC and Jeremy Kaufman from Library, who's the CEO, said, Mr. Kaufman, he said, you're a liar, Peter, the court. Wait, wait, you're lying right now. Okay, we'll get to the main, he said, this is what Jeremy Kaufman said to the regulator. Because you're, Dan, you asked the question,

like, what are they going to do moving forward to become compliant? This is what he said, I will do anything. They can say it right now. I'll destroy the company. I'll give them every dollar in the bank account. I will fire everyone. I will shut down everything and I will give you the pre-mine. Is it not a security now, Peter? Right. I don't know if you guys read this. That was from that court case. And he says, these are simple questions. If the rule of law is real, that these are questions that are answerable. Why can't anyone tell me if that's legal? If the rule of law is clear and fair notice is in the defense, because the average person, the average person can understand the law.

And these are very clear questions ought to have yes and no answers that the regulators ought to be able to answer. Basically, the point being, he said, I will literally do anything you want to be compliant, to clear this out, to make this right. And they say, we don't care. Well, and also, they don't want to have to go through the work of evaluating every single token. I mean, as someone on this show said earlier, what are there like 10,000 shit coins now that really shouldn't exist, have no excuse for existing? It used to be like you'd say, here's our special business purpose and here's what our chain does. And so, you know, what they don't want to say is, we think every single thing is a security. But that's clear that that's what they believe, and they don't want to have to go through the work of evaluating each one on its merits.

They just basically think, library's a security, this one's a security, there's nothing you can do, but they don't want to say there's nothing you can do outright. That's what it seems like to me. I mean, there was the moment when some recent complaint that actually was about something else. I think it was the insider trading complaint against Coinbase. It said, by the way, we think these specific nine tokens are securities. And Coinbase missed them. And Coinbase said, well, actually, only seven. You know, two of them we suspended trading of whatever. And I don't know where that stands. Interestingly, Paul Greenwald basically said they can't list securities because Coinbase as a rule doesn't list securities. And I thought that was kind of cute because just because you say it doesn't mean it's going to convince them. But as I understand it, Coinbase didn't pull them. Binance pulled them to do a little bit

of grandstanding and say, oh, see, we're compliant. But, you know, it just seems to me that there's no way they're going to go through and parse every single individual token on the market. But at the same time, Gary doesn't want to say what he clearly believes, which is other than Bitcoin, everything's in security. And let's also remember a watershed moment back in 2018 was when that former SEC official Bill Hinman said, no, no, we also think that ETH is OK. But it's clear that Gary doesn't agree with that. Yeah, I mean, right now you have the CFTC literally listing in this Binance complaint Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin and a couple of stable coins. I find that curious. I don't see how stable coins are commodities. I'll push back on that one, obviously, as sort

of a slight to the SEC, which I guess leads to the obvious question, is some of this, it's not at the core, but are they utilizing this opportunity to jockey for a regulatory position here? CFTC wants it, SEC wants it, let's put it in there. I mean, we literally live in a world right now where if you read court documents, ETH is both a security and a commodity. Yeah, the answer is yes. They're both trying to stake a claim. And that's been the case for years, by the way, this jockeying. I mean, even you could throw in IRS there

when it comes to how do we tax crypto. The real issue, and this is the one piece of value that was in that Biden executive order, was pointing out and acknowledging that the various regulatory bodies and agencies don't agree on this stuff. And they're not on the same page and they're not aligned. Yeah. So there is a book, you know, Professor Viral Acharya of NYU wrote a book right when Dodd-Frank was ratified by the Congress. He said that this regulatory architecture of having one agency for everything and, you know, lots of different federal agencies is going to cause problems.

And there are two sorts of problems. One is they're going to jockey for, you know, jurisdiction. And the second one is that things will fall through the cracks. So if you look at India and the UK, right, we don't have a separate commodities regulator and a securities regulator because at the end of the day it doesn't really matter right if it's if something is essentially missold or is being is hurting the consumers then it doesn't matter what you call it so i think so we have conduct regulators right so india merged the sec and the cftc and a lot of problems went away uk again we have a conduct regulator the fca and we have a prudential regulator you know the the, which worries about the stability of banks. So that sort of a clean regulatory architecture kind of prevents all of these problems. But that's not how we have it in the United States, right? It's lots of federal regulators, lots of state regulators. You can't win.

I mean, if you're an honest entrepreneur trying to run a decent financial business, like a lot of crypto people have been, it's really hard. I mean, if you're offshore and you're doing, you know, strange things, it's much easier than if you're trying to comply within the United States. I mean, that's just not right. You should make the rules should make it easier for honest, honorable, you know, business people to do business. And they should make it hard for people who are probably, you know, shady to do business. but it's the exact opposite in the u.s right now that's got to change what does this all mean for coinbase we got five minutes left so um the expectation you would think from the sec that coinbase delists everything except for bitcoin eth and litecoin and just becomes an exchange for three tokens, right? And there's people who will say, hey, Coinbase should just

not fight back. They should just become compliant. But there's no business there, right? So what do you think? And also, it's very important to note, there is no regulatory action against Coinbase right now, just a Wells notice. So that has not been followed through with any sort of case, just to be clear that people seem to be confusing that. But what do you think now Coinbase right now, just a Wells notice. So that has not been followed through with any sort of case, just to be clear that people seem to be confusing that. But what do you think now Coinbase can do moving forward? And if they, of course, fight back and we do see this lawsuit, I think we're talking about years of litigation. Dan, you can go ahead. Alex, go ahead. I just think it's obvious they are going to fight back. And so there's going to be a lack of clarity for a long time.

Anyone looking for a quick resolution to this is going to have to wait for a very long time. I think Paul and Brian are doing a phenomenal job. They're doing all the right things. They're pursuing legislative as well as court action, wherever appropriate. They're appealing to the strategic self-interest of the United States and the people. They're essentially building community. They're a good actor. Clearly, they've spent a lot of money

and effort to build robust compliance and controls infrastructure for years, which is why they're able to do all these fiat on-ramps and sustain them. I think they deserve a lot better than they've got. I think Paul and his team are doing a phenomenal job. I I think we should, the rest of the industry should stand behind. Yeah. Just to add to that, the narrative around Coinbase has been really interesting.

You know, earlier we talked about the narrative around Binance. We all know that Coinbase's kind of reputation was the compliant one, the one playing nice with regulators. Of course, that was also Sam's reputation and Mr. Washington. But the irony is, I feel like for a while, DGENs kind of criticized Coinbase and they were like, oh, Coinbase are the suits and, you know, it's lame. Well, guess what? Now Coinbase is your hero because they're going to be the shield. And, you know, it's like the meme we all love in crypto now, the sword, the daggers falling and someone's lying in bed. Coinbase is taking on that role. I'm glad that Ajit mentioned Paul.

I think Paul Grewal has been really good with kind of pushing the limit a little bit and getting much more vocal on Twitter. He has to be careful because he's the chief legal officer at a publicly traded company and there's all kinds of shit he has to align with. But I think they're doing a good job. They certainly can't back down. All that said, when it comes to crypto, no company is too big to fail. I think that's what the Wells notice shows us. Again, you're right, Scott, to point out it's just a warning at this point. But they're publicly traded. And yet that doesn't

mean anything. I mean, they could be fined in all manner of being. They could fine to high holy hell. They could be put out of business. Anything could happen. I mean, look how people thought FTX was so big and trustworthy. Reminder, that thing only existed for three years. You know, so Binance could go down. Any of these giants, if we think of it, could go down. And it collapses in three minutes. FTX is not a fair, I mean, FTX is not a fair comparison. That's a fraud.

Of course. Let's just be fair to Coinbase here. And, you know, Coinbase is a business that's been around a long time. With FTX, we always knew Sam was doing shady stuff, right? I mean, El Ameda was dumping on retail. It's public news. There's a whole bunch of redacted ecosystem coins that were being dumped on retail. Sam was launching scam coins like Manny and Moore and whatnot.

So I think it's not a fair comparison. So Coinbase has been predominantly a very good actor over a long period of time. So and it's a stable. They've gone through Sarbanes-Oxley. They've gone through a whole bunch of controls infrastructure. Now, anyways, the point being, CC, one of the things we need to change in this industry is, you know, if you look at some of the signal messages, the alleged signal messages, then one of the Binance apparently compliance officers said, we close two eyes. There is a there is a funny phrase over there. So I think we need to stop closing two eyes when numbers go up.

I think at this point, crypto industry needs to sort of acknowledge that we exist in a wider society. And we have to work with all of these policy organizations and the wider voters and everybody else outside of crypto Twitter. And just numbers going up is not good enough, right? I think we need to sort of grow up a little bit and work with the other institutions in the society and take a more responsible approach. So there's work for us as well. Look, Kathy Wood knows it. I mean, if there's any company in crypto, I would bet on to exist for many, many, many years to come. It's Coinbase.

I mean, let me make that clear, But I just think it's, you know, no one is completely safe in this industry. That's obvious. No, but they could end up building a huge moat. You know, when you think about Coinbase, if there is good regulation, Coinbase could be a big winner of that. It better do it.

The industry is not going to grow to 42 trillion or 100 trillion like stocks and bonds without some sort of sensible rulemaking. We're not kind of structured to grow to 42 trillion or 100 trillion like stocks and bonds without some sort of sensible rulemaking we're not kind of structured to grow into the sizes we're just very happy with one trillion but i think that's just us being you know unfair to the potential of this industry the potential is much bigger we gotta get it get or get some things organized here yeah i would only add one thing on the point about building a moat. Sometimes it helps just to be the last man standing. I mean, there's been a lot of, you know,

competitors that have fallen by the wayside for not. Survive. Look at Bitcoin. Be the honey badger. Yeah, exactly. Like Coinbase is the Lindy effect, right? It's like the longer it sticks around, the more likely it will be to stick around, just like Bitcoin.

And I think part of that is because of the approach that they've taken. And I think if I wasn't clear, Ajit made a good point, which is that the industry should stand behind good actors who are trying to advance everyone's collective interest.

And there we are against time. So, okay, listen, I'm going to make a promise to the audience and to the three of you. Next time I have the three of you on, we're going to have a very positive conversation about all the amazing things that are being built and all the reasons that we're all still here. Every once in a while, I find myself in one of these conversations, and I've made sort of a pledge to be more positive, and it comes out as a very negative.

And I think that it's very clear that literally all four of the people here are betting their entire lives on the success of crypto and are all in to some degree on the industry. So I think I can only speak for myself and Alex, like you're my favorite person, literally talk about all the things that are being built in the incredible adoption. So, you know, sometimes it's just I think because of that, I find it a little frustrating and we end up down these rabbit holes. But it's also impossible not to talk about all the all of the actual things that are happening right now in negativity. But I do want all of your takes on all the amazing things being built in the future of crypto and all that. So we're going to we're going to do it again. I want to thank all of you guys. Dan, Alex, Ajit, he's Yoda. He's really Yoda. I want to thank you guys for sharing the time. And like I said, next time it'll be a big smiley face conversation of unicorns, puppies, and ice cream. And everyone, I will be back tomorrow, of course, 9.30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Tomorrow we do the weekly news review. And so basically I'm just going to be punching myself repeatedly in the face for 45 minutes doing this again probably. But it'll be fun. And also I'm going to be on Yahoo Finance in about an hour at 1130. And I'm literally shocked that they've invited me back again because every time I go on there, I just have some horrible takes about traditional finance and everything they ask me. So it should be fun. I'll see you guys all there.

Thank you guys. Once again, really awesome to have the three of you guys. Thank you. It's been a pleasure. Cheers. Yeah. Let's go.