The Wolf Of All Streets - Miami Mayor Francis Suarez Speaks About Being A Bitcoin President | Richard Heart Sued By SEC | Crypto Town Hall

Episode Date: July 31, 2023

Crypto Town Hall is a daily Twitter Spaces hosted by Scott Melker, Ran Neuner & Mario Nawfal. Every day we discuss the latest news in the 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 $60,000!  👉 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/   ►►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.

Hey, good morning, everybody. Just getting obviously everything sorted here, but looks like it's going to be a lot easier today. We don't need to bring up 10, 11, 12, 15 guests because we have Mayor Francis Suarez here from the beautiful city of Miami, my former home and where my father actually grew up. So you guys know I have very deep ties with Miami. We're just going to give it a minute more to let people get in the room. I encourage everybody to hit that little arrow up top, share this, get more people in the room. Of course, we also share the recording afterwards on playback so that more people can listen. Good morning, Dan. You're up here as well. Dan is the wonderful guy who's been helping us facilitate some of these amazing conversations.

Dan, how's everything over there at Capitol Hill this Monday morning? Oh, it's going great. Thanks for having me. I know I had some technical difficulties last Friday, but it's always a pleasure to be up here on the town hall. You guys got a great program going, and we're always happy to be a part of it. Yeah, Dan, you managed to cut out the other day right at the moment when I was praising you and in all of your glory. I know. I saw that. I was driving, actually.

I was in rural Pennsylvania. I was on the road. But, boy, I appreciate the kind words. And that was a great, great presentation, great conversation. I hope we can do more of those. Yeah, Twitter Spaces is some of, or I guess we'll call it X Spaces now, has still been notoriously glitchy that day. It took me about five minutes to even get onto stage for whatever reason.

So we appreciate that everybody suffers through our technical difficulties with us. I think we, obviously, like I said, it'll be on playback, so everybody will be able to listen to this entire conversation. I think we should go ahead and get started because we have limited time. Mayor Suarez, how

are you doing this morning? It's a pleasure to speak with you once again. I'm doing well. just came back from iowa lincoln day dinner last weekend and spent the weekend in iowa so it's uh introducing myself uh to iowa and it was uh very successful uh we had a great um speech at the at the lincoln day dinner where everyone was limited to 10 minutes and they were pretty fair about it. They were actually extremely fair about it. I got a couple of jokes about it.

And then just spent some time traveling or traversing the state and made it back late last night. So I'm here this morning. All good. Yeah, so you obviously have a national focus now as you're running. Maybe we should just start from the beginning. Obviously, we're going to get more into Bitcoin, crypto and your policy ideas there. But why did you make this decision to run for president in 2024? And I saw, you know, what I felt was a decision that voters need to make. I think the first decision that they need to make is do they want a repeat of the 2020 election? I think that's the first decision they have to make. And all the polling shows that voters don't want to see a repeat of the 2020 election. And if they don't, then the question remains, you know, what do they want to see? And I thought, you know, that they would want someone that was generational, with a track record of success, with a vision for the have done as mayor and I can do as a presidential candidate, like

Hispanics, like voters that are young, voters under 30 that the Republican Party lost in the last presidential election to Joe Biden by 26 points, and urban voters, people who live in cities. We have converted the metropolitan area of Miami from a plus 30 for Democrat area to a plus 10 for Republican area. That's a 40 point swing. So I have a track record of that. Then I lean on my track record as mayor in terms of how I've run this city, the kind of ecosystem that we've created, which is a pro-economic, a pro-saf, and low-tax city, and then projecting that out to the country, how does that, you know, qualify me to run for president? Well, some of the biggest problems in this country, I think I'm uniquely qualified to solve. First, because I'm a mayor and mayors

solve problems. We don't just blame people for them, which is a tendency that we're seeing in Washington. Secondly, the problems are problems that I've tackled at some level already. So the deficit is sort of the number one issue when you poll people and ask them, what is the number one issue? They'll say inflation, the cost of living increases, the fact, my dollars didn't go as far as it used to. And so that, you know, I'm the only elected official. I'm the only candidate, whether elected official or otherwise, that has cut a public sector budget by 20%. That's the exact amount that we need to cut the federal budget to balance it. Secondly, as a Hispanic Republican president, I feel like I'm in a unique position to solve immigration for a lifetime. And then third, when you look at what

are the dynamic threats and the dynamic opportunities for this country to prosper and to create as much prosperity as possible for as many Americans, I'm the only candidate that has actually taken an ecosystem and sort of turned it around and created prosperity through innovation, through leaning into opportunities, and through being different from what we're seeing in other parts of the country. So, Mayor, hi. It's Ran speaking. I'm glad you mentioned all of these things.

And I'm very interested to know, I spent some time in America and I lived in Miami, which I love very much. I think we spent some time together when I was there. I'm very interested in your opinion to know, as someone who's on the inside, what do you believe today are the biggest threats and potentially the biggest opportunities in America? And maybe just start off by saying, what do you think today are the biggest threats and potentially the biggest opportunities in america and maybe just start off by saying what do you think as someone who's running for president what are the things that are the most broken in in america right now i want to see if your lens equals what we see from the outside yeah look i mean i think we're seeing an economic, our current president calls it Bidenomics. Bidenomics for me is a situation where the poor get poor.

And they get poor because our federal government does not know how to balance a budget, continues to create money. And then the Fed, to counteract that creation of money, needs to increase interest rates to slow it down. And so you have the worst of both worlds, right? You have a situation where if you are someone who has your money in a bank account, a lot of people have their money basically in a bank account, you're losing purchasing power through inflation, right? The amount of money that your dollar can purchase is diminished. And then if you want to buy something, a house, for example, you know, you're seeing interest rates that you haven't seen in decades. So now it gets more expensive. So, you know, so basically the poor people in

our community are getting poor. And then you see the federal government not take advantage of certain opportunities that could create prosperity. And crypto is a good example where this administration has been completely oblivious to crypto and not taking a proactive approach where they could have created a statutory scheme that could have invited innovation, could have set clear rules and guidelines for custodial assets. And we could have had a lot of these offshore companies be offshore companies where we know we're living in a virtual world. And we could have advanced even further in blockchain technology over the last five years, I think, if we would have had a proactive and beneficial statutory regulatory system, right? So what do I mean by that? Well, I think we could have had a good advancements on fractionalized ownership in debt and equity,

which I think is going to be a huge game changer for common people who want to just invest in assets that they would not have otherwise been able to invest in. So I think that's an opportunity and a threat. Obviously, the rise of China, what we're seeing China do is they're taking a half a trillion dollars of our trade deficit plus whatever they're stealing in our IP, which is valued at another quarter of a trillion to half a trillion dollars. And they're using it to subvert us in our own hemisphere. And frankly, to make investments throughout the world, I call it the bull constrictor method. They're lending money at low rates and building poor projects and other infrastructure projects through their Belt and Road Initiative. And then they're getting all kinds of concessions,

one of which is the ability to put a military base where they have a port, which could mean that they could put a military base theoretically as close to 50 miles from the United States because they built a port in the Bahamas. And obviously we've heard what they've done in Cuba where they they have a spy base and now are considering a military training base. What they've done with fentanyl through our southern border. And just generally what they're doing economically. You know, they're building up their military capabilities. We're heavily dependent right now for advanced microchips on Taiwan, which is a major strategic vulnerability for the United States and a national security issue. You know, they're doing extremely well in 5G.

They're graduating more PhD computer engineers than we are. And they're continuing to make advancements in supercomputing and in quantum computing, which could be a problem going forward for cryptography. So that's, I mean, that's a super dynamic threat. You know, and they're doing much better in education than we are. So I know it's a mouthful, but those are some of the threats as I see it. So, okay. I mean, I think, yeah, I mean, there's obviously a lot going on and a lot to deal with. But I mean, if you were to be elected president, what are the first three things that you'd take care of?

And let's put them in order of priority. Because I'm trying to get an idea of where your head is in terms of priorities. So what would be the first three things that you deal with in terms of urgency? Yeah, I think the first three things you have to deal with are, first, you have to put forth a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or at least present a balanced budget. That immediately, if passed, is going to reduce inflation and reduce interest rates. Because it will, you know, when you balance a budget, you reduce inflation. When you reduce inflation, you can reduce interest rates. So that's the first thing and the second thing i would do uh is try to do a um something

that should have been done in the last administration but an abraham accord with between saudi and israel the middle east is completely um we're completely disconnected from the middle east uh and then the third thing is I would declare, and probably this would be number two, and that would be number three, but number two would be declare a national emergency on our border. Our border right now is a human trafficking crisis.

The amount of fentanyl deaths in the US are 80 to 90,000, which is the equivalent of a 747 crashing every single day. That's a national tragedy. And we cannot solve immigration as a long-term issue, which should, by the way, be an asset for this country, not a liability. But we need to do it by first controlling the inflow and the outflow of what's happening at our border, which is a major problem. And then, of course, dealing with the hemisphere generally as a strategic concern, which we have not. I want to zoom a bit more in on Bitcoin and crypto, obviously. We had an interesting conversation on Friday with Representative Congressman Richie Torres, talking obviously

about the crypto bill and what was happening there. And I pressed him pretty hard asking why it seemed that the Democrats had this anti-crypto army, this aggressive stance against it. And he actually made the point that that bill had passed committee bipartisan and that it was actually an issue of the gerontocracy. Effectively, that the older members of Congress, Senate, and the government don't get it. They're scared of it. They're pushing back against it. And the younger members, even in both parties, generally are starting to push for it, understand the side of financial inclusion. Is that the take that you would have as well? Or do you think that this is a partisan issue, even if it shouldn't be? No, it definitely shouldn't be. And I would agree. I think it is a generational problem. I think for some reason on the Republican side,

even generationally, there's less skepticism, I think, because of the general consensus that, A, you want more competition, more freedom in economic assets, and B, Republicans don't tend to be as protectionist as Democrats. Democrats have a tendency to want to protect people against themselves, right? And this concept that, you know, you're not smart enough to risk your own money, which I have a major issue with. And so, you know, I think that, I think that's, that there is some philosophical issue there, but I think generally speaking, the big problem is you have a president who's 80 years old, you have a secretary of treasury who's close to 80,

if not 80 already. You know, you have people that are very, very, you know, the senior leadership of Congress is extremely old. So yeah, I do think there's something to be said about the fact that there's a generational disconnect in understanding things that for our generation are quite simple. And now speaking more specifically about Bitcoin and crypto, of course, Miami led the charge over the last cycle, obviously, and through the years of COVID absolutely exploded with adoption of crypto. You take your salary in Bitcoin, of course, we know that a ton of companies have moved there. How can you leverage what you learned in that experience and the foresight you had to woo all of those companies to Miami? How

can you take that to the presidency and what would your policies be then related to Bitcoin and crypto? Wow, so much. I mean, it started with, after the how can I help tweet, which for those who maybe don't know about it, there was a moment in the country right after the SALT deduction,

which is a state and local tax deduction going away, which gave Florida a 13% to 14%, 15% advantage in income taxes that could not be deducted from the federal income tax. That was a huge macro moment that helped us. But at the same time, you had a situation where you had a city like New York winning the Amazon HQ2 price and then saying, no, thank you. You had a city like New York winning the Amazon HQ2 prize and then saying, no, thank you. You had a city like San Francisco who said, F Elon Musk. And at the time he said, message received and he left. Right. So what was important was a signaling effect in the country was if you're a successful business or you're a successful person, we don't want you. And so my response to that was a tweet that said,

what if we move Silicon Valley to Miami? And I responded, how can I help? And so it was a counter narrative. So that created a flood of interest, investment, et cetera. Right around the same time, I noticed that every time, and I was someone who was, I was on the blockchain task force on the blockchain foundation years before this moment. And so I realized that every time that far greater, larger community than what I think anyone really realized. And so I started by doing things that were, I thought, low risk,

like putting Satoshi's white paper on a website and people loved it. Then, you know, from there, we talked about how do we, you know, can we invest in Bitcoin as a city? Can our employees get paid in Bitcoin? Doing things to continue to be innovative. And we succeeded in pushing forward legislation that would allow us to analyze whether we could do it or to actually do it in the case of employees. I think I was employee number two to get paid in Bitcoin. And frankly, it was a great investment. And not just investment, it was a great investment in trying to build an ecosystem. We became number one in the nation in blockchain investments with a 2,000% increase year over year and $800 million in investments in Miami-based companies. And the other thing I learned is whenever you innovate and whenever you take chances, you're not going to hit 100% of the time and you're not always going to get it right.

No matter how much due diligence you do, no matter how well-intentioned you are, that's not going to happen. And so, you know, I think you have to be aware of that, be conscientious of that. And I think as a policymaker and as a public official, that's one of the biggest challenges because people are always afraid of being criticized. They're always afraid of maybe this doesn't work out or we're not sure how this Bitcoin thing is going to play out. And that is probably one of the largest single reasons why things don't advance. It's because people are afraid. And if you make a mistake, people will remind you forever. And it's sad that there's very little tolerance for, you know, getting something a little off and saying like, hey, look, you know.

I use the example of Netscape and Napster, right? For those of you who may or may not remember, you know, Netscape was like the first one of the first browsers. And Napster was one of the first music sharing companies. Well, those companies didn't make it, but the ideas and the technology that they created has revolutionized the world, right? In Pandora and Apple music and Spotify, and of course, uh, Google and Yahoo and Safari or whatever. So I, I think, you know, as a next generation public official, part of my job is to identify generational opportunities and to be the first to get there. Because what happens when you do that, as you said, is you help create the impetus for people

wanting to be in your community building and creating, which creates high paying jobs. We've created, we're number one in the nation in wage growth. We have the lowest unemployment in America. That influences our homicide rate. Our homicides are down by almost 35% this year from last year's 1960s or per capita low. So, you know, to all the critics who are out there who like to point out, you know, a project that didn't work or whatever, I would say, you know, look at the macro impact of what this has had on our city and how it impacts people's lives. Don't think about one project that didn't work out. You said something interesting and you said it on a podcast we recorded as well. When you first started talking about Bitcoin, you saw the analytics go crazy. And I think it's very clear that when you have a certain position on this asset,

you get sort of an outsized marketing push, either positive or negative for speaking about it. But I think you've put your money where your mouth is. You obviously implemented these things. You take your salary in Bitcoin. It feels like a lot of other politicians have attempted to capitalize on that fact in a very disingenuous manner. And it's just become a talking point where they think they can get a bit of extra press or a bit of extra attention by throwing out that they are supporting the asset class. salary and then couldn't answer very basic questions about what Bitcoin and Ethereum were and such. So how do you make sure that you stand out as the one who's a true adopter? And then once again, when you take that to the national stage, when you take that to Washington, you've explored putting Bitcoin on the balance sheet of a city. Can you do that on the balance sheet of a nation? Yeah. So I think to answer your first question, you have to continue to find ways to push the envelope. So the latest thing that I did was I borrowed money back by my Strike account,

which is the account that receives my salary in Bitcoin. So I actually Q&A'd enough Bitcoin, and I was actually able to use that to borrow money to actually buy an apartment, an income-producing asset. So for me, it's about the road to utility, right? I think one of the things that people who don't really understand Bitcoin often criticize it, they'll say, oh, well, it's not really, the utility is not really there, right? This is just like liquid gold or whatever, digital gold. And I said, no, look, first of all,

you've got to look at the fact that it's perfectly liquid, right? And that it can be traded in and out of, essentially, at 24 hours a day, it's more liquid than pretty much any other asset. Number two, in terms of utility, you already have, you know, a payment, a POS systems that are, you know,

that you're able to use, you know, debit cards and credit cards that'll take money directly out of your account. The problem is that nobody wants to actually give do a Bitcoin, right? So that's part of the reason why it doesn't become a sort of a more currency-like product right now. And I think it will in the future. That's one of my predictions. And, you know, and so I think that's part of it. I think the other part of it is calling out people who, like you said, you know, look, a lot of people say that, you know, and again, I'm not trying to call out the governor of

my state, you know, to just be critical, but it's very easy to be against central bank digital currencies. Okay. Everybody's against central bank digital currency for the obvious reasons, right? That, you know, essentially you don't want the government tracking or potentially tracking where your money is like nobody wants that but i haven't heard him say anything about bitcoin maybe i'm wrong maybe i missed it um uh but it's again easy to go try to jump in and say oh you're pro um you know bitcoin when you haven't actually said anything about bitcoin all you've done is criticize the one thing that is very easy to criticize because everybody hates central bank digital currency.

So, you know, I think you ought to call people out some level. And I think you have to continue to innovate. Yeah, I tend to agree. That was another name I was going to call out. I was supposed not to, but that was one of the keys where it seems decidedly disingenuous, at least in my mind. Dan, I know that you actually had a question or two. If you'd like to ask, you can feel free. Oh, yeah, yeah. So Mayor Suarez, great to connect. Appreciate you coming on stage with us. So in terms of the political campaign, I'd just love to hear more about how that's going. If you get on stage at the debate,

will you pledge to mention Bitcoin and crypto as an issue? Yes, I'd happily mention Bitcoin and crypto as an issue. Obviously, hold on one second. Obviously, I'm largely defined by that position.

It's one that I think is an asset for me, without a doubt. The campaign is going well. So the way I look at it is like this. And I kind of refer to it in my opening salvo, right? To me, there's a couple of questions. The first question is, do you want a repeat of 2020? And pretty much every person that asks this question too says no right but if you look at the polling that's where we're heading that is right if nothing changes between now

and i would say january 15th which is when the iowa caucuses begin that is that that is where we're heading right the two uh leading candidates for both parties are in a dominant position and that is nothing changes so if but if your answer is no and and what's interesting is there's an incongruity in the polling right there's an incongruity in the polling the polling will tell you that people do not want to repeat a 2020 um and uh and yet when you look at the polling you know on an individual basis it looks like that's exactly what they want and what they're going to get. So what we're seeing now is, and I'm a Republican, so what we're seeing now on the Republican side, I think, is people are starting to really get to know the candidates. It's the beginning process. I mean, I've only been in the race for a month.

This was my first time last weekend being able to really introduce myself to Iowa, and people loved it. So you're starting to see a recalibration, reshuffling. And, you know, obviously, you know, it benefits some candidates who are more retail oriented, who are more charismatic. And it's hurting some. We're seeing, you know, like I said, and again, not to pick on the governor, but his numbers have dropped precipitously from when he started and continue to drop. And you're seeing other people like the VAC go up. And, you know, and frankly, I think this is a great opportunity for me to start distinguishing myself from some of the Washington candidates who are very Washington-ized in their approach.

And I think I have to focus on the fact that I'm not from Washington, that I can't expand the party, that I have a track record of solving big problems, and that I'm not sort of bought in on this entire process as others are. And so, look, you also have to look at, I think this is something that'll happen over the next five months. People are going to start to do deep dives into people's backgrounds. And what they're going to see is two things. Either you have a lot of private sector success or you have, you know, some public sector success. But it's very hard to find a candidate that has both private sector and public sector success. And I have that, right? I've been successful turning around a public sector entity and I've had private sector success so that I'm tethered to the private sector and understand why it's important, why the private sector is important. Going back just a little bit to what are some of the innovative things that we can do as president in terms of federal policy. I think first of all, obviously you need to have a federal regulatory scheme that invites innovation instead of drives it. So that's the

first thing. We got to get this right because this could create generational opportunities for growing companies and industries and the industry. So that's number one. Number two, I still think you could do cool things like, I think the president can take his salary Right I mean the president Salaries you know 40-50% more than what I'm making As mayor You know obviously set by By law but yeah I mean

I think that's something that's cool that can be done in terms of Whether the government will hold assets In crypto that's something that we can look at But I think what's Interesting is not to fear Bitcoin I think what's interesting is not to fear Bitcoin. I think there's this concept that the dollar as the dominant

global currency is somehow in jeopardy if Bitcoin advances. I don't view it that way. I think that what's going to influence our purchasing power and our ability to project power economically

is not necessarily the fiat little paper or the digital version of the paper. By the way, we're already on digital dollars because a lot of our money in our bank account is in a digital representation. But what projects strength is the strength of our economy right however that is um however that manifests itself um you know doesn't matter whether it's a u.s dollar whether it's a bitcoin right i think what's beautiful

about the bitcoin system is that it's not manipulatable, right? In the sense that it doesn't have human manipulation, which is inherently flawed, right? Because there's an inherent desire to do what's in your political best interest or in your own economic best interest, etc. And you have that, you know, the Bitcoin system is devoid of that. May I say a question? You're quite a late entrant to the race. I mean, maybe really, but one of the later entrants into the race.

And right now, I mean, I think your position is you're very much coming as an underdog into the race. Wondering, like, what do you think your chances are of becoming president in 2024? And if you don't become president in 2024, what do you think your chances are of becoming president in 2024? And if you don't become president in 2024, what do you think you would have sacrificed? And what do you think you would have gained by getting into the race?

Well, I sacrificed a lot. I can tell you, I've definitely been, I'm definitely a late entrant. And I think I was a late entrant because I realized how steep a climate was. You know, there's never been a mayor that's ever done it. There's never been a Hispanic. I realized how steep a climb it was. There's never been a mayor that's ever done it.

There's never been a Hispanic that's ever done it. I wasn't someone that had $150 million like the current governor of my state has. And Fox News giving me all this airtime and all this volume. If I had that, I think we'd be having a different conversation just based on my skill set. But I just felt a sense of obligation, to be honest, Ran. It wasn't based on a desire to parlay. It's been a huge sacrifice to me economically. It's been a huge sacrifice to me reputationally in terms of, you know, getting beat up by the media, getting brutalized. But but i've had a deep sense that i had to be part of the conversation that the country needed a new voice and that i wasn't hearing

from any of the current candidates and so i felt like i had a and i have a unique mix of qualifications and and track record to run this country and lead this country. And that's why I did it. So I wasn't thinking about 28. I wasn't thinking about cabinet or vice president or any of the things that people have said. I was strictly thinking about it, and I've been strictly thinking about how do I penetrate the fog? How do I get volume,

given the natural disadvantages that I have of getting in late, not having as much money, not having as much money, not having as much national name recognition as some of the other candidates. So it's like a problem, right, that you're trying to solve. And every day you wake up thinking, hey, how do I do this? How do I crack this code, if you will? And so it's not easy. What do you think your chances are?

I mean, if you were to put it down to percentages, what, what percentage would you give yourself that you're actually going to be an activist? Right. Nobody will ever answer that question. Because first of all, who knows, right? How do you actually create a probability of that? And, uh, and, and B, no one's going to say, oh, probabilities are not high, right? I think the way I look at it is differently maybe than that question,

which is there are benchmarks. Let me put it another way. To me, running for president is like being a contestant on the show Survivor, right? You have to make it to every episode, right? So if nothing changes, if nothing were to change between now and January 15th, Donald Trump is the nominee. That's a fact, right?

Because he's going to win. He's winning Iowa by 30 points. He's winning New Hampshire by 25, 30 points, right? So that's just a fact. So the question is, how do you change the next five months? And the answer is, there's a debate on August 23rd, and there will be a debate every month thereafter until January. So there'll be five debates.

Those are five opportunities to have every single person in the country who's Republican or Democrat, whoever, watch you perform, articulate your vision. And so it's as close to an equal playing field as you're going to get an equal opportunity. So we're ferociously trying to get to that place. And it requires three things, 40,000 unique contributions. We think we're going to hit that mark in the next seven to 10 days, 220 states. We already hit that mark. And then it requires us to be at 1% in the polling in at least three national polls or one state poll and two national. So we already checked the box on Iowa. And, uh, and, and, and so now we have to get two national polls at 1%. Get that we're on the August 23rd stage with an opportunity to stay on survivor Island and, uh, and perform right.

Like at the end of the day, you need volume and you need execution. Uh, the volume will come with the debate, the execution. And then if you think of us as like a, like a stock, right? There are different price support levels. You know, we're at the fourth tier. We want to get to the third tier in the first debate. If you get to the third tier. So if you're at 3%, 4%, um, and, and you keep growing, right. You want to be a campaign that under promises and over delivers. And so that's, uh, that, that, that there's a lot of campaigns that are over promising and under delivering right now. Mayor Suarez, I got a question. This is Dan Spooler again from the Blockchain Association.

I've been following the race pretty closely. And then I look back to 2020 during the Democratic primary cycle and Joe Biden was actually on the ropes, I think, right before South Carolina's campaign was just about finished until I think Congressman Clyburn came in and endorsed him. And then, of course, Elizabeth Warren and a few others got rallied behind him and really rebooted his campaign, which is, I think, one of the reasons why her confidant, Gary Gensler, was put into such a prominent role at the SEC. And I understand the political races, you know, a lot of it's surrounding yourself with the right people, especially when you get elected to be president. But could you talk a little bit about the process? And then also, if you're elected, will you surround yourself with key decision makers and hopefully not reappoint Gary Emsler? So let me answer the two parts to the question. The first is, and this kind of goes back to Rand's question as well.

I was doing a Fox interview, I want to say maybe a week ago, before I went to Iowa, and it was Fox Business. And they were showing a graphic that at the exact day that I was interviewing with Fox, Donald Trump was at 1%. In other words, he was at exactly the same polling threshold that I was in 2015. So the point that you just made is a very good point, which is, you know, having been around politics for a long time, it changes super fast. And one dynamic here, one dynamic there, all of a sudden you go from obscurity to, you know, to basically incredible growth. In terms of picking my team, I'm going to pick people who are not academic. I think one of the big problems that we're seeing in the Biden administration is A, it's Obama's B team, right?

The Obama's A team went out to make money, lobbyists, et cetera. His B team, which are young people, academics, people who have very little real world experience, are the ones that are running the show. And I think for me, I want people who understand the private sector. I want people who share my view on supporting technology. I'm not a heavy person into regulation. I don't believe that government should over-regulate. I think it should set clear rules, a clear playing field where everyone has to play by the rules, particularly in a new field. but it should be heavily influenced by the private sector right by by the business community itself the business community wants

rules they want to know what you know everybody who plays the game wants to play the game by a set of rules but they also want to have an opinion how to shape the rules because they understand the issue better than anybody so i think think it's been, again, a failure of this administration not to bring in great companies that have grown and scaled in this country, bring them

to the table and say, hey, let's come up with a set of rules that doesn't create an advantage but that creates a level playing field that will not stifle innovation. Mayor Suarez, let's live in a fantasy world where there's no friction and the president gets elected, you get elected president and you can do whatever you want effectively. What would be the pie in the sky ultimate goals for Bitcoin and blockchain if you could have your way?

It's a nice fantasy world, I know. Look, I think I would have day one, a legislative scheme implemented that defines the status of what agencies regulate what assets, custodial assets, of what exchanges can do with custodial assets, that deregulates or makes it easier, creates a transparent way for you to list assets without having to go through the cumbersome process of IPO and disclosure, or that that can be built in, take into the product itself so that it can be democratized and anybody can invest in the product in a way that's fast and efficient. So that would be sort of my day one hope. You know, I would definitely not want

to be making up the rules through enforcement, which is the way that it seems to be happening right now. Um, I would want the rules to be clear so that, um, you know, cause I think everybody wants to follow the rules and everybody wants, you know,

they just don't know what the rules are and that's part of the problem. Um, but I think everybody wants to follow. And so, um, that, that would be my, my,

my dream scenario. Um, obviously, uh, I would not be someone who would fear Bitcoin or be antagonistic towards. I could see a future, and I get in trouble sometimes. I could totally see a future where the fiat system

either doesn't exist or gets minimized, right? Because, again, if you have a system, because remember, money is all about confidence, right? And if you have a system where you can operate independently of any external influences right that cannot be manipulated right um and that's you know so far what bitcoin has been right it has to stand the test of time with quantum computing and attempts to hack it etc um and and Um, and, and, you know, that's, that's a conversation that we have to continue, right? How do we keep the, uh, the network robust, um, from, from any kind of, um,

penetration, um, that, that, uh, if it can do that, you know, look, we've got cross border payments are significantly fostered. Um, I mean, there's just so many advantages that we can talk about um and i think that's uh i'm not afraid of change and i think what happens oftentimes is that you know we went off the gold standard you know to a money-based system like things happen you know you know innovation happens things change And what happens is people are so used to things being a certain way that they are afraid of the ramifications of things changing. I'm not. I love those answers. I know you have about two minutes left. I was just curious if you were tracking any of the legislation being proposed that's seemingly making some headway

right now, if you support it and believe that we actually could get some sensible legislation on this either way. I haven't dug deep on it yet. I'll be honest with you because I've been just focused on the campaign mostly, but definitely we'll dig into it. And I have seen some comments from Republican legislators that are positive and that I like. I don't know what the chances are given the current administration for passing the Senate and becoming legislation. But if anyone has any good one-pagers or two-pagers that they want to send me, feel free to just send it to my Twitter handle or to my inbox. I'd appreciate it. I absolutely will. And before we let you go, what's the best way for all of us to support your campaign? Where can we make donations? And obviously, how can we help push the message,

especially on the Bitcoin and crypto side? Yeah, look, I think this is a massive network, right? And people underestimate how powerful it is. And I agree with you that, and I love the fact that you guys know how to differentiate the people that have really dug in and really cared and really made some risky decisions because we believe in this technology from those who are just trying to get a quick buzz, right? So obviously one thing you can do is you can go on my website, um, which is francisschouars.com and donate a dollar to get me on the debate stage. We feel confident we're going to reach that threshold. Uh, but I think more important than that is, you know, if you can, you know, look, this is a huge network and I've got 145,000 followers on Twitter. I'd love for that to be a,450,000, to 10x that number. Because I think the more opportunity that I have to voice my perspective and my opinion, the more I'm able to communicate with people.

These social networks and the virality of these social networks are such that you can communicate with vast amounts of people for free. And that has a massive value. So that would be another way that you can help. Sending me information. I love to read. I love to stay up to date. So anything that, you know, particularly if it's a condensed version, I'm happy to review anything you have. I'm always learning. If you have ideas, a lot of the stuff that I did, I have to say, I gotta be honest, a lot of the stuff that I did at the beginning wasn't my idea. It was ideas that are so important to us. And that will not go unnoticed,

I'm sure, by this community, which will largely support you. Thank you so much. Thank you, John. And anytime you want to come back, chat about anything, if you've got something on your mind, let us know. We're happy to host it and have you here and give you the audience. Sounds good. Good talking to you. Thank you so much, Mayor Suarez. Thank you, sir Thank you sir Scott Mario do you want to Add me as co-host Or just

I'm We need Mario to do it I'm gonna Have them do it right now But There's some big Breaking news While we're having

This conversation Yeah Richard Hart Or should we say Richard Schreiber As he's known Said or Taken on by the SEC, who now declare

Hex, Pulse, and Pulse a security. Which, I mean, that's no surprise. We were obviously having this conversation with the mayor. I haven't been able to read it at all. I just saw it come up. I mean, listen, all I can see now is I'm just

scrolling Twitter, searching it is a million people dunking on richer heart and hex which i think is everyone's like uh first uh maybe instinct but i for one at this point especially with the sec i think we should reserve judgment until we actually see some of these things play out i mean look i don't think that hex pulse and and all of those are any more or any less securities than any other token. So I think it's just the SEC filling up their bucket with these securities. But have you dug into it, though? Because is it simply them saying that these things are securities?

Because I saw securities fraud. The way that they were launched in any specific manner. Guys, listen, we're just talking about this in real time. I'm just trying to get the information myself from our team. Yeah, maybe just get anyone who wants to speak about the Richard Hawks story. Maybe we should bring those guys. I think Mayor Suarez was super interesting. I've always been a big fan.

I lived in Miami. One of the main reasons why I lived there was because of him, because I just loved the way he was running the city. I did get to spend some time with him there, and he's a fantastic, fantastic guy. I actually wanted to ask him a question about Messi and how involved he was in the decision to bring Leo Messi to Miami. He made a video on it at some point. I think he was pretty involved, actually. Yeah, I mean, he's very hands-on. You know what it is? When I deal with Mayor Suarez,

I feel like I'm dealing with an entrepreneur of a startup. And I think he's as efficient as an entrepreneur. I think he's accountable like an entrepreneur um he's he's he's diverse he you know he's he's very empathetic he understands many cultures and i think you know as you say we have to differentiate between the presidential candidates that are using the bitcoin community to get donations and votes and those that actually genuinely believe in in in bitcoin and what it stands for not you know i think rfk is relatively um authentic in his in his approach here um but he's a noob he's a noob you know he mentioned that at the bitcoin 2023 conference

that the first time he that he the first time that he really heard of Bitcoin was in the Canadian trackless strike scenario, which is, I mean, that's like very recent. You know, by that time, Francis Suarez already had Bitcoin on the balance sheet of Miami, if I'm not mistaken. He was already getting a salary in Bitcoin. I think he had already invested in some altcoins. So I think, yeah, we do actually differentiate between those who just want the community for the votes and those that actually have real you know, real what's the word I'm looking for? Like authentic in the approach.

Yeah, I actually think, I mean, I personally think RFK is one of the more authentic, even if he is a bit late, only having had the conversation, and I happen to and you do too, actually. We know quite a few of his very close advisors, not just on Bitcoin, but in general are huge Bitcoiners. And I think that that's where it's coming from him. But I do, I just do find it so terrifying, I guess, that the leading candidates in the United States, obviously being Biden and Trump, which outside of even their

views on cryptocurrency, A, they're incredibly old. B, they don't get it. C, they have zero interest in new technology. And D, are both outspokenly against this industry, right? So we need someone else. It's like Miroslav has said, which I find incredible. You ask any person in the United States, almost, that you ask and you say, like, do you want the, it's exactly what he said,

do you want the repeat of 2020? Do you want it to be two 80-year-old plot guys? And almost everybody invariably says no. So how broken is our system if that's what we're going to be forced to bet again? You know, even if you remove all the corruption, which I know takes place in US politics,

you look at a candidate like Mayor Suarez and you think to yourself seriously, seriously, seriously how much chance has he got? I'm trying to get it from him I'm trying to get him to admit that he's got a very, very, very low probability of actually getting elected. I didn't think he'd answer but it was

worth asking anyway but I think he's like and I commend him for doing it because you put tremendous strain on yourself, on your current position, on your family. You know, you get scrutinized, you get bashed because that's what the media do with presidential candidates, specifically when they're being funded by both sides. And I just kind of like, I wonder what the risk versus return ratio for him. It doesn't look very good. He's risk. Go ahead.

I'm going to comment on that, actually, because I think no matter what, however this plays out, I can really see him as having a pretty bright future in politics, even beyond mayor. Because in the state of Florida, it's pretty limited in terms of higher office. I mean, let's just look at it. You got a sitting governor, DeSantis. You got two senators that aren't going to be going anywhere anytime soon. It looks like Rubio and Scott. So I don't see any downside for Suarez to throw his hat in the ring. And I think, what is he? He's probably a little 40 at best. I mean, he's a young guy. I think he's also the voice that we need, specifically on Bitcoin. I'm not saying this is a single issue for him,

but it's certainly probably one of the leading issues for him. That's what we all know him for. So I think just, I don't think he has anything to lose. But obviously, you know, it's a sacrifice on his family, of course. But to me, this was, you know, why not? Yeah, I mean, I think Suarez and Bitcoin are inextricably tied, whether he will want that to be the case moving forward or not. Right. And that was a huge boon during the bull market. And he's taken a beating for it during the bear market. But like I said, I mean, in his defense,

he stayed the path and has never really veered from his support of it, even as we saw prices change and all these crackdowns. So you can at least tell that he's a true believer and that he's here for it. Dave, go ahead. I see you have your hand up. Yeah, and I think the most important thing is how he started. When you asked him the question, what's the most important thing to do as president? And he went right into it, and it's why we moved CoinRoutes to Miami. He said to have regulation embrace innovation. And we can talk about Bitcoin until the cows come home. But we're living in a world where our economy is going to be determined

based upon whether or not America can maintain its innovative edge. And as he said, there's a very good reason to believe we won't. And if we don't, what that matters. And honestly, if you look at what presidents can actually influence, yeah, they can influence legislation a bit, but what they have huge influences over the administrative state, which is arguably the biggest single drag on the American economy that has developed over the last few years. And it's a very big deal. And, you know, he has walked the walk. And if you look a year before the debate started or six months before the Iowa

caucuses, no one had ever heard of Mayor Pete. And he actually had a chance, had he crushed it in the debates, to have done well. And he was the mayor of fricking South Bend, Indiana. Miami is one of the fastest growing cities on the planet and has really boomed in many, many respects without doubt because of embracing innovation. And I think that that matters. And whether it's him or Vivek to have people of that generation starting to get into politics who understand how important that is in this world is critical. And maybe it doesn't get anywhere this year. I mean, you know, who knows? I mean, there's however one defines, I can't understand, you know, why, what, why the Trump supporters are as rabid as they are, but they are. And to the extent that, that the average Republican voter

doesn't come in, then, you know, we may be stuck in a fait accompli. But as you approach the future, because no matter what happens, let's just say Trump's not running again in 2028. And the best way to set up a campaign for 2028 or 2032, if you're a young guy, is to start making chops now. So I think a large amount. The other best way is to make your chops now, i think a large amount of time the other best way is to is to make your chops now but not be the first target for for tremendous anger which i think does the sentence right now so do you want to be on the docket but not be the first line of sight right but but i mean the point is is that unlike a lot of candidates he's walked the walk

not just talk the talk and i think that does matter and yeah you, he's walked the walk, not just talked the talk. And I think that does matter. And yeah, you know, it's hard to see, you know, when you're polling less than 2% that you have a chance, but you never know. And you really need to actually start. Yeah, I think Vivek was polling at 1 or 2% only a couple months ago and is now up to 6 or 7%. And Suarez aptly pointed out the fact that Trump was at 1% at this point as well. Ran really quick update here. So now I'm actually reading the press

release on the SEC and it's more than just the security offering. So here's what they said. The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Richard Hart and three unincorporated entities that he controls, HEX, PulseChain, and PulseX, with conducting unregistered offerings of crypto asset securities that raise more than $1 billion in crypto assets from investors. That's the first part. Here's the kicker. The SEC also charged Hart and PulseChain with fraud for misappropriating at least $12 million of offering proceeds to purchase luxury goods, including sports cars, watches, and a 555-carat

black diamond, known as the Enigma, reportedly the largest black diamond in the world. So the claim here is that he took the money from the unregistered securities offering and spent it on stuff. Why is that a fraud, just as a matter of interest? Is it misappropriation of

funds considered? I just came back, by the way, guys, so sorry for missing the interview. Oh, hi, Mario. You remember me. I think we'll let you wrap up. We'll let you wrap up. Imagine. I just came in a few minutes ago, but I was reading it as well, Scott, but isn't misappropriation of funds fraud? Yeah, they're calling it a cap. But misappropriation means that you're not authorized to use the funds for that specific purpose.

Now, I don't believe, I mean, if these were allegedly his companies that raised the money, who did he misappropriate the funds from? I don't know, but you can't take investor money and spend it on sweet diamonds. Yeah, exactly. If investors pay and invest in a company, and they expect that money to be used to build a company. You don't invest when you buy tokens. You don't invest when you buy tokens. Specifically, in this case, from what I understand, you sacrificed your money. No, but obviously, I'm sacrificing my money. I'm not investing.

That's right. You sacrificed to the crypto god. Yeah, they refer that. The complaint further alleges that Ha attempted to evade securities laws by calling on investors to, quote, sacrifice instead of invest their crypto assets in exchange for PLS and PLSX tokens. But I'm guessing that that trick didn't work because they referred to it. They also called it a blockchain certificate of deposit.

I'm pretty sure you can't compliantly call it an actual legacy instrument and get away with it. But like I said, I'm reserving judgment. I have no idea if he's guilty or not. Jerry, do you think he's going to fight this to the better end or do you think he's going to settle it? Settle because it's civil, right? There's no criminal. Well, that's the key quite a jail here the real question here is why isn't this criminal if you've in fact misappropriated funds that's fraud the doj

gets involved and uh you know orange jumpsuit time you know if if you settle with the sec and admit to that well it's going to be orange jumpsuit time so the real it's almost the people who settle like they just settle and don't admit guilt and write a big check and move on i mean that's what we've seen historically but but in those cases it's more technical violations it's not uh it's not you know i agree with mary i think you know i've been doing that a lot lately mario sorry sorry red but i think that misappropriation of funds is another word for that. And that becomes the crux here. Yeah, I was going to ask, whoever said it's not criminal, I think it was you, Scott.

Are we sure it's not criminal? Well, the SEC doesn't find out. Yeah, but I'll rephrase. Are we sure there's no criminal? Yeah, exactly. Yeah. David, you've already lifted your mic. You're our resident legal advisor. I just sent the check for the next 14 seconds that you're going to speak in the mail to your office. So feel free, but don't go over 14 seconds.

I can't like, you know, you guys are better lawyers than me at this point. You're nailing it. This is not criminal yet. There's no criminal allegations. All I felt all morning is about this and I have just first reading it. It's just comical, you know. They are so late to this game. You know, this should have been one they stopped early on. This one's just comical.

They're filing it now. Everyone knew Hex was the fraud at the time. And everything that's being said here was all public information. And the only thing I'm going to make fun of Scott for is he's upset that people are using legacy terms, but making up new terms isn't necessarily

better than legacy terms. IPO, ICO. I mean, this is just sad. This is what the SEC is down to. David, do you mean that the term sacrifice is not a term that you're used to? Not legally binding.

It's a religious term. Yeah, in dealing with people sending money to people, you mean you've never used the word sacrifice? You know, the last time, the only time I talk about sacrifice is when I wanted to sacrifice one of my kids. But I mean, here, the misappropriation guy is just to be clear is he did claim it's not that he sold the tokens he got. It's the five million that he took out to buy the diamond that he says was actually directly investor funds. I don't even quite understand that. But he took the direct ETH that was supposed to remain on Shane, I guess. Is the diamond an asset of the unincorporated three companies?

How would you make that argument? How much is the diamond worth nowadays? The guy paid $4.2 million. Is the diamond going to be like an eight JPEG that's now only worth $1.50? A question I have, just changing the title of the space, and I'll change it back to the one with Suarez afterwards, guys.

But the question I have for you, David, from what you've seen here, because it says he's charged with misappropriating millions of dollars of investor funds from unregistered crypto asset securities offerings. It doesn't say anything about HEX itself being a fraud or anything like that. And again, guys, i'm reading this as you guys are talking about it why i jumped on but the key paragraph here is in addition transactions occurring after the mixer transfers hart misappropriated approximately five million of whole chain investor assets sending a majority of the assets to Sotheby's in February 2022 to

purchase the 555 carat black diamond called the Enigma. So it's one specific transaction that they're looking at. This is so low brow for what people expected it to be. I can't imagine this is what the SEC is down to in fighting. I mean, yeah, that that was my actually that was my surprise, too. You would think that there would still be bigger fish in the line, just to be clear in there. But in their press release, it does says 12 million they took not just for the diamond, but also for luxury goods, including sports cars, watches and the diamond. And he diamond and literally his entire social media feed for a year was him twerking in luxury good stores but scott that the argument could be made

and i'm not a lawyer but he could make the argument that i've my personal brand portrayed a key role in hex's success and i had to paint that picture of being a very wealthy guy don't summon go buy a car with investor funds then i don don't think it is an argument he could make. But before we go to Mikkel, David, a question for you is, from what you've seen so far in the filing, do you think that criminal charges could follow based on the allegations made so far? Obviously, there could be something not mentioned by the SEC,

but they haven't mentioned anything about Hex being a fraud or a pyramid scheme. We're not saying it is. I don't know enough. I'm not, David. You probably have an opinion. But could criminal charges follow? You know, this one, it, you know, and there's a lot of money at stake here, you know,

for how much he raised versus how much he's accused of. But just take Binance, for instance, just as an example. So far, the DOJ indictment has not followed what people thought was going to follow very quickly. There is no, you know, these don't have to be simultaneous. These don't have to be exactly the same. If I was gambling right now, I would gamble that there is a separate DOJ investigation going on. And if they can actually nail a missing direct investor funds to buying specific things, then I do believe a DOJ claim if there's no DOJ claim then it completely guts the value of the SEC claim

because how can there not be a counter DOJ claim if he stole money I mean that's going to be his argument where did he sell where did he steal money from if it was his project, his corporations,

the investors didn't invest, they sacrificed their money. Where did he steal money from? I think that goes back to a lot of different projects. Although I'm looking at here, he got people to contribute $676 million. Yeah, it's their fuds. People's money. It's their funds. People's money. It's very obvious.

I can't tell friends. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm not being sarcastic. Imagine if you raised money for a startup in the United States, and even if you register it, let's call it not unregistered, and then your investors asked for the quarterly update, and you showed them your five cars and that you had no money left in your account. Yeah, but you don't have investors. You don't have investors. You have sacrifices,

people who donated their money to you who don't have any investor rights. You're non-sarcastically saying that using the word sacrifice potentially protects them from calling them investors. Ran, you and I want to- We hope so. I don't know. What do you mean you hope so?

Why do you hope so? You're joking, Ran. I think you're playing us. Okay. Okay. Okay, guys. I'm starting a new AI company. I'm raising $5 billion.

I would like you guys to sacrifice instead of invest. Look, I remember the original Tezos lawsuit. When the original Tezos lawsuit came out, and one of the co-founders, I can't remember who it was, I can't remember if it was husband or wife, came out and said, all you got for going into the original Tezos was a tote bag, and it's no different than a PBS fundraiser. I mean, that's just, and look, you know,

hey, what are we now? Five years after that, and this is what's being So maybe Rand's right. Maybe Rand's right. I'm going to take Rand's side today, unlike probably. Yeah, Mikkel, go ahead. Yeah, no, just a quick question, because I've been ripping through this like everyone else. David, did you

notice at all in the case they tried to call Hex itself a security, or does it seem like the SEC is backing off that issue since Judge Torres made it clear XRP wasn't a security? They talk about Hex and Pulse and Pulse. Yeah, but they're saying the fundraise. Mikkel's asking if the assets specifically are be called securities or if they're saying that the actual raise and fundraising was an unregistered security contract, because that's the differentiation in XRP. They talk about... Sorry, Ran.

Yeah, go ahead. The first line, beginning in December 2019 and continuing for the next three years, Hart raised more than $1 billion in the unregistered offer and sale of crypto assets securities. And they say Pulse Chain, PulseX, and HEX were all unregistered offerings.

So they don't think that's the offering. We all know that the original offering of XRP was also considered a security offering, but then the programmatic and secondary sales effectively were not. So I think that's the question Mikkel's trying to get at. Exactly, because earlier today it came out that the SEC told

Coinbase you have to delist all assets because they're all securities except Bitcoin. And now if we see the SEC, and I think we all agree this is probably one of the easier cases they could have filed, but if they're not even going to try to make the claim that X is the security, I think that shows a weakening in that stance now. I agree. I think so. But once again, I'm not a lawyer. I pay David by the second to be here to answer those questions. Hold on. Let's see. Go ahead, David. I can't answer just yet. I haven't read it fully and completely. But one, let's just go back to the Coinbase'd say what's suggested by counsel is not the same as what's in SEC decree. But I don't see the additional sale right now. But again, I haven't read the two-plus. Okay, so is there any benefit for Rich and Hart to fight this to the end and not to go for a settlement? No.

But with the settlement, what would the settlement look like? If you look at other settlements in the past, how big of a slap on the wrist would it be? Well, EOS got $25 million. Block One got $25 million or something. Might have to trade in his diamonds.

For a $4 billion raise. Yeah. It would be it would be nominal no question would just be a negligible amount of money for him assuming that he's still uh you know so i have a user's fund yeah i have a i have a question so doesn't like the incentive to break the law seems pretty high if if you could raise so much money by and obviously we're making assumptions we don't know if he's innocent or not, et cetera. But you could raise so much money by launching a token,

pretending it's a security, and then raise $100 million or $200 million and then pay $20 million. Not now. Not now. I think that was the case before the XRP because now we know that the actual sale would be an unregistered security offering. So I don't think you could pull that off anymore. Oh, okay. So you're saying the reason... Okay. So you're saying before the lack of clarity makes

it harder for the SEC to get significant damages, but now because there's clarity, they can sue them for more? I just don't think that people are going to aggressively raise in the United States without finding a way to register, or they're going to have to find some novel approach to doing it. But if the fine will be like a small percent, like 10% of whatever you raise, then it just doesn't... I mean, you're right. Maybe you're right, but it feels like at this

point it's pretty much you wouldn't be able to do the raise in the first place without... That means as long as you don't break criminal law with the DOJ, that means not abiding by the SEC and if you know you could raise a lot of money it's really just a fine it's like you're paying a tax and they're called a u.s tax that's pretty much it yeah but if you're not if you're not going to

be able to buy the world's biggest black diamond after doing it anymore what's really the point fair fair um and obviously we don't know if there's going to be a DOJ endowment only happened, you know, a month ago. May 12th, 2023. They're not even really attacking X here. But he bought the diamond before that. I remember it being the owner of the world's biggest diamond, a Twitter profile for ages. I mean, that's crazy here that everyone assumed they were going to attack X. But it's really, they talk about X a lot, but it's really the money

from Holtz that they're really going after. But after seeing this, my conclusion would be like, the SEC is not aggressive enough. A lot of people are saying the SEC is too aggressive. US is too hard to do business here.

But it just looks like, again, assuming that he's not innocent. The SEC is just not aggressive enough. David, you mentioned earlier how slow they were in acting. And now that they're acting, you can settle for such a small amount of money

if you use EOS as an example. Does anyone disagree? It's due to crime and ask for forgiveness later is how really the successful ICOs and crypto has been. I mean, think of the moat Coinbase has.

Coinbase, Bittrex, globally have now. Even if they are found and they have to come up with some settlement, but it all works out after the XRP decision, they were right to do the business model they did. And who really is going to turn around now? How much harder is it to compete with them to use the legal steps now that they've done if that really happens? The moat is already there. Mario, I think the bigger issue is not the aggression it's where the aggression is bad i mean why are we seeing cases against ripple at coinbase before we saw anything on ftx or before richard hart and hacks i mean i think the point is it seems like most of their actions

has been misguided and gone after the players who are trying to do good things in the industry meanwhile we're all hacks ripple you can't compare Ripple to Hex, man. Hex is way past Ripple, years after Ripple. Well, that's kind of what I'm saying here. It's like, why would the SEC focus so much time and attention on something like Ripple or something like Richard Hart and Hex? Ripple, no, but we're not agreeing, because I'm saying the Ripple, they've had a lot more time to look for the evidence

and prepare their case, whereas Hex have had less time. That's number one. Number two, Ripple's... Ripple's also an actual company, Mario. But there's countless other examples you could do in the crypto space. It doesn't have to be Hexer's bet and scams that have been around forever. Yeah, I don't know if they focus on whether it's a

scam. I think the first thing they look at how does the sc decide who to who to go after is it the amount of money raised unless they go in order or how does it work does anyone know well for that it's usually it's it's there's no rhyme or reason for who the sec goes after a lot of the a lot of the, it's almost like you can't understand how they're picking from the, you know, enforcement by, you know, legislation by enforcement. They usually go after the smaller, low-hanging fruit who aren't going to fight. And then they usually use that to go after the bigger fish. And I think that's what we're seeing right now. You know, they tried building some

enforcement actions to use. I think they really thought XRP was going to cripple and they didn't. And XRP doing what they did is making the Coinbase and Binance cases that much more difficult, obviously. But ultimately, there's no, you know, a lot of the cases are five, ten million dollars where a company is like X. I mean, a billion freaking dollars. But guys, I have a question. Like, Hex just dropped by 27% from this news and and it's still dropping um okay just picked up a bit so yeah it's dropped at 22 percent um so my question is twofold how will this impact hex because according to rand's example of eos i'm sure there's other examples um the the amount of money that richard could settle with

is it's just not that big relative to how much he's raised. And then the second one is, wasn't that expected with Hex that it was an unregistered security? Or is there people that really thought, not talking about whether Hex is a scam or not, it's a different discussion, saying it's an unregistered security.

I thought it was a pretty easy case to make that Hex was a security. So wouldn't an SEC action already be factored in? It's like a twofold question. The first one is what impact that will have on HEX. David? You guys know I hate talking about price. Ignore the price as a business, as a protocol itself? You know, I think we're going to see a lot of these cases and there's not. So the charge that the underlying hex is an unregistered sale of security, I think this goes back to what Scott was saying a couple of minutes ago.

Look, that was 20, what was that, like three, four years ago? I mean, that's not today the what the sec seems to be using from today is the pulse split in may but like yeah why didn't they go after hex but do i think the traders trade on price in you know and as someone who's not a trader i would say no i don't think that there's fair evaluation on the risk factor on what i would consider an all i can i mean i'm just looking i'm just looking at a whole lot of posts here number one in the sec's allegations they they they make reference to richard art's wallet in that wallet there's 35 million dollars in die and 26.9 uh well and that same one has sent 26..9 million through Tornado Cash into other wallets. Also, I see a lot of crypto Twitter actually celebrating.

And when the SEC went after Ripple and XRP, yeah, you've got everyone saying, this is really what the SEC is supposed to be doing. It's protecting people against people like Richard Hart. And so a lot of people are celebrating this as opposed to what we saw when we had that. Who is it protecting? Who is it protecting after the fact?

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but the classic thing is you did something wrong, the money is already gone, it's been spent. Oh, by the way, now we're going to punish someone. It's like FTX. Who's being protected. But that's

deterring others. So when you see when someone's planning to do something similar, if they let Richard walk, they're like, hey, shit, Richard walked. I could do the same shit. You absolutely can't let him walk. I agree with that. I just don't think that... They could do more to protect...

No, but what are they meant to do? It just takes time to investigate those things. They should take action instantly when there's lack of clarity on more important things. And they argue we lack resources. Double our staff or triple our staff, then we can deal with the fucking 10 scams a day that I launch. Give me a break. They lack resources

but choose to go after Ripple, Coinbase, and Binance all at the same time. But these are bigger players. You can go after Ripple, Coinbase, and Binance all at the same time. But these are bigger players. You can't put Ripple, Coinbase, and Binance again, I know we're not comparing the same thing. It's apples and oranges. But you can't compare Binance and Ripple to Hex. The size is incomparable.

Yeah, I mean, I do agree with that point. I'm just saying that they can't concurrently make the argument that they don't have the resources. But Scott, how many more scams? Yeah, but how many more scams that I did? How many people do you know that you know they scammed or rock pulled or did something wrong that are just walking right now? Obviously, it's not going to be forever. Yeah, I know. You're absolutely right on that point.

Yeah, but justice needs to be served if people are guilty of things, for sure. I get triggered by the SEC is protecting us when it's always after the fact. Yeah, so there's another one. Here's a tweet here by Corner. Based on public information as well as SEC's allegations, Richard Hart connected wallets, including PulseX and PulseChain, own at least $700 million of DAI 15.5% of all DAI

outstanding that's not the guy's got a lot of money that's fucking mental he claimed he was a billionaire before all of this I think right because of I can't substantiate it but I believe

even before Hex and all of this, he claimed he was a billionaire from Bitcoin. Bitcoin, yeah. And he's been pretty early in the space. He's a smart guy. He's been on the space a few times. Very controversial. Very, very, very smart. I mean, the guy's

very, very smart. Yeah, I know you're a big fan of him, Rand, so I'm sorry to see this news break. Yeah, sorry, man sorry dave go ahead dave uh dave uh yeah i think yeah i think scott made the point he made is kind of important and i think it juxtaposes with uh the allegations that brian artstrong made about someone at the sec trying to make them delist coins. The issue really with a lot of this stuff is that people have to remember in the securities rules and in the registration process, there is literally no place to put the stuff that you actually care about, right? There is no way to enter tokenomics. There's no way to talk about the ability for you to issue supply or et cetera.

I mean, I guess there's shelf registration, little bits about that, but it's not really there. Basically, there's no way for current rules to protect. And when the SEC talks about registration protecting, remember that there are 14,000 pink sheet securities that are registered securities that people that that's where the wolf of wall street was all that crap so you know it's so far from a panacea it's crazy but what's worse

is now imagine if and i'm thinking about the bald coin which you tweeted about scott you know now imagine if this stuff gets the imprimatur of actually being a security it makes it actually easier to scam people because you just do some bullshit filing that ignores all the stuff that actually matters. And I think it really, that's the crux here. The crux here is, should the SEC be doing something to protect investments? It would need new rules, sure. But should they be? And I think the answer to people would say, yeah, if people are scamming it should be a big deal and if you do misappropriate funds you shouldn't be criminally prosecuted etc etc that's really the issue here i mean we can talk about this particular case which is i forgot who said it but this is going on for years i mean you can't have been on crypto twitter

without having heard and seen arguments about whether hex is is a scam. I think David Silver said it. The real issue here is if you want to clean up the space, the best way to clean up the space is to have some reasonable disclosures that people are held to and are accountable to. End of chat. Just going through the tweets, by the way, Scott, you saying that, I think it was you, David or Scott, you saying that the charges they're going after

don't seem that concerning, I think someone said that earlier and there could be more That was David Silver and I, we were just making the point that as for this moment it's civil and not criminal doesn't mean it won't be but the only information we have right now is that this is

Sorry but you also said that it won't be, but the only information we have right now is that this is... No, but sorry, but you also said that it doesn't go back to Todd Rahn. I mean, I'd be very surprised if this went criminal. Like, I understand criminal when there's a hack,

like the Bitfinex hack, or when there's an exchange that's been siphoned. Dude, fraud. This is the reddest of... House fraud, yeah. House fraud.

...in the United States. Financial fraud. It doesn't mean he'll get punished appropriately But financial fraud is the reddest of red meat For the United States People go to jail for Assuming this is true

We don't know But people go to jail for Less serious crimes In the financial space of Wall Street First the government Is going to have to prove that these are securities because if they're not securities, you can do whatever you want.

No, but the private raise, even what we saw with XRP, the private raise itself is considered security. Different. You can't compare the private raise of XRP starting from a central treasury to funds. You can't compare that to the process that Richard Hart followed where it was a sacrifice. He wasn't marketing it out to funds you can't compare that to to rich the process that richard hardfought where it was a sacrifice he wasn't marketing it out to funds uh etc you can't compare the two

it's two two completely different cases um i'm gonna hi guys this is uh jason cyber here as to determining whether or not they're they're actually security sold by definition under the security statutes as part of the definition of a security is a certificate of deposit. And that's something that David and I brought up nearly four years ago when we were pointing out on the law review show how much how ridiculous this Richard Hart offering was that he was saying that it was security. Yeah, that's what I was saying earlier about him literally calling it a blockchain-stifted deposit. Right. What I find interesting about that

is that, again, guys, they're talking a lot about Hex, which is what leads me to believe there's going to be something related to Hex that's not in here. What I think Ram was talking about, the securities offering, is very different than the misappropriation.

The misappropriation, if he stole the money, which is criminal, then there will be a criminal subpart. Guys worth a billion dollars don't steal $12 million. Like, that's just a, you know, you have to be, you have bad bookkeeping. You immediately agree to pay that back when you become its target. There's something about this filing that just doesn't make sense superficially right now. If you want to believe that Richard really has billions of dollars, has hundreds of millions of dollars, when the SEC comes to you and says, you misappropriated $10 million while you're negotiating with your lawyers, you just simply say, oh my God, I did that. Let me pay it right back right now. You don't risk a billion dollar

enterprise value on $10 million if you have it. There's just something really weird about this lawsuit as filed today. I've got to believe that there's a second shoe to drop. And when you say second shoe to drop, are you talking about DOJ?

Yeah, something criminal, something more focused on, heck, criminally. Because again, the focus has always been for the last couple of years, hex. It wasn't on what happened in May. I'm looking at what Scott says. It does look like he bought the diamond before, so some of this doesn't make sense temporally. There's just something

really odd about this, given the circumstances we're talking about. So this is Jason again. So if you take a look at, and if you go back and look at the five, six hour Bitcoin law review that we did with Richard Hart on the day of his launch of Hatch, we advised him he needed an attorney before talking to us. But all of the things that he was saying was certificate of deposit on the blockchain, but it's not a security. And then when we asked him point blank who was in charge of it,

he said, well, I'm not going to tell and I'm never going to tell anybody that way I can get around securities laws in order to avoid the Howey test for management control. If you just take that one five hour long interview that we did with make, make a transcription of it, and call that evidence for securities fraud, it is prima facie evidence right down there. So you don't need to build up a big case for criminal securities fraud from the tax standpoint. You don't need the money damages for that. If you're trying to put the guy in jail, he killed himself on the very first day he talked about it. Sorry, Jason, just because I don't know your background, you keep alluding to an interview. You actually, you worked with Richard Hart. Can you just give us a bit of background?

Yeah. So my background is as a securities lawyer that focused on cryptocurrency and handled the SEC Shivers case back in 2014. So I've been doing this for a little bit. David Silver and I and a few other folks from now on, every now and then are on the Bitcoin Law Review Show that's hosted by Tom Bates. And when Richard Hart launched Hex back in 2019, he came on and did the Bitcoin Law Review show. And that entire interview is on YouTube. You can go and look it up.

So you're saying based on that interview, based on things he said on that interview, incriminate him further? Yeah, I effectively did an entire criminal deposition of him where he admitted security is fraught. It's all right there. You don't need anything else.

Wow, it seems like Founder shouldn't go on podcast and all of these conversations. Yeah, I'm going through the trees. Not much more to it. David was there. David, you remember all this. I mean, but again,

that's why I keep saying there's a second shoe to fall here because the focus here is the focus of this complaint talks about hacks. I think we all agree at this point that even with the Ripple decision, the initial sale is going to be deemed the sale of an unregistered security. So going back in time now, what Jason is saying is he basically admitted to an unregistered sale

of the security on the show we did with him on the first day. I don't think there's a lot of surprise in what we're talking about. Again, what the surprise here is, is the misappropriation that is separate and apart from the issue of the unregistered sale. And the unregistered sale, he's going to probably be found that he sold and, you know, despite calling it a sacrifice. But more importantly, it's the misappropriation because we, I think what people, and this goes back to FTX and the fear factor of Binance, which I do not think has come to fruition yet, and I hope it doesn't, is missing customer funds. And 12 million on a billion to me doesn't sound like a lot. People have gone to jail,

I think it's Mario who said this, people have gone to jail for less than 12 million. So again, I think how he responds is going to be interesting. I expect to see another all-star legal team, not a hole-in-the-wall lawyer that, you know, if he has the resources we all think he has, we're going to see another all-star legal team come up and blow up a lot of this narrative. It seems to be a fairly weak swing, if you ask me, We're going to see another all-star legal team come up and blow up a lot of this narrative.

It seems to be a fairly weak swing, if you ask me, for them coming out the first Ripple decision. This seems to be fairly weak. Sorry, what about it? Do you think it's weak? I think the mixing and matching of the misappropriation versus the unregistered sale. I think the unregistered sale is full of slam dunk, but the misappropriation versus the unregistered sale. I think the unregistered sale is full of slam dunk, but the misappropriation is what makes this, I don't want to use the word sexier, but more problematic for someone. Stealing money is always going to get you in trouble.

So, sorry, this is Jason again. I think that if I'm putting my regulator hat back on, you know, the criminal DOJ here is happy to let SEC use its resources to get discovery, to do investigations, to do all the things that it does in a civil case and allow it to at least get something on the civil side, which then creates the basis for, you know, the arrest warrant that comes after the civil side is done. And we've seen them do that many times in the Bitcoin space. And I think they're just running the same playbook here. Yeah. He hasn't let DOJ come in afterwards. Yeah.

So then, Jason, there's absolutely no surprise they wouldn't be concurrent or right back to back. I mean, people keep conjecturing, obviously, that Binance is going to see DOJ action. We haven't seen that yet. I think that people got a bit spoiled when SDF was quickly charged, but that hasn't been the norm. Can I, can I, I want to read out one other thing

from the SEC statement. From at least December 2019 through November 2020, Ha and Hex allegedly offered and sold Hex tokens in an unregistered offering, collecting more than 2.3 million Ethereum, Jesus, including through so-called recycling transactions that enabled Heart to surreptitiously gain control of more Hex tokens. Surreptitiously.

Don't ask you, Scott. I thought it was a speaker just jabbing at me. Who the hell is this? Who just took a jab at my pronunciation? But Scott, I someone I thought it was a speaker just jabbing at me like who the hell is who just took a jab at my pronunciation but Scott used to it but what is recycling transactions

and I know we have another fan of Tone who's on stage sorry another fan of Richard who's on stage a big friend of Richard

Tone Vays we should get Kyle Kyle Doops is what it was I mean he's the big rich and hot fan and he's a big...

Yeah, please, Kyle, please join us up on stage. We need to know how you're feeling and how you're absorbing this. Yeah, no, no, but objectively, I'll be objective. Like, I'm pretty... I don't have an opinion on this because I haven't looked into it, but I genuinely want both sides of the argument,

both sides of the debate here. But does anyone know, before we go to Tone, does anyone know what recycling transactions means? Yeah, he was taking his own money and he was pretending that his money was sacrifices to this contract.

So I think it probably alludes to moving money from your one pocket to another pocket. I don't get it. Yeah, it was probably like fake demand for Hex. Like a bunch of people paid him some Ethereum and then he would like recycle that

Ethereum and use it to get more Hex. It was yeah. I don't know how long the space was going on. I was in a different space, but I just posted the link to the YouTube show that Jason and I did. I don't know how long the space was going on. I was in a different space, but I just posted the link to the YouTube show that Jason and I did. I don't know if you were on that show, Silver. You might have been.

I don't remember. But Jason sure was. And we spent like six hours like grilling Richard Hart and explaining the security scheme. Real quick, Tom, before you do it again, Jason just gave us that full summary. I know you just jumped on. Yeah. Man, jumped on a little too late. Sorry, guys.

But I posted the link to the YouTube video up there. It's six hours from 2019 of where all this happened. Yeah. And can you just, sorry, Tom, and what would you, what from that interview, and I know David already touched on it, sorry, Jason did, but what from that interview, and I know David already touched on it. Sorry, Jason did. But what from that interview do you want to highlight exactly? So if someone doesn't want to watch the whole thing.

So I need to rewatch the whole thing myself. It is six hours and it's been almost 40 years. Hold on, you said one interview, six hours? Is it multiple interviews? No, it's one. It was a continuous, it was a seven and a half hour YouTube stream. And Richard came on like an hour and a half in. And then we spent like five hours with Richard. And this was like on day two of the Hex launch. And it wasn't even, I don't know if he incriminated himself during that interview. He might have accidentally.

But you have to go back in time. We're talking 2019. These regulators barely have any idea what the hell they're doing now. In 2019, they were completely clueless. So what these videos did back then is probably laid out and explained to the SEC how these things are violations of securities in order to kind of help them out. took him three and a half years to find, but he might have incriminated himself. There was one part, I gotta get that screenshot, where Jason and I both put our head, put our hand over our eyes and shaking our head like, holy shit, did he just admit to a security scam? And that was like five hours in. I'd have to

find that part of it and maybe cut it out and repost it. But yeah, it was one epic... If you come up with anything that you think could have incriminated him, Jason, I know you mentioned a couple of things earlier. Jason, can you just tell us very briefly, because I know you mentioned it earlier and I will not say I was not paying attention, that's why I want you to repeat it. Before we go to Kyle, can you more briefly than before tell us the specific parts you highlighted earlier? Yeah, so Richard came on as

John runs a law review panel and we were reviewing the X offering and effectively based on public information had determined it was more likely than not to be a scam. At a minimum, it was an unlicensed, unregistered security based on the fact that it was a certificate of deposit

which by definition is a securities offering or for security under the sec statutes then moving forward the questions that we asked him were certain things about you know who is managing the money who was the finance advisors who were making the transactions, at which point Richard alluded that it might have been him, but he refused to disclose any names because he thought that that was going to be the thing that saved him from the Howey test, was that if you're not relying on any known individual, then there's no way there could be reliance on management and control, and that's just not how the statutes work.

Kyle Lamb, first, first appreciate coming on man kyle you there uh thanks mario thanks mario yeah guys um so i mean i don't have too much to add i would say though that um i actually listened to tone bay's six hour law review on hex way way back in 2019 so um my investment into hex uh pulse chain and pulse x was calculated risk so uh not too bad of a loss and pretty much just the typical greater fool theory that um of course you know number uh chart goes up but i i didn't go in in the initial phase of hex because of turn basis law interview actually so the opportunity cost over there at the time was approximately two million dollars so when pulse chain and pulse x came around i figured well i'll give it another shot but from my side i took it as a normal calculated trade i understood that the risk was, of course, there with Richard Ott being a controversial

and polarizing figure within the space. But what do you think, Conor? Can I ask you a quick question? I'll ask you. I appreciate it. A specific question. In terms of the misappropriation of funds, Kyle, and I think Tony, you were jumping in. I'll give you the mic afterwards.

The allegations made there. We'd like to get your initial thoughts on that. I know we have more HECS supporters on stage. Going to get a good discussion going. um would like to get your initial thoughts on that and i know we have more hex supporters on stage gonna get a good discussion going but when i get your thoughts on that um my thoughts on that i mean i i don't have any thoughts on it i must be honest i haven't looked into it i can't comment i can't say that uh that is the case but if it were the case would i be surprised definitely not i think I think it's a real possibility. The space is obviously loaded with people who are looking for a quick buck and opportunity.

And is it a possibility that there was misappropriation of funds? Definitely. There is a possibility, but I would be speculating. But you see, so just got to understand, you were a Hacks investor prior, but you're not a big supporter of Hex today. Is that true? I did not invest in Hex until much later. So only around 2020, I initially wanted to go in when he had the, I think at that time,

we called it an ICO phase or initial sacrifice phase. But I actually didn't because I watched Stone Base's law review which which no disrespect of course stone was spot on uh just his timing obviously took a while for that to play out um so any guys i just checked i just said you work with ryan and crypto banter now understand you're you're you got your head on your shoulders pretty smart guy you're a technical analyst i thought you're um uh just a pure hex supporter and you've got like the hashtag hex in your profile so i so and let me let me mostly a ta trader so focused on uptrend let me um yeah let me go to you got two other speakers that are fans of of hex zach i'll go to you right after i just wanted to quickly get and zach i'm glad you're here actually i would love you to break down the SEC allegations or charges.

Moon King, sorry, how are you? Good, Mario. How are you guys doing? Good, man. Good. I know you've got PulseChain in your bio. I think the number one PulseChain shiller. You've got a pretty big audience as well.

So I'm not sure if you're a fan of Hex as well. I'm assuming you are. So we'd love to get your thoughts on what we see now in the charges, the SEC charges. Yeah. I mean, I want to come from a So we'd love to get your thoughts on what we see now and the charges, the SEC charges. Yeah, I mean, I want to come from a very non-biased perspective. Obviously, you know, I do lean to one way. But, you know, for those who are to the other side, you know, I just kind of want to speak on just the kind of the business Vays video, which you can go either way, you know, I do think that it's going to be hard based off of wallets, based off of the way Richard Hart speaks, based off of how he does things. It's going to be extremely hard to prove that that person that or that entity that is using that hex using that ethereum is him so that that's the first thing when someone knows who it is that's an argument but is it them without a

doubt that's going to be hard to prove the second thing i would always like to bring up that should be in discussion is prior history in this space for example eos eos raised four billion dollars settled for 24 million out of four billion settled for 24 million dollars and as we speak right now eos is still listed on a massive number of exchanges so it's just something i mean you want to mean, you want to talk about misappropriation of funds. I think that the discussion around Block.One and how they used the $4 billion is way more

incriminating than anything that we've talked about. Correct. So I think this is more I mean, they raised $4 billion. They built the blockchain, which cost them no more than $20 million. They bought a voice.com website for $20 or $30 million. And the rest of the money they basically used to create platforms

that enrich the shareholders and don't enrich the token holders. So you want to talk about misappropriation of funds? I think the EOS case, the Block.One case is a slam dunk. No, no, Rand, Rand, they bought Bitcoin. They're holding 140 000 bitcoin and they have a lighting operation yeah yeah exactly and then i had oh yeah and even i think and i but there's no but there's no misappropriation of funds ran when it comes to yours is there i mean of course there is they they they raised money in an ico which went on for

a long time there is billions of dollars in anCO, which was the biggest ICO of 2017. They took that money, and instead of spending it on an ecosystem to grow the EOS ecosystem and add value to the token holders, they literally went and invested that same money in things that enrich the shareholders of a centralized company that is that's not what I guys guys we have this as the SEC's all that guys guys brain is not does not does not benefit Scott we just Scott Scott would you got breaking news man and we don't get too many breaking news it's been a while and so 27 seconds ago the SEC tweeted about this and as we said the SEC doesn't tweet about many... Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we have a lawyer

who said the SEC doesn't tweet often when it comes to charges they file? Anyone? They usually do that for big trophy cases. Oh, cool. Well, they do this... They do now. Yeah, like all the crypto cases.

Oh, okay. Yeah, I remember. I remember. The argument we're making is that they're trying to paint a picture of crypto in a bad light. Today, so that was 27 seconds ago. That was 30 seconds ago. So a minute ago. Today, we charged Richard Hart, a.k.a. Richard Shuler, and three unincorporated entities that he controlled,

Hex, PulseChain, and PulseX, with conducting unregistered offerings of crypto asset securities that raised more than a billion dollars in crypto assets from investors. There's a quote there that Eric Warmer, director of Fort Worth regional office, a quote they included, Hart called on investors to buy crypto asset securities and offerings that he failed to register. He then defrauded those investors by spending some of their cryptoassets on exorbitant luxury goods. This action seeks to protect the investing public and hold Hart accountable for his actions. See, that's not true because we all know how to read the blockchain and you can see that during the HEX, during the HEX, everything with HEX they had to do, that wallet never

sold a single HEX. So, real quick, this is, you know, wallet, right? This is what the SEC means. It didn't have to sell the hex. Yeah, I gotta run in one minute, but what the SEC means by that, so they're essentially saying two things. One is that this is an unregistered securities offering, which it seems

like it obviously is, right? You look at Richard Hart's statements, his only sign of defense here was not acknowledging that it was him, but. But this is sort of like the no homo theory of SEC compliance. You don't get to just disclaim what you're actually doing and pretend it didn't happen. So no surprise that's not working. And then the defrauding investors part, right? So this is going to be the more controversial part of the case. What the SEC is saying is, all right, you've done this securities offering. And when you do a securities offering, you have to be the more controversial part of the case. What the SEC is saying is, all right, you've done this securities offering. And when you do a securities offering, you have to be straightforward about, I'm raising money from other people to build something so that

everyone can profit. You need to be honest about what you're doing with the proceeds. And he made a bunch of statements about developing Pulse Chain that the SEC is saying would lead the people who gave him money to reasonably believe that that money was being used for pulse chain development and instead he was buying and selling Lambos and diamonds and all sorts of other shit and that's where the security is fraught I've got so go ahead Zach

I'll just say Zach's in the chef's car 30 seconds just two other things that are interesting about this case one is that you know these are unincorporated entities so unlike for example the Ripple Labs case where Ripple Labs the company is being sued because are interesting about this case. One is that these are unincorporated entities. So unlike, for example, the Ripple Labs case where Ripple Labs, the company is being sued, because Richard Hart never incorporated Pulse or PulseX or any of these things into a company, he is personally on the hook for this stuff. Another thing, this case is being brought in

federal court in Brooklyn under a theory that they have venue here because Uniswap Labs is based in Brooklyn and Uniswap was used for these offerings. That's something that has potential consequence for crypto cases down the road. So, I mean, look, he's an easy person to beat up on. I think the SEC is probably going to win this, but this case will also, like the Ripple case, have important consequences down the road. I think that Richard Hart fights this till the end because Richard Hart's a man of

show and a man he's out there and he's a man of he wants to prove points. That's how he is. He's a smart person but his emotions are not. I think his intelligence outweighs his emotions. He's relatively emotionally intelligent. I think it's other than that.

I think it's other than that. I think his emotions outweigh his intelligence. These are people that are addicted to attention. These are people that are addicted to being right. If you think about Richard Hart, the one thing is he always wants to show people how smart he is. He always wants to show people how right he is. world no one's as smart as me i'm the smartest guy i'm going to do things that no one else can do um you know like i've interviewed him many many many times and um you know whereas i'm not a comment about whether i think hex and pulse are a scam i do think that the one thing about richard is he's very smart but his emotions his need to be accepted goes beyond his uh his logic now i asked him once i asked him on an interview, I said to him, why do you go around driving these fancy cars

and walking around Louis Vuitton? It's not fair that people that have done less than me get noticed more than me. This is a guy who just wants attention. He wants to prove that he's right. He wants to prove that he's the smartest guy in the world. All this could be a marketing strategy

and he seems to have worked well flaunting his wealth. Well, that's... I'm making statements, and even the statement he's made to you, I don't want people that have done less than me to be more successful than me. Even that statement could be just all of it being showmanship.

Maybe he's played us all, and I wouldn't be surprised if he knew this is coming. He's planned for it accordingly, and I wouldn't be surprised if he chose his words carefully in interviews like planned for it accordingly. And I wouldn't be surprised if he chose his words carefully in interviews like the one he did with Tone to make sure he doesn't slip up. But then I could be wrong. His ego could make the most out of him.

Moon, I'm not sure if you've met Richard and would like to get your thoughts. Do you think he will fight this till the end or do you think he'll settle? There's two things. I can only go off off history and based off of rand said and you know based with other a lot of people think um i do think there are interviews out there where he speaks about and i've watched pretty much all of his interviews and all of his

is his live streams he really likes the idea that eos has settled and it makes smart business decision uh for anyone to do that if they want to go that route uh that's why i make that and and ran and before you say i don't mean you have got more points to make right to add on to this it could be a win as well like you could settle and say hey i raised I raised a billion, paid 50 million or 10 million or 20 million to settle. Life is good. I won. Yeah, that's the game in the United States.

That is the game that you play in the United States. It's actually, you know, it's unfortunate, but what it's come down to is that what's the risk return? And the risk return is you can raise X and you can pay a penalty of Y.

Moon, I want to give you the mic back because I know you're saying. And then I'm glad. There's a huge difference between EOS and HEX. Several things. One, SEC knows they messed up in the EOS case, so that's not going to happen again. And two, I'm fully expecting criminal charges from the DOJ to come against Richard Hart. That did not happen in the EO's case. Against any of those guys. Not Larimer,

not the other guys involved. And there is not a lot that happens here. There is the misappropriation of funds, which I think is, it's fraud. So I think it would be criminal. Gary, before we go back to Moon, it's been a while, man.

Good to have you back. And I would like to get your thoughts before we go back to Moon, it's been a while, man. Good to have you back. And I would like to get your thoughts before we go back to Moon because I interrupted him. Hey, guys. Good to be in space. I'm going to try and play relatively unbiased, although I have been around Richard since 2017. I've met him in person maybe five or six times and things like that. So like, uh, and then as far as like this idea of a community gravitating around a logo or an icon or geometry or something, um, you know, I'm, I'm probably one of the more well-known, um, my opinions aren't about the product or any of the, any of these, uh, you know, bits of code that we trade in the internet.

Uh, I really don't want to say anything specific about that. I think there's plenty of content, maybe thousands of hours directly from Richard on his YouTube channel. So if anybody has questions about code, relate it to the philosophy that I think crypto tries to say that it's marketing. It tries to say that it's freedom to transact,

choice, ungated environment, basically. And there's been a lot of content over the past two years, really from Richard, focusing on, if you don't have the freedom to transact, you do not have freedom of speech, you do not have freedom of speech. You do not have freedom of movement. So I theorize about the personality of the man. And my theory, you know, may play out well, may play out poorly, is that he cannot beat the name of Satoshioshi but he wants to he cannot beat the name of vitalik rolling off of the tip of the tongue by most of cryptocurrency but he wants to so i i believe that his chase for glory his want to be loved his his intellect and display whether it was in battles years ago, like the lawyer that was speaking earlier, that's where he was getting his validation then. And to me, it seems like

if you have some rule set of what you want from a cryptocurrency, maybe it's the virgin birth of Bitcoin and the security structure around how that code works. Richard observed that. Richard was part of that. Everyone here acknowledges. And then if you see his videos from basically being upset over Bitcoin losing the plot six years or seven years ago.

Yeah. Just going back to those charges, quick question. Yeah. I want to get your thoughts on, for me, what I find to be the most serious charge. You've got two main charges.

He's got, correct me if I'm wrong, or David Silver, correct me if I'm wrong, but the two main charges are offering unregistered securities and misappropriation of funds. That's a good way to summarize it.

Yeah. Okay, no one heard it. So I guess it's the same. What about... There's a third charge there, guys. There's three, and the third one is more serious. It's fraud in connection with the sale of a security is one of the charges as well. Fraud, sorry, fraud in what, sorry, Jason?

So there's unlawful sale, there's fraud in connection with the sale, and then there's the misappropriation with the sale of a security. So the fraud in connection with the sale of security carries felony charges with it. And so even though you go back to what the caller was saying about before that maybe you can't prove. I don't know, Jason, I don't want to interrupt you. I'm trying to take notes as you speak, but I know you're in a car. Is there any chance to improve the audio? Is it possible?

I'm sorry, say again? Is it possible to improve your audio? I know you're in a car, just so it's hard to piece together what you're saying. Well, unfortunately, I'm in a small town on the coast of Texas right now outside of Corpus Christi. Okay, it's better.

It's a bit better now. Go ahead. So what I was going to say is that with the fraud in connection with the sale of security, you do not actually have to show any possession or ownership or control of any of the money. That's where you have a better and a better statute. So this is where Richard's always had it wrong. He's always thought that if you couldn't show that he controlled the money or had the money, that he would somehow get away with this but if you look at the cases of steven seagal and and

mayfield and those guys that got nailed for uh promotional stuff the same type of stuff can come down on richard hart as well because no one can deny he was the number one promoter of hex and if he told lies and people relied on those lies that's fraud in connection with the sale of the security and he can be held for that disgorgement and he can be held for those criminal charges yeah but jason in those cases the ones you mentioned just played double that those guys all got slapped on the wrist including kim kardashian yes he made their cute video that moved on and you didn't really see criminal charges. But I mean, to that end, it's a pleasure to say it if it's safe to be good. If you just, I don't care if you call them sacrificers, investors, unicorns,

clown farts, it makes no fucking difference. It's ridiculous. If the guy took money from investors and then bought diamond. So let's see, but Scott, Scott, just to go back. Let me finish. Let me finish the point so but before gary's just sorry i'll probably give you the mic right after you just want to understand the third charge before giving you the mic gary i started to interrupt but scott so what's the third one because unless the security is okay misappropriation of the phone okay effect it's effectively fat the third, if I'm understanding what Jason's saying. No, this is not theft. This is a misappropriation of funds. This is taking funds.

Is that the third one? No, this is... Sorry, there's... Under securities laws, you have unlicensed, unregistered. That's one claim. And then you have fraud in connection with the sale. That's a completely different charge. Okay, so we don't know what the fraud is we just know that one charge is fraud in connection with the sale of

security and what is that fraud exactly what did he do he he sold unlike 12 million dollars they say he took and bought things to personally enrich his life including yeah who is that no there's that but you can also look at, and it was discussed earlier, about the recycling. So if you manipulate markets in order to show that you have more volume than you actually do in order to induce a sale, that is fraud in connection with the sale of a security. If you did what? Sorry, Jason. Why? I'm going to give you similar trading.

But the fact that he was saying that he was putting money into the console and claiming it was from other people saying, here, look, there's more interest.

Look at all these people that are sacrificing their funds. But it was really long. Okay, okay. So fraud. Okay, now I understand. So it's fraud involved. Yeah, everything. Everything we're talking about,

they're all... But I'm not saying he did these things. We're talking about what they're alleging. Yeah, yeah. And by the way, guys, any hate related to this show always goes to Scott, just for the record.

Other shows... Yeah, yeah. So Scott, just a quick question. Not a quick question. So summarize. Essentially, anything related, if there's any fraudulent behavior related to the security offering itself, alleged security offering itself,

that's what this particular charge is. And that charge is called fraud in connection with the sale of the security. And what you've explained it to the audience, Scott, is essentially him pumping money into the token, into the private round and say, or even post listing and say, hey, look at all these money into the token into the private round and say oh even post listing and say hey look at all these people buying the token but it's and I'm guessing this is during the the fundraise not during after listening from the other guests I was just summarizing yeah you're summarizing so okay value avoid that so hedging yourself pussy

what are you saying is that any well let me clear up a little bit more. A lot of Ethereum came in on day one. Now, obviously, Richard knows he used to keep some of that Ethereum. That Ethereum did not stick around in that receiving account for very long. Now, I'm sure he has a way of mixing that Ethereum. He was prepared. And a bunch of the Ethereum that came in went back into acquiring way more Hex, especially when it crashed on that early day. So a lot of the stuff that Richard bought was from the Hex that appreciated value a

little bit because obviously he's not going to lock it up for himself. It was from the Ethereum that came in from the initial sale. This is likely to be that recycling part that the SEC is talking about, where Richard used the Ethereum that came in to create more Hex. And now he's pretending like that Hex wasn't his. These were all of the people that got wealthy on Hex, when in reality, a bunch of it was himself. All right. So I said, and I'm going to go to Gary now, but essentially what the strategy is here is hacks when in reality a No, it's not. I wouldn't call it, but Jason, we wouldn't call that... It's using new investor money to pay off original investors or something to go along. That's the definition

of a Ponzi scheme. Sorry, Jason, say that again. Say that second sentence again. Using new investor funds or funds from original investors to pay off... But they're not making, but Jason, they're not, yeah, but they're not making by jason they're not yeah but they're not making that allegation what you said is he's investing into the private round

but so he invested his own money to the private round to make it seem others are investing so he's sending himself money to make it seem others are investing just to create hype around the raise which is i would look at money well not him, not him. Well, technically it's his money, but the money that initially came in from his stupid followers, he then used that money to pump up the token more to pretend that more people are buying it. So what he's saying is that people, let's say people put in 10 million. All right.

And then what he'd use that 10 million or some of it, I'm just making numbers up. He'd use some of that money to send back to, but how people can easily see that that money go away, they got mixed or something. There's a lot of accusations going on. That's what I'm trying to say. Like there's a lot.

Nah, here. Leading. It's not, I wouldn't say. I wouldn't say accusations. I would say, Moonbeam, I would say they aren't the charges you were trying to make sense of charges. They used to be accusations, but now they're. The SEC, and the SEC is going to give you context david yeah you probably know the exact

number but the hit rate the success rate of the sec in either settling or or winning the case is pretty high like to have cases like the xrp with the sec partially loses it's not not common david is that true 100 90 success rate and right now that number is going down. But historically, guys like me, and I apologize to John Deaton when he and I were going at this, I played the odds. And the odds are, historically, if you go up against the SEC or federal prosecutors, you're going to lose 95%. So to go back and, Moon, I want to go to you after Gary, but just to kind of finalize this discussion about the third charge. So, Tone, what you're saying is that – I want to understand, and I'm going to move on. Is he using his own money to pretend to invest to create hype for more people to invest because they see a lot of money coming in,

or you're saying that he's using money that was already invested by people to mix it and then – and, again, we're just assuming here – to mix it and then reinvest it into the contract to make it seem that a lot of money is coming in what what is the i'm speculating that he was using the investor money for that okay which i don't know if he'd need to mix it for that because it's easy to track um and he has his own money to do that same thing but uh either way we understand that this is the charges that he's that it's called a fraud in connection with the sale of the security which in this case based on what we've read so far it seems that he's used money to to invest to make it seem more money's come coming in to kind of create hype he doesn't he doesn't have to mix it here's the thing right remember

richard is i as was said before richard is not a dumb guy. He is a pretty smart guy and he understands how these Ethereum smart contracts work. So all he has to do is get a couple of rich Ethereum whales on board that also want to get rich and get them to pledge additional Ethereum. And then he gives them that same amount of Ethereum back later through a smart contract using the Ethereum he originally received. So he doesn't actually need to mix it right away. That makes sense, but except two reasons I find that to be not a good strategy. Number one is that that smart contract would be on the blockchain. So that money, unless they use some anonymous wallet, he sends it to an anonymous wallet.

But then the second issue with that is that he's creating more people, he's involving more people in this fraudulent behavior, which means there's going to be more potential leaks. If he has his own money, and we know he's been early in Bitcoin, it's hard to dispute he doesn't have any money unless I'm uneducated there.

So it just makes more sense to use his own money rather than involving other people. In reality, yes, but he can use a couple of people and he would have needed a couple of people. I'm sure he wouldn't use Americans. So he would use people that

are not that easy to subpoena. Cool. Let's go but there could be people that could blackmail him now. Anyway, I get your point. I haven't read the case in full, but it looks like the SEC has some private messages

and emailed or text messages. It's all good. A lot of it's going to come out. Interesting. Let's go to Gary. I interrupted him and then we'll go back to Moon. But now we know

the three charges are unlicensed offering of securities, which is relatively common in the industry now and nothing too major, misappropriation of funds, which is more serious, and that could lead to criminal charges by the DOJ, misappropriation of funds. And the third one is fraud in connection with the sale of the security. Is that criminal, Jason?

Could it become criminal, I mean? So all of these allegations and claims that are in this complaint have nothing to do with criminal charges. They're all civil charges. Yes. Now my question is, could the third one become...

So the first one, unless it's offering of securities, is unlikely to become a criminal charge by the DOJ. But misappropriation of funds is considered theft, and I know that Ryan and Scott disagreed on this one. And then I was asking about the third one, fraud in connection with the sale of security. Is it common or uncommon for the DOJ to take action on this? Yeah, so that's fraud in connection with the sale of security. Just right from the beginning, you just call it fraud. If something was done to induce you to let go of your dollars that you wouldn't have done normally, but for whatever that thing was, they posted something, they said something, they guaranteed something.

The separate statute that says, in connection with the sale of security, is just a special add-on that was put in in order to protect investors. At the core, it's still fraud. We don't really need 10b5. We don't really need that statute to exist in order to bring fraud charges for what happened. This just happens to be a specific statute for this type of transaction, which carries with it the potential for felony charges. Makes sense. I appreciate it. Gary? So the timing of this is really interesting. And Richard, five or six years ago, when his content was first talking about things outside of Bitcoin only, it's pretty amazing that this movie, The Highest of Stakes, releases in 40 different markets across the United States in like three days. The opening is in Miami.

A lot of celebrities and things like that come into that particular event. It's in all over the United States. And what I'm highlighting is that Richard seems to, at least on surface, I don't know the guy at his house or something, but his desire to be loved more than Vitalik or Satoshi is pretty obvious. That's where he thinks his glory is. There's always going to be a richer guy than Richard. There's always going to be some genius in some other subset that he's not an expert in, in some way.

And I think his game theory, I want to be master, want to be a ruler um will go to court like i do think these things will end up being in the public arena the film crew uh that that followed him for two and a half years uh you know they're five-time emmy winners they've covered all kinds of things that are popular now in in theaters um you know whether it's uh slave trade or the scandals of SVF or whatever it is. People are attracted to drama, and this is a very dramatic moment, three days basically before the opening of that movie in theaters. So do I think that the SEC collaborated on the release time? No.

Do I think that Richard always, always thought that he would be highlighted in this way? Yes, I do. I think that two years ago when he went through his, uh, I want to outrage people, uh, phase and all over Instagram and calling out people like Ben Baller and other people that are grifter, in my opinion, uh, you you know kinds of people like i think that he was wanting attention of course and to to to skyline himself in this way um you know to to have gone through the context of the law he's not a lawyer he doesn't say he's a lawyer but he engaged with these four guys one of which is on stage today you know five years, to think that he didn't anticipate that this would culminate. No, he might have, yes.

You can't bring Satoshi to stage. You can't bring True Foundation, Vitalik to stage, but you can bring Richard to stage. And I think he wants that moment. Yeah, no, I'm with you there. I think Ryan made that could end up being his downfall. That's the point that Ryan was making, but I get your perspective as well.

But what I'm going to do is I usually never mention, Jason, just hold off two seconds, sorry. I usually never mention our other shows before, but I'm going to mention it now. So there's a space going on by our DGen team. We call them DGen team. So they're the guys that cover NFTs and altcoins. And they do a space using the Roundtable account.

And they start in seven minutes. So what we're going to do is we're going to wrap this one and then we're going to continue with we're going to continue this discussion on that space except scott ran and myself will not be in that space and i'll be with my account but i won't be speaking so the reason i'm mentioning it though this time is for one reason only is moon um j, David, anyone else who's here. Actually, everyone on stage is discussing Hex. So guys, if you can jump into that space,

it will start in about seven minutes. So you could see it from my account because I'll be joining with my account. The team will use my account to join. And then you could see the space there. It'd be great to join there to continue the discussion because I'd like to get some legal opinions there. But again, you won't hear

the beautiful voice of mine and the shitty voice of Ryan and Scott. You may be able to see me twerk in Louis Vuitton with the world's biggest diamond in my Lambo.

But guys, but guys, guys, and it will be less biased in this particular space. But guys, I will also remind you all two things.

Number one is we had an interview with Suarez today. I'll change the title of the space. Actually,, I will also remind you all two things. Number one is we had an interview with Suarez today. I'll change the title of the space. Actually, I'll do it now. We did have a discussion or Scott had an interview

with Suarez and I think it was pretty shit because I wasn't there. I'm guessing. I'm sure it was great. I know it went on for a while and I saw the comments. So if you want to listen

to the replay when this space ends, you could listen to that because it's pretty epic when we can have a discussion to I saw the comments. So if you want to listen to the replay when this space ends, you could listen to that because it's pretty epic when we can have a discussion to a mayor about crypto. And I was on a stage with, so Elon was hosting a space with Vivek

and I know you guys mentioned him briefly and they've talked about crypto there. It's just beautiful. And Scott hosted RFK a few days ago as well on a space and I think on his YouTube show. But it's just great to see more and more voices talk about crypto. And I think that just shows how much we've matured. If you want to listen to that interview.

He comes on my space all the time, man. You've never asked me to get him, but I could bring him in tomorrow. He's only about Bitcoin. Yeah, for sure, man. It's a lot in the other area, but it's interesting to get him in tomorrow. He's a... Only about Bitcoin. Yeah, yeah, for sure, man. It's a lot in the other, but it's interesting to get them in this forum. He's a great, yeah, yeah. I'll actually ping him.

He's a great speaker and really smart. I really enjoy chatting to him. Yeah, he's great. Yeah, I think, guys, before we go, I think maybe it's worth mentioning the Bible Trading Competition. Yeah, yeah, I will. I'm going in order.

So the second one, I'll mention that one last because that's the most important. Any sponsor is always the priority. Second one will be the ugly, shitty logo on the stage, the red one. I'll mention that one last because that's the most important. Any sponsor is always the priority. Second one will be the ugly shitty logo on stage, the red one. It's actually a good logo today. Did you guys change the logo?

Come on. Oh, okay. Well, the less shit logo that's red on stage. This is going to be the main account soon. We're not going to be hosting from my account anymore, so follow that. Third, if you want to sponsor the show, I to pin the tweets um and and the team forgot to

pin them so so make sure you dm me or ran and usually there's an email you message but if you want to sponsor the show come in just like by bit um or come on our shark tank show that will be launching soon uh dm me or ran don't dm scott because he can't and then lastly is our sponsor for today which is by bit uh ran I'll let you talk about Bybit and then I'll end the space as soon as you're done. Amazing. So Bybit have a trading competition every year, which is called World Series of Trading.

The cash or the prize money in this competition are $8 million. And the prize money largely goes to the winning team. And in order to get a winning team, in order for your team to win, they take the top, I think it's the top 10 traders in the team in terms of their P&L percentage.

I don't know how much money they make, but their P&L percentage. So it comes down to actually being a game of numbers. And the bigger the numbers in your team, the more chance you have. Now, Crypto Town Hall has partnered up with Banter, which is my channel. We didn't partner with Banter.

We were forced to. No, I'm joking. Go ahead. And we have a team called the Banter Whale Room. Anyone who joins gets access to the Banter Whale Room Discord, live trading sessions every day, a whole lot of other benefits. We are the biggest English-speaking team and we're almost the biggest team in the competition. So right now, I think there's one Russian team

which has 50 or 100 more members than we have. But ultimately, I think we are going to be the winning team here. So sign up with a link and then join the... There's a link in the pinned tweet. And then join our Banter Whale in the pin tweet and then join our banter well room squad

I'm just checking we've got 1769 oh shit we've got 1769 traders on the squad I think the number one has got like 50 more than us yeah just check it's a pin tweet guys on a serious note

do check it there's a link there they've got 8 million dollars in prizes so it's going to tweet, guys. On a serious note, do check it. There's a link there. They've got $8 million in prizes. So it's going to be pretty fun. So make sure you check it. In private equity, they call this a hostile takeover. Yeah, I'll make that joke in a bit. I'm going to get to it. Hold on, Scott, Scott, Scott.

Scott, two seconds. I've got a good one. Scott, two seconds. I'm going to make that joke. But just quickly, everyone, make sure you check the pinned tweet. So scroll to the top. You can see it by Crypto Town Hall. Romy, if you can retweet on the crypto town hall account so if you click on that ugly red logo you'll see on that account make sure you subscribe you join that squad there

and there's another space starting in two minutes i will need to wrap um but guys uh yeah iran for some i don't know how the fuck had this happened but banter has got their tentacles and everything me and scott do so this is i wake up to banter i go to sleep to banter i fuck up banter is there to point out that i fucked up i don't fuck up banter is there to try to make up something on how i fucked up um so yeah this is us teaming up with banter mario we were always good to you bro yeah we'll see everyone again tomorrow and if you're ever joining another stream have fun cool and you and yeah cool sorry i was gonna end it with uh so if you want to do on the stream, have fun. Cool. Yeah, cool. Sorry, I was going to end it with that. So if you want to continue

the Hex discussion, guys, check out the space that's going to kick off in a few minutes on my account. I'm not going to be hosting it. I'll be a co-host and you can continue the discussion there.

But otherwise, we'll see you tomorrow, 10.15 a.m. Is that right, Ran? 10.15 a.m.? Yes, sir. Oh, great. He left.

I jabbed at him too much today. Son of a bitch. He left. Let's call this 10.15, yeah? Yes, sir. All right, great. He left. He's pissed off. I jabbed at him too much today. Son of a bitch. He left. Scott, it's 10.15, yeah? Yes, sir. All right, cool. Oh, you call me sir? All right, cool. Bye, sir. Bye, sir.