The Wolf Of All Streets - OPNX Used Creditors' Funds! | Warren's FAKE DATA | Crypto Town Hall

Episode Date: October 26, 2023

Crypto Town Hall is a daily X Spaces hosted by Scott Melker, Ran Neuner & Mario Nawfal. Every day we discuss the latest news in crypto and bring the biggest names in the space to share their insight. ►►TRADING ALPHA READY TO TRADE LIKE THE PROS? THE BEST TRADERS IN CRYPTO ARE RELYING ON THESE INDICATORS TO MAKE TRADES. USE CODE ‘2MONTHSOFF’ WHEN VISITING MY LINK.  👉 https://tradingalpha.io/?via=scottmelker  ►► JOIN THE FREE WOLF DEN NEWSLETTER, DELIVERED EVERY WEEK DAY! 👉https://thewolfden.substack.com/    ►► OKX Sign up for an OKX Trading Account then deposit & trade to unlock mystery box rewards of up to $10,000!  👉  https://www.okx.com/join/SCOTTMELKER ►►NGRAVE This is the coldest hardware wallet in the world and the only one that I personally use. 👉https://www.ngrave.io/?sca_ref=4531319.pgXuTYJlYd ►►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    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.

Yo. Morning. It's going to be a fun day today. I like the story today. I've got something for you before we start the story today. CryptoPunk? No, no, I've got something. I want you to hear something.

You ready? Yeah. Today we're going to talk about NFT. I know. There was a time when very successful, rich people were trying to convince me to spend millions of dollars on a JPEG. And they tried to explain to me that it's on the blockchain and it's one of one and you can see on the blockchain. Who the fuck is checking the blockchain for my JPEG, G? Who cares? Three million for a Bugatti, fine. Drive the Bugatti.

Three million for a JPEG. People can just copy and save the JPEG. No, but my JPEG's the real one. It's on the blockchain. Look on the blockchain. If you go to etherscan.com, bro, what planet are you on? Nobody gives a fuck about Etherscan checking the blockchain.

Even if I proved after all that I owned that picture, guess who would care? No one. Only nerds. It was a circle jerk of nerds. And there was all these crypto influencers on Twitter. These are the worst people in the world, these people.

All these crypto influencers. All unimpressive specimens of human. None of them have done anything difficult to actually make money. You know, if you want to make money in the real world, you have to learn skills along the way. If you want to go from $0 up to $10. I think you get the point, right?

Yeah, he doesn't like you. I don't know. He doesn't know you well. You bought punks. I never. I don't know he doesn't know you well he bought Punks and I never actually I did that was a very smart man in crypto he's been there since

the OG days built a lot he's got a lot of business in the ecosystem he's called Andrew Tate so one of the early early Bitcoiners in 2012 I think. Very good developer as well. So he's a good person to listen to when it comes to crypto. Okay, okay, okay. Okay, okay. Now we can get into the topic of the day. Yeah, is it, Scott? Is it the last minute story of OpenX? For me it is because not only is it a story crazy but in the thread about

it it referenced some audio that was from our own crypto town hall talking to Kyle Davis. But I mean I have to ask a question, I have to ask a question why are we reporting on this if we don't know if it's true and if the account that is posting it is clearly an account that is being used to talk these people down? Unless maybe I've missed something and maybe we have some kind of evidence. Because if we're going to go and hearsay, then there's a lot of things that we can talk about. I have nothing to say.

What's that? What's that? No, no. Very brief. I'm just curious. Very briefly. What's the story? I don't want to talk down on them unless you really don't want to talk about it.

I'll tell you what's being alleged. I'll tell you what's being alleged. Okay. So Mark David Lamb, obviously. Before you tell him what's being alleged, maybe just start off by saying who's alleging it. Yes, this is coming from CoinFlight's Reel, which is a brand new Twitter account,

which wrote a thread basically that a few very large influencers seem to be the only people it's following. Just so we're clear, this has got 163 followers. Right, I agree. I'm the first one to tell you. We're doing a crypto town hall spaces about a story that was published on an account called CoinFlex,

which is an account that is clearly ripping off the old CoinFlex account. And we're going to do a crypto town hall on these allegations without confirming them. Shame on us, bro. Shame on you, Scott.

Shame on you, Scott. Shame on us. I mean, me being the one who wouldn't report on Prime Trust when we knew that it was a fraud because i didn't want to uh you know discuss it before it was in public i'm the first one to not report fake fake news of course so yeah let's skip it let's maybe skip it let's have a five minute town hall and have a moral we have a moral obligation not to report on that unless we can actually verify this shit uh specifically the question is whether they're real or not, but there's quite a bit of evidence in the thread, including blockchain, FedEx, and

emails. I've seen a million threads. I've seen a million threads. I guess we can verify them. I don't think we should report on it. I mean, I just think it's... I've got something you can use if you want it. There you go. I've got the comment that um roger

vare shared with coindesk um the threads that were shared with coindesk that isn't published yet okay i can share that if you like yeah i'm gonna read it i'll read it out i'll just share it he joined me to dm it you? DM it to me. I haven't even read, to be honest, I haven't even read this thing. I was just surprised that I started doing my show and when I got back from my show,

I saw that this was the headline of our thing and I was like, is this a real story or are we actually basing it on one random tweet from one account that has 163 followers?

You should read it. I'm not saying it's true or not, but you should read it. No, I'm going to. I'm going to. I'm definitely going to read it. I'm not saying it's true or not, but you should read it. No, I'm going to. I'm definitely going to read it. I'm definitely going to read it because now you've perked my interest. Well, there are a lot of facts in it.

Of course, the allegations are not fact, but I mean, we all obviously know that the Flex token became OpenX token. What happened to Kyle Davies and Sue? Because I know one of them was arrested. We we called super comment but he's in jail and he's still in jail wasn't he okay hold on he's hold on remember they gave him three months i have no idea if he is or not but they picked him up in singapore within the last i remember that one because i have yeah we talked about it in our space but what about his his partner sue um was he was is he still on

on out of jail? Kyle is not in jail. Kyle Davis. Susan Jail. Kyle Davis is not. Interesting. Thomas? Kyle is avoiding jail by staying conveniently out of that country at the moment. If you want to go through it, you could say

what Randy said, this is a complete allegation on a random Twitter account. But I'll put my reputation behind the message I just sent you, was what Roger Ver shared with Coindesk. I'll read it out, but it seems like it's a

very, very, very long message, right? It is, yeah. So that's what we're going to say. What's a TLDR, Simon? Someone do the story. I don't want to do the story because I'm just reading it as we go. I haven't got enough information on it.

Well, can I get some background here, guys? Just a little bit. Yeah, can I give the five-second TLDR of what's being alleged? Yeah, I still have no idea what's happening. Okay, here's the TLDR on what the tweet thread from CoinFlex Rio, which we all admit just arrived today, could be complete bullshit, is saying, we've uncovered evidence to show how CoinFlex.com founder Mark David Lamb and Zuzu and Kyle Davies at 3AC use creditor assets

as their personal piggy bank. We owe it to the industry to take out the trash. Our fight starts today. Okay. Basically, what's being alleged very quickly is that there was a plan in place, obviously, for CoinFlex creditors. We all know that CoinFlex effectively went under because of a massive unsecured loan to Roger Veer, who Simon is aptly pointing out, has commented now to Coindesk, which we have in our DMs.

So they were going to restructure. That's the gist, right? Everybody, 98% vote from creditors had passed. They were going to restructure. Then what happened is effectively, and which Kyle openly said on our very Twitter spaces, that CoinFlex became OpenX. The problem there is that Suzu and Kyle Davies had nothing to do with CoinFlex, and that was not voted on

and not a part of, to my understanding, that seminar. So I'm not giving the entire story. And then... He didn't say that. He said the CoinFlex token became the OpenX token. On a one-for-one exchange, and none of that went back to the creditors as per the plan. And what you had to do was you had to swap your tokens, or you could just continue to hold your CoinFlex tokens.

You had an option. And if you continue to hold your CoinFlex token... Can you hear me? I can hear you fine. Yeah. The CoinFlex token became OpenX token, and holders were given a choice as to whether they wanted to participate or didn't want to participate. And those that didn't were left with the CoinFlex token and those that did got a, I think it was one to one, but they got a certain ratio of the new token. That's what happened. Thomas. Thomas yeah just I can add some color here guys I mean coin flex went through a Seychelles prepackaged bankruptcy with 98 of the uh of the creditors voting in favor of it you know I had

you know sort of informally helped Mark think through the process and and get that plan sort of geared up and and stuff like that but of course he did the heavy lifting and they had able counsel what's being alleged which i have been able to confirm um now there's still allegations and it's it's you know it's the version of the story the person's putting on the tweets but it is from a real person that has real information which is the plan didn't contemplate some of the things that were done post confirmation and that the idea is that mark unilaterally without board support which is supposed to be made up of creditors from coin flex made decisions that they don't think you

know they think that are ten amount to take to basically turn taking the assets quote unquote does that make sense so yeah that's exactly what this thread is saying and that is exactly what this thread is saying you said that in a much more informed manner uh obviously than i did when trying to paraphrase a thread that came out 20 minutes ago just to get the disclosure so thomas you you worked on the deal were you were you a creditor no i was not a creditor i had reached out to mark to try to help uh figure out the it had been public that him and roger were having a little bit of a dispute over you, who owed money to whom and who was liable for what. And I helped him basically think through the best way to try to restructure. And we tried to see if we could get some sort of mediation or something done.

Those sort of discussions broke down. But, of course, I stayed in touch with mark and subsequently you know you know very rough conversations around openx but we never really got involved so that was kind of in close to it and learned about it and uh you know these these are allegations and it's a person's version of the facts but that those are the kind of thoughts is that he basically the lawsuit with roger unilaterally without board consent and for the benefit of potentially non-creditors, which is kind of like in violation of potentially the court confirmed plan. And the same thing's true with potentially the cash that was in the company. It was sort of used for gains that had nothing to do with creditors um or that would have been those the beneficiaries

of it does that make sense or the people that right and that is effectively what's being alleged here and um you know to to sort of just continue on very very quickly with with the broad strokes they of course uh quoted what we we had said here but that then the group of uh 3ac and mark basically went on they're saying uh to use it as they quoted a piggy bank 3ac liquidation related legal fees the openx world tour a hiring spree to build openx and pay themselves exorbitant salaries and a dubai photo shoot costing 31 500 you guys have all seen that uh very poorly lit photo clearly taken on a flip phone maybe by stevie wonder that uh has been posted of the three of them over and over again that allegedly cost $31,000.

And what they do also say here, and you can't necessarily connect these things, but we do know that once OpenX was started and everything theoretically transferred over from CoinFlex, that that's when VARA, the regulators, got very interested in OpenX, started sending them fines. And then there's an email in this thread, which once again, who knows, it seems like it's real, but never know. It is basically with Mark saying that Sue, Kyle, Leslie, and I have received some fines each for 200,000 AED. Can we please expense these and have them paid to us in USDT? You could use the address below for Leslie's and mine's reimbursement so that effectively is saying that they were using coin flex creditors money to pay their own fines for openx against to the regulators in the united arab emirates it goes a lot deeper

than this there are quite you know there are ether scan transactions and such that uh influences were paid with creditor assets to continue pumping ox. The founders took proceeds from the sale of creditor assets to pump up the same tokens they had just sold OTC. It goes on and on and on with plenty of emails. But, dude, anybody can make an email look like a real email. But that's what they've got there, Ran. I mean, perhaps we shouldn't be reporting on it. I don't know. But it seems like a meaningful story to at least say

it's out there. Ran, I think in the last space you said you were an investor in OpenX. Was that a token or shares? No, I have tokens. As I disclosed, I do hold some tokens. Not a lot, but I still have a position.

In the old, like Flex flex or the new ones? Well, I swapped my flex for OpenX. Okay. Can you give us the TLDR without us having to read this? I haven't read it yet. I just know that it came. It was Queen Death's ask for a version of events, and that is what i can say it is

basically roger beer saying that he couldn't comment on these points because it was ongoing litigation in hong kong as i'm reading it here and in hong kong you're not allowed to discuss a case but he's the claim here is as roger says i started the arbitration against coin flakes and coin flex in june 2020 seeking200 million in damages. I was the plaintiff, not CoinFlex. CoinFlex was the defendant and only later filed a counterclaim for $84 million. The arbitration was in Hong Kong, where the law is clear that the arbitration is required to be kept confidential. Despite this, Mark Lamb, CoinFlex's founder and CEO, broke confidentiality to intentionally misrepresent torepresented the entire world that coin flex was a plaintiff and give their side of the case

i was forced to remain silent and pursue the case on the merits while mark was taking out press releases i then took out and obtained an injunction against mark coin flex to restrain further breaches of confidentiality so the claim here is that we were all sold a false bill of goods from the very beginning that it was based on Roger Ver's hole that CoinFlex had to shut down and that actually Roger Ver was suing them for more money. Correct?

That's the gist here. So, this is going to be one of those things that's going to take a long time to unpack, I would say. As someone that tried to help out with the restructuring and does basically restructuring be one of those things it's going to take a long time to unpack i would say i mean as a as someone that like trying to help out with the restructuring and it does you know basically restructuring to bankruptcy it'd be interesting to know like what was actually disclosed to creditors like what did they know and when did they know it and you know kind of because you know you use information to

basically get compromises from creditors you know know, you're making representations to the court. And so it'll be interesting to know as this unfolds, like what actually happened, what the fact patterns really were. But I can understand why someone would take to Twitter for this. I mean, it really is something to be done through courts. But it is an interesting take to hear from roger in terms of his viewpoint which is uh i mean i remember when this stuff was public it was roger was my understanding from i think the public reports was that he was along a lot of bitcoin cash you know basically lost a lot of

money trading and then uh this this arbitration is part of the the agreement like with a lot of financial brokers who'd have an arbitration clause. So it'll be interesting to see how it unfolds. But I think most of this will have to be done in the courts. Yeah, interesting. I guess we'll move on because we'll wait until we have more on the story here. We have quite a few topics, actually, that we want to discuss. Obviously, we have some great market analysts here. Toby, I see you raising your hand topics actually we want to discuss obviously um we have some great market analysts here uh toby i see you raising your hand did you want to add something

yeah i mean i think that the bigger story here is like where this space is going to be heading because of you know things like that and celsius and block fi and all those um companies that just went under you know you're having like the etf and everything coming out in the u.s but you're also seeing binance and other crypto exchanges getting kind of kicked out of the u.s and europe and stuff but you you know where's this heading i see banks kind of taking over the space especially or i should say the centralized part of the space because i mean people are going to view them as safe you know secure and that they're just they're not going to trust the crypto boys like you know binance or whatever they're going to trust big banks now so it's kind of going to lead into that that's just my my thoughts on on where we're heading in the future

yeah i'd say more um personally i i wouldn't really use a bank to transact in crypto because i just think as soon as i get my funds in there they're no longer my funds um you know they uh will have withdrawal limits on everything you do um so personally when you when you do it at scale like personally i wouldn't but i i can see why a lot of people would into the future. But the reality is we're just going through regulating everything. So those that committed shenanigans in the past, that when they become regulated, it exposes what they were up to, are either being taken down as criminals, restructuring and deciding to implement better practices in order to protect their customers and meet compliance. Or they're applying for new licenses and starting as they mean to go on.

Or you're a bank that's going to acquire your way in. But the banks at the moment, they'll continue doing what they're doing. But I don't necessarily think it's a bank takeover industry. I think you'll see companies like Coinbase thrive and others come along and try to compete with them and more and more public companies, more and more transparency, better regulations and just companies like Binance I think over time will just become a lot smaller because a lot of things are going wrong. I agree. And I think the sooner Binance can become smaller, the better

it is for the industry, the safer it is for the industry. And the less worried we need to be of all these regulatory attacks that are currently happening on Binance, even though we haven't heard one for the last week or so. You know the hits keep coming. But I want to pivot the discussion to actually the same publication that usually is responsible for the attacks on Binance, and that is the Wall Street Journal. Because what we had is we had the Wall Street Journal publish an article. In that article, they quoted a piece from, I think it's called Elliptic Research. And in that piece, they specifically quote the fact that Hamas was responsible.

Hamas managed to raise around $130 million using crypto. That Wall Street Journal piece spurred Elizabeth Warren to write a letter to Congress and circulated saying that we need tighter controls around crypto because of the ability of Hamas to raise $130 million for their attack against Israel, etc. Then what happened was Elliptic or Ecliptic, I don't have the name in front of me, but they withdrew their report or they corrected their report. And actually what they said in the report was that Hamas actually hadn't raised that much money and that they actually turned away from crypto to raise money. And now there's a lot of pressure from a lot of players in the industry like Nick Carter,

Brian Armstrong, and a whole lot of other players to say, look, Wall Street Journal, please retract your article, or at least correct your article. And the Wall Street Journal is still fighting back. And I guess the big question is whether the Wall Street Journal is actually working with Elizabeth Warren hand in hand to take down crypto. I mean, we've seen them publish hit pieces on, it's called elliptic research. We've seen them publish hit pieces on, it's called elliptic research.

We've seen them publish hit pieces on Binance. We've seen them publish hit pieces on crypto that haven't really been very crypto friendly. And now it's maybe potentially starting to make sense. So I wonder if anybody's got any comments or feedback, if anybody's seen the articles floating around. yeah this is um kind of the story of you know stay on crypto but exactly what we've been experiencing over the last few weeks the atrocities of a headline that then goes out of control on social media gets debunked on social media but the damage is already done and it's gone viral and everyone knows that to still be the truth i think we've experienced a lot of that and i've never been more shameful shamed of

some of the things that we've seen um but i think you know if if the wall street journal did publish that you know are these media outlets funded by you know greater financial players that push forward an agenda i think it's obvious i think it's clear i think all of us know that um and so this has been the story of bitcoin now the interesting thing is that you know committing crime while it's very hard to detect when someone does it through crypto you do create an immutable record of your crime. And we have seen with things like Bitfinex that eight years later, that is actually used to capture the person that stole. And so, you know, I believe that someone might think it's a good idea to use crypto,

but an exchange is already regulated to all of the anti-money laundering regulations and that is global that is 100 global every single company that is engaging in fear or crypto to crypto transactions has to have a very robust anti-money laundering program and meet those requirements and so if they're not really being fulfilled or they're not you know they're in breach they're in breach of that then you know that's uh that that's not a regulatory failure at the moment that's just them not complying with their obligations so what needs to change um the the regulations are already there so then suddenly we get a message from

finsen that uses the fear you know the headline of all right what does everyone care about right now well obviously they care about terrorism let's connect it to crypto and then let's push in a military spending bill that requires kycu on every stable coin transaction while everyone's in a panic trying to pay for the atrocities that they're kind of scared of right now and then then FinCEN comes along and says, let's get ultra, ultra aggressive and add some additional things that would really hinder the industry. We've seen this before. It's been the story of our industry. It's been the story of what we've seen over the last few weeks.

And I think people are getting wiser to it. And thank God for Twitter spaces and Rumble and all these places where people actually get to see an alternative and get to meet these things, get to be debunked in real time. And I think traditional media really starting to experience that these types of things little bit at the technology of crypto and understands how it works, you realize that it's not only a bad technology for money laundering, it is literally the worst technology for money laundering and crime and funding terrorism, because it's traceable, as Thomas said. So if you took four seconds to understand this, and for all of the flaws of Elizabeth Warren and all of them, I just can't wrap my head around them being that stupid, right? It has to be the agenda they're trying to push. And it has to be for underlying reasons that they can get funding because this is the current cause on the table. Why is that? Is it because FTX is back in the news? Is it because of all the issues we've had over the past few years? Probably. So yeah, I think we got to just keep taking out the trash

and these things will probably fall by the wayside and maybe we'll come on the other side. And I think a lot of us are really hopeful that the recent House speaker vote would have had a pro-crypto person, whether it be McHenry or otherwise come into power. That obviously was not the case. But now we have this new gentleman who came in, and he's a strict constitutionalist. So there's certainly a lot of drawbacks to that, depending on your societal views. But what that means is he's going to advocate for states' rights and smaller government, which is really good for a lot of the things that crypto means. And it means that a lot of omnibus bills and big bills that could have punitive regulations for crypto are unlikely to get passed through at least the House at this time.

So, well, I guess I'll take the small wins there. regulations for crypto are unlikely to get passed through at least the house at this time so well i guess i'll take the small wins there but you're i think you're really unlikely to see despite this new elliptic report um a lot of the people who i think was 100 different house representatives who signed um who signed that letter that basically uh you know said this funding for hermos uh through crypto is garbage, blah, blah, blah, are going to walk it back. Even if there's a retraction from the Wall Street Journal, I really find it hard for them to walk it back

because they can just say $450,000 is $450,000, right, and that the principle still stands. They're not going to change their tone on this because it's a narrative, not based in fact, so they don't need to, right? Yeah, exactly. I want to read you something i want to read something that was written by autism capital it's amplifying this for attention carter has brought to public attention that the wall street journal has been publishing articles purporting bitcoin and crypto is being used by hamas in an

attempt to build an anti-crypto narrative by linking it to terrorism. The amount of money they quoted was based on a source called Elliptic that inaccurately claimed that Hamas raised 130 million in crypto. Thanks to pressure by Nick, Chainalysis, etc., Elliptic published a retraction when it turned out that the amount of crypto used by Hamas was actually 450, not 130 million. The Wall Street Journal, instead of retracting the statement, doubled down and refused to publish an update correcting the record.

This matters because Elizabeth Warren used an accurate $130 million to write a letter to Congress asking them to crack down on crypto using the Wall Street Journal article as her only source where she quoted data. Now that Elliptic has changed their statement, the Wall Street Journal should publish an update, but they currently have not. We speculate because it hurts Elizabeth Warren's false narratives.

You can read more about it in Nick Carter's page. So, I mean, I guess that's the summary of it. And I mean, at some point, we should maybe hold Wall Street Journal accountable here. Or do they just get away by publishing an article like this? Elizabeth Warren does what she does with the article, gets a letter signed, and then we all move on and keep smiling? How does that work? And Ran, can I say this has already had real life impact. We have team members that are in Israel. And they're already being like, you know, being accused of funding terrorism for being involved in the Bitcoin industry.

And as soon as you say anything in Israel about that, you know, he already gets people that just immediately link it to funding Hamas. So this really already has real world, incredibly damaging impact. And if it were true, it's true. You know, if someone's using this tool to do it, then they're using this tool to do it. But this is a real tragedy of how the world works right now. And we should use everything we have in social media to, you know, call it out when it's been debunked because it's really damaging. And this is why the alternative media really needs a voice as big to be able to combat that. But the damage is done. The people just see the headlines.

They already made the assumption. It's locked in their brain from then on in. And you've got an uphill battle to try and reverse it. I want to jump in really quick. First off, I mean, in 2019, I renounced my US citizenship because I knew where this space is heading in the United States. I didn't want to have any part of their rules and regulations.

It was a joke. And you know they hate crypto. The US government hates crypto. And let me go this far. You guys might not know this, but the Guardian in 2012, $881 million dollars uh hsbc had moved for the drug cartels and they actually made their tellers so big they had to actually enlarge their windows to keep all that cash in there so these guys are going to hate on

crypto as much as they can my suggestion is ignore them you know the rest of the world's going to adopt it whether the u.s just continues hating it that's that's their deal yeah but can you imagine if that hsbc story wasn't actually true what the consequences would be and of course it would have been redacted and to be fair i don't i i despise the woman but elizabeth warren also has uh unfavorable things to say about those big banks i'm sure she's getting money from them on the other side but like i i don't think the story is the one of i agree with you toby and i love to point to those things myself but it's a bit of what about ism right it doesn't really matter we always do it i do it myself talk about how the dollar is the most used asset for funding any of these things and bitcoin is just agnostic technology but i mean listen if there is significant terrorist funding happening

through crypto which clearly in this case it's not i think everyone agrees that uh we should take the steps to stop that that's not really the point i think the point is and that should be the case with dollars or anything else the point is just that it's a narrative it doesn't they don't need any facts they're just going to keep perpetuating this narrative in my mind yeah and it's already a legal requirement with all the same consequences of a bank right but that's right i mean he's right it's It's absurd. We've seen the level of fraud. I mean, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, all these banks, they pay billions a year for things like this. Isn't there a bill currently being proposed by FinCEN? I don't know if it's a bill or a rule.

I'm confused by the U.S. legal system. But isn't that isn't the timing very coincidental that that bill, which has a whole lot of limitations on self-hosted wallets, being presented right now? It just feels awfully coincidental to me. Does anybody know anything about the bill? I don't. Not specifically. The military funding bill. Hold on.

I don't know if it's a bill or or just give me one second i'm gonna try and find us uh something something about it i think lynn alden lynn alden posted something about it a few days ago uh there's a finn send consultation um for proposed for proposed i think they they require comment on that and then there's um the stable coin kyc thing that's being shoehorned into the military spending bill um and if if it weren't for you know the whole uh the the house issue um that probably would have been shoehorned through in in the height of the emotion of what people are being told they need to worry about. I can't find the tweet. I'll keep looking through her profile,

but I remember seeing that she tweeted something about it. No. Okay, she says, yeah, it actually came from Preston Pish, and he says, Senator Warren and 104 members of Congress wrote a letter to the president about their concerns that crypto financing was financing terror. Then FinCEN published a major policy initiative in what appears to be a coordinated effort. So there was a FinCEN.

Hold on a second. Trying to see what exactly it is. But FinCEN obviously published something, and that something is very, very, very restricting. It says the U.S. Financials Crime Enforcement came out with a proposal for special measures regarding convertible virtual currency mixing and labeled it a primary money laundering concern. Based on all information contained in the FinCEN proposal, it opens the door for expansive policy to infringe the rights of individuals.

For example, increased surveillance and potential loss of privacy could subject individuals running Bitcoin full nodes to unprecedented security. They may find themselves burdened with regulatory requirements that are not only onerous but infringe on their personal privacy and the privacy of users transacting through their nodes.

He's talking specifically around the Bitcoin thing, but I think it's actually around all custodial, all non-custodial wallets. I think we're back there. This one would affect you. For example,