The Wolf Of All Streets - SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce: Come Help Us Create Better Crypto Regulation

Episode Date: February 21, 2023

Commissioner Hester Peirce needs no intro: everyone in crypto knows her as a Crypto Mom. She is the voice of the people and often defends the true ideas of decentralization. Today, in the midst of a regulatory crisis and attacks on stablecoins and staking, we need her voice to sound strong and we should support her work on defending our industry. Hester Peirce: https://twitter.com/HesterPeirce ►► JOIN THE FREE WOLF DEN NEWSLETTER https://thewolfden.substack.com/  ►►NORD VPN  An essential crypto product to protect your privacy and keep your crypto safe!  Sign up on my link below & enjoy the benefits of NORD VPN from just $4 a month.  👉https://nordvpn.com/WolfOfAllStreets  GET UP TO A $8,000 BONUS IN USDT AND TRADE ALL SPOT PAIRS ON BITGET FOR ZERO FEES! ►► https://thewolfofallstreets.info/bitget   Follow Scott Melker: Twitter: https://twitter.com/scottmelker  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/wolfofallstreets   Web: https://www.thewolfofallstreets.io  Spotify: https://spoti.fi/30N5FDe  Apple podcast: https://apple.co/3FASB2c  #SEC #Crypto #Regualtion 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.

2023 is going to be the year of the regulator. And unfortunately, it seems like we've seen a continued trend of regulation by enforcement from the SEC. But not all SEC commissioners agree with that approach. And there are some who are willing to listen. I spoke today with Hester Peirce, commissioner in the SEC, affectionately known as Crypto Mom, although she's not really a proponent for the crypto industry, but just for freedom and sensible regulation. You can hear everything she had to say, why she pushed back against the Kraken enforcement, and what we can look forward to in 2023. Are you in Washington?

Yep. How's life in Washington these days when you're a proponent for the crypto industry? I'm no proponent of any industry. I'm just a proponent for freedom and the ability of people to innovate and try new things. But no, it can be discouraging at times. It feels like the tone has changed dramatically over the last month or two, and that we're seeing a large increase in enforcement at the moment. Obviously, we've just had Kraken, Paxos recently announced. What do you make of this sort of uptick in enforcement action?

Well, and before I start, I mean, I just want to give my disclaimer, of course, just that my views are my own views and not necessarily those of the SEC or my fellow commissioners. And I think FTX and the related matters of 2022 shook everyone up, understandably, within the industry and regulators as well. And so I think that there's definitely some reaction to that. And I think everyone needs to take stock of where things are and how things can be done better in light of what happened in 2022. But I think it certainly has given an impetus maybe to move faster on some of the enforcement. Although, you know, really, as I've pointed out, we've known about some of these things for some amount of time. And so, you know, I don't know that I would describe the pace as a fast pace.

I think that's absolutely fair. Staking products are not new in 2023, right? Right. And so you've obviously written some dissent. You don't necessarily disagree with this enforcement. What do you see as the glaring problems right now with the way that the system is currently operating? Well, by the system, you mean the system of regulation? Regulation by enforcement, I think more specifically. But yes, I guess generally

the system of regulation or what we're seeing coming from the SEC at the moment. Well, and I think a lot of people are critical when people like me raise the specter of regulation by enforcement and they say, look, the rules are there. Everyone can comply with those rules. But I think the problem is that there are unique aspects with crypto products applying, whether you're talking about a staking applying, whether you're talking about a staking product or whether you're talking about a token offering registering or whether you're talking about a broker dealer or a platform that's engaging with some of these crypto assets. There are definitely unique issues. And we could actually be more effective as a regulator, and I think that's our goal. Our goal should be to facilitate capital formation, protect investors,

and foster the integrity of the marketplace. So given those goals, we look at the tools in our toolbox. Enforcement is one of those tools. But we have other tools as well. And we ought to use the best tool for the job. And I think we've been rushing to use, you know, to grab for our enforcement tool, rather than trying to see if we can work with people to get the kind of information that we're trying to get out there for purchasers of these products or users of these products and services. So why don't we use guidance or rulemaking which is then broadly applicable and is also something, especially if you're talking about

writing a rule, you can think about involving the public in doing that. And the public includes not just the industry. It can include consumer and investor advocates. You can have everyone at the table and you can do it in a way that's transparent. And that's kind of the model that I think would be a much more effective model. Chairman Gensler has obviously consistently sort of pushed the narrative that you can just simply come in and talk to us, right? But in the

past when we've had- Now come in and register, right? Which is what everyone, which is what was being said last week, right? Well, you can just come in and register. And so I would love to see someone get through the registration process. So let's, sure, let's do it. But who's going to be the crash test dummy, so to speak? Because in the past, obviously, we've had Coinbase famously came in and said, listen, we'd like to offer a 4% earned product. There was really no clarity given there was just the threat of enforcement at that point, which I think probably turned quite a few companies off. It's a bit of a dangerous game to come in and attempt to register if you're not sure if you even need to, if what you're offering is a security. It just seems

the waters are still very muddy. Well, and that's why I think the olive branch needs to be extended by their commission in the sense of saying, okay, let's look at the staking landscape. Here are where we see potential securities implications of what's being done. So let's talk about some parameters that would require you to come in and register that product with us. And here is how we would deal with some of the unique issues, right? If it's a staking product being offered by an exchange, for example, then are we going to require that you come in and register on a product on a token-by token by token basis? Or is it the service as a whole that's being registered? What is being registered? Because those are the nuts and bolts

that people need to know. What kind of information will you need to provide in connection with making that offering? And so we could do that as just on our own initiative, we could do that. We could say, we're looking at the landscape. This is what we see. We could do the same thing for NFTs, for example. We could say, here are some things that you should be thinking about. And then we can say, come in and talk to it. Let's have a roundtable on these topics.

Let's have a roundtable on staking. And let's talk about who's offering these staking services, what they look like, what information people will want to know, what happens if one of the companies offering these staking services fails. We could have those conversations publicly, but I mean, that would be an easy way to do it, right? Say we're announcing a roundtable we're inviting a number of panelists here's a memo showing how we're preliminarily thinking about this as an agency these are the points we want people to react to us on let's have that conversation publicly people can write in comment letters if they're not invited to panelists that seems like a good approach and a better approach than saying, yeah, we're just going to one by one go in and I'm not saying we've done one of these, but we're just

going to go in and shut down a program. It doesn't seem like it really advances what we're trying to achieve. Preston Pyshko Playing devil's advocate from sometimes it's difficult to escape our echo chamber. And I'm not speaking of you. I'm speaking of, I guess, the crypto industry and those of us who are crypto native. Maybe we think we're much bigger than we are. Is there an argument that the SEC is doing it this way because the industry just isn't big enough yet to warrant the resources to go out and define these things? Because I've never really considered that,

but I could see that argument potentially. I don't think it's the size of the industry. I think it's more the point that typically how our securities laws work is that they're out there. And if you're doing anything that might implicate them, you should probably go figure out whether you've got to register or whether you have to find a way to rely on one of the exemptions from registration. So crypto, why are you special? Why don't you just do what everyone else does? I think the difficulty is that there really are some unique issues. It's not actually that easy to register this kind of a product. We've done some similar things in the past. A lot of people will point to peer-to-peer lending, which was an area where it was, again,

unclear whether the securities laws applied. And there may be other types of things out there that are like this. But I think this is a time when we can kind of get, we could do something that would sort of help solve the problem, help move the ball forward. And it doesn't matter, it's not saying that every time, that we're going to be the ones every time to go out and say, oh, we see a securities product here. You better come in and talk to us rather than bringing an enforcement action. But it's just saying, in this space, it would seem to make sense to say, hey, we know that there are some unique challenges to thinking about the securities laws in this space. And so that's why we're

going to lay out some parameters here. It know, it's complicated by the fact that, again, I don't think everyone looks at the space and agrees on how the securities laws apply. I certainly have disagreed with the way that some of my colleagues look at tokens and labeling most tokens as themselves being securities. I'm not in that same place. And so what's the harm of trying to, again, come together, trying to lay the groundwork so that Congress can think about this, about these issues also in a way that would be helpful to figuring out where they want the authority to lie, because after all, it is ultimately their determination. The Kraken enforcement, do you think that that's reflective of the SEC's view

on staking in general? Do you think it really was just to that specific product in the way that it was being offered? Because there are obviously plenty of people who stake directly in DeFi or participate in the Ethereum smart contract and are doing it directly and really aren't going through an intermediary to do it. Do you think that there's a threat to that activity as well? Well, so any enforcement action should be taken as just that. And this is part of the reason why, again, I go back to if you want to really make a difference across the industry, you can't do it on an enforcement action by enforcement action basis. Every enforcement action turns on its own facts and circumstances. And you're right to point out that staking in general is one thing,

then staking as a service is something different. And even within staking as a service, different companies go about offering it in different ways. And then you also have decentralized staking as a service offerings. And each of those presents unique facts and circumstances has to be judged on its own. So I really, you know, I think there have been some pronouncements around staking as a service coming out of this enforcement action. Even pronouncements from within this agency, right? But again, each thing has to be assessed on its own facts and circumstances. That makes perfect sense.

I do think that's been an interesting shift in the narrative within the crypto industry where everybody wanted to argue that nothing was a security, right? These aren't securities, they're tokens, we can go live our lives outside of the law. Now, I don't even think the argument, even from Kraken, is that it's not a security. The argument is, just tell us what it is so that we can figure it out, right? Yeah, and I mean, I think that everyone needs to sort of sit down and figure out what we're trying to achieve. And I'm someone who's been pretty candid that I generally think if two people want to engage in a transaction and they're both coming to it voluntarily, there should be a pretty high bar for someone to step in between that transaction. But we do have securities laws on the books, and they should be adhered to. And so to the extent that they implicate crypto, they should be adhered to, of course. And then one can argue that it might make sense to extend the securities laws to pull in some aspects of crypto that may not now be within crypto. As an example, if you're a token purchaser, there is information you might want to get about that token.

And maybe the securities laws are the right way to get you that information. A trading platform that's centralized that trades where you can trade crypto. Yeah, maybe we want to have some sort of framework for regulating those and maybe the SEC is the right regulator. So we can talk about that as well. But again, just saying, well, go to our website, find a form, fill it out, and you'll be good to go. It is a little more complicated than that. I mean, it actually is going to require you to go through a process. And some companies that have tried to go through our processes here at the SEC have found that it can be not only very expensive, but very time consuming. And so we could do something on our

part to say, you know what, we really want to figure some of these issues out that we know will be problematic when you come in to try to register. So why don't we do that in a generic fashion so that we lay out some parameters. And then you're not going to, we won't have to do the work. We always have to look at each registration statement on its own terms, but we'll be able to do some of the groundwork that applies to everyone at the outset. And then it will make it faster and easier for individual firms to go through that process. And so let's just be a little practical on both sides of the equation here and try to figure this out. You did just mention the fact that perhaps the SEC is or is not the correct regulator,

which I would imagine could vary from asset to asset. Where is the line here between the CFTC and the SEC? And where CFTC and the SEC, and where do you think the SEC does have a very defined role in regulating this industry? Cate Grieves I think different people can come to different places on that. But when I try to look at what are we trying to solve here, I think there are a couple of problems. One is we're trying to make sure that people who buy crypto products and services, such as staking, know what it is we're trying to make sure that people who buy crypto products and services such as staking know what it is they're getting and what the risks associated with that are

that's something we're actually pretty good at doing as a regulator getting ferreting out that kind of information and getting it out there for people okay so fine maybe the SEC is right there. Another issue is people who are using centralized trading venues want to know what it is that's happening to their crypto, what it is that's happening to their funds, what's going to happen if there's a problem with that trading venue. Again, that's the kind of thing that we're good at. We're also good at regulating trading venues to make sure that there isn't market manipulation going on, that there's not insider trading going on. So again, who's behind a token, what the token economics are. I don't think it makes sense to just try to smash a corporate disclosure type of framework

on tokens, but it may make sense for us to develop a bespoke framework along the lines of the type of information that I was trying to get at with the safe harbor I proposed a little while back. And we could do that. Again, we would be a natural regulator for that. Some might argue the CFTC is preferable, and that's fine. I, you know, they, they have some of those same types of frameworks. You know, I'm, I'm at the SEC. Maybe I, maybe I'm speaking my book a little bit here, but, but I, I think the SEC might be the more natural regulator. You could imagine having a joint regulatory project, which I think would be a great idea. We work together on a lot of things, and I think it would be, it would be an great idea. We work together on a lot of things, and I think it

would be an interesting thing if we tried to do something jointly. So I'd be open to that too. But ultimately, it really doesn't matter what I think. It matters what Congress thinks. Your safe harbor proposal is so sensible and pragmatic. Is that dead in the water, or is that due for another review at the moment? Because I think a lot of people in the industry would love to see that. Anyone who's listening, maybe you can give them the broad strokes. You and I have actually discussed it before, but then what the odds are that we actually see it happen. I mean, one of the complexities in this area is that you have a project team behind a token and they're

launching the thing. But the goal is that the network is going to be decentralized at some point. And so you're not going to have the kind of information asymmetries that you have at the beginning when there's a project team that knows what its plans are, knows how many tokens there are, knows if it's planning to dump tokens at some point, knows what the development timeline is, knows what potential uses are, and so forth. But over time, those information asymmetries should disappear as the network truly becomes decentralized. And so the goal was to,

during that first three-year period, I picked three years, I don't know that that's the right number, as they're building toward decentralization, there would be disclosure obligations and then those would disappear over time. Once the network is decentralized, those would disappear. I think that something along those lines would be helpful. Whether or not it makes sense to do it in this way that

turns on decentralization, that's an area I've gotten a lot of pushback on, candidly, because people don't really know how to determine whether something's decentralized. So there could be another way to do it, which would just be to say, you know, there need to be when a token is first put out there, there need to be some disclosures. Who's responsible for those? You know, I think it's the project team at first. You could also make it the trading venue, the centralized trading venue. You could make them sort of say, we're not going to post this unless someone is out there putting information out about it. And once it was decentralized, I guess you could have the decentralized community crowdsource

the information and put it out there. I don't know. I mean, I don't have the magic solution, but I think some of the information that I asked for in my safe harbor would be the kind of information you would certainly want at first. It does feel like the biggest issue as you discuss all of this and thinking about it really has just been transparency between platforms and the consumer. And as you said, the SEC is actually excellent at providing a framework for disclosures and transparency. The collapses of Celsius, BlockFi, Voyager,

they would have collapsed regardless, in my opinion. But I think a lot of people would have pulled their money earlier if they understood what was happening with their money in very clear terms. That seems like the area, the lowest hanging fruit, so to speak, where we could really benefit on a retail level, your average person from more regulatory clarity. It seems like the way after the platforms helps, but it sort of doesn't protect the consumer that got hurt before the platform got punished. Yeah. I mean, and it doesn't have to be,

it wouldn't have to be regulatory, right? You could solve some of this by companies just being more transparent about what they're doing, right? And regulation is certainly one option and it's one option that can sometimes give people more confidence that the information they're getting is actually accurate. So I think it's something that we could do. And if we had done it earlier, I think it would have been better. It really is better to say, let's develop some rules that work for everyone. But we are where we are. So now I guess we have to figure out how to move forward. We are where we are. But obviously, I think we learned a lot of hard lessons in the last year. You brought up FTX, obviously, before. And that's obviously been a catalyst for, I think, more of this action or at least a demand from people to see some sort of action. Do you believe that further regulation could have actually prevented FTX? Or do you think that

the laws actually already exist on the books for fraud and maybe because they were offshore, that's not somewhere that regulators could have actually helped in advance? I mean, I don't want to speak to FTX specifically, but I will say that I think the SEC has a role to play when it comes to dealing with fraud. Of course, it depends on we have jurisdictional boundaries also, which I always urge us to respect. But I think, you know, there are a couple of things here. we're learning is that centralized entities in the crypto space as in any other space raise concerns which is the whole reason why a lot of people have looked to blockchain as a solution and so when you interpose centralized entities in any kind of a a transaction you run the risk

of having lack of transparency um so bad activity going on, you run the risk of having controls over access and you run the risk of, you know, a lot of the types of problems that we've seen, difficulties when something happens to the centralized entity and questions around what does that mean for customers of that centralized entity. Decentralization and doing things on chain is one solution to those problems. Regulation is another potential solution to those problems, though I think it's important to point out that regulation never works perfectly either. And so regulators work really, I know that my colleagues here at the SEC, who are out examining firms, for example, work extremely hard. But we have a lot of firms to

examine, and we have limited examiner resources. And so they're not going to catch everything that goes on either. So, you know, I urge people who are in this space and working in this space because they believe in the power of decentralization, not to just assume that the only answer is going to be a government regulator looking over the shoulder of centralized intermediaries. Because then I don't understand that we're in that different of a place than if you just stuck in the traditional financial system. Yeah. The United States has always led on technological innovation, and that's always really been fostered by regulators and the government, I think. And in this case, it's starting to feel like there's almost no reason for a platform or a company or somebody

building in this space to even try in the United States. And we're not going to stop it, right? It's just going to go offshore. Yeah, a lot of things will happen offshore. I mean, I think that you're correct in that a good regulatory framework is one that allows good activity to thrive and allows innovation to happen. The United States has a lot of unique characteristics that make it a great place to do innovation. I think one of those characteristics is a sound regulatory framework. But I think we also have a lot of work to do in this particular space to make it clear that we do want to figure out a way to allow innovation to move forward. And I really do think that that can be done in a way that also achieves the investor protection concerns that are part of our mandate and are very important. It just is going to require us

to be a little more creative in the way that we think about building that framework out. Again, it's not to say that we're looking for ways not to apply the rules. We want to apply the rules, but we want to apply the rules in a way that doesn't just say, well, you can't do that here. It's got to be, yes, we want you to be able to try to do that here, but we want to also achieve these investor protection objectives. Is there anything that you're seeing coming out of Congress, the government in general, or out of your own agency, any of the regulators that you actually find encouraging that you think is being done exceptionally well at the moment?

Well, I think that it's interesting to watch what's going on in europe they sort of took a different approach which is their they've got their mica legislation um and i'm not assessing at this stage whether or not that their approach is the correct approach but you know they kind of grab the bull by the horns and they they try to write some legislation and i think that's that's um helpful for us it's important to know too that you've got to balance it, right? Because if you try to write a comprehensive regulatory or legislative framework now when the technology is still in the experimental stage in many cases, you could end up writing it in a way that prevents the technology from becoming what it otherwise would become. So you have to walk that line of having some flexibility in the system, but also, you know, again, writing some rules so that people have the confidence to move forward

and build something. I think some of the states have tried in the United States, you know, Wyoming, they kind of took this issue on and they sat down and did the hard work of writing some rules and thinking about how examinations would happen. So I think a lot of that is certainly instructive for the United States. I love what's happening in Wyoming. I did not love, and it seemed like almost the opening salvo in all of this enforcement action, the rejection of Custodia's master license with the Fed. I'm a huge fan of Caitlin Long, of course, and of everything that's happening in Wyoming. But it seems like the industry just doesn't really have much of a chance. I think that one of the things you're pointing to, which is a concern, is that it's almost like we're trying to say we really don't want regulated entities to have anything to do with crypto. If you say that, then guess what? You're going gonna have entities looking around you're gonna have crypto people

looking around for anyone who will Bank them or provide custody because none of the traditional players will why is that a better system a better result I mean I I do think that it's it's prudent for um regulators to pay attention to potential for spillover from bad things in crypto to spill over into the traditional system. And I also think there are a lot of people within crypto to deprive any industry of access to the traditional financial system, that's really sort of a shortcut for regulating, but you're kind of avoiding the hard questions. And again, this is what bothers me about the way Washington is approaching these issues. You know, they're not willing to sit down and work out those hard questions. They just say no. Well, that doesn't work. And so then they wonder why everyone on the other side is really bitter and says, well, you know, you're not willing to work with us because every time we come in, you just say, no, you can't do that. There is a way to achieve the legitimate objectives

that we as regulators are charged with achieving and also to allow some of this experimentation to happen. I mean, there's some irony there that the core ethos of Bitcoin was obviously unbanking yourself and that we could be separated from the banking system by somewhat no fault of our own. And through force, it sort of speaks back to that original idea that there's always the threat in any country, you would never have thought in the United States, where you may lose access to the banking system individually. This is, we're talking about the industry, but individually. And that was sort of the reason that people love Bitcoin in the first place anyways. So, yeah, I mean, I think that people are kind of on both sides are thinking

about that and they're looking at what regulators are doing and saying, well, I guess regulators like decentralization too, because they're pushing everything out to be decentralized. But the reality is that people are going to want to deal with centralized intermediaries to some degree. Maybe some people not at all, but some people will. The vast majority. We have to figure out how to deal with them. And then I think another issue that's really going to be key for us to figure out as regulators is what do we do about truly decentralized protocols, networks, projects? How do we handle them? And I think that that's an area where we really have to be extremely careful. Um, and, and I'm, I'm certainly welcoming people to come in and help me think about

how I should think about that issue. I don't think it's, it's just as simple as trying to find someone who's, who's close by to that protocol and say, well, you're close enough to it. So we're going to grab you and hold you responsible for everything that happens on that protocol. I don't think that's the right answer. So we've got to think about that. I think the good news there, though, is that anyone who's interacting with something that's truly decentralized at least has some savvy and probably a better understanding of the risk because that hasn't really reached the mainstream and is not touching your average retail person who got hurt on Celsius or BlockFi or Voyager, even maybe FTX. To go that far down the rabbit hole at this point and jump

through all of the hoops and open all of the wallets and transfer all of the coins really does require a certain level of understanding. No, it does. And I think that's right. And I think that it almost serves as, you know, sort of the warning sign. You're walking down the rabbit hole on your own now. You know, the government's not holding your hand down this rabbit hole. But I think that as more and more people figure out, and I'm sure that there's, you know, there is work going on to make it easier for people to interact with

decentralized protocols through easier user interfaces. So I think we're going to be confronting that question maybe sooner than we think there will be. And especially when government actions such as the Kraken settlement push more activity into the decentralized space, we're going to be confronted with those questions. Right. The UX and UI will inevitably improve to the point where an average person can use it, and then regulators will be forced to step in or at least have an opinion. I've sort of... Yeah. I mean, step in, I don't know, have an opinion, yes.

And I think that's why people who are passionate about decentralization ought to think about where appropriate limits are, where does the decentralization really take the place of regulation? And where would it make sense for regulators to have some sort of a role? That's what I need people to help me think about. Absolutely. It seemed like the low-hanging fruit for regulation, certainly for legislation, has been stablecoins. That was sort of a key facet of the Gillibrand and Lummis proposal last summer, which I haven't heard about really since last summer, unfortunately. But now we see some enforcement action against Paxos, who is registered. And I think a lot of people would have viewed we're doing things right. That's specific,

obviously, to BUSD for Binance. But do you think that there's major concern around stablecoins at this moment as well? And I'm talking more about centralized backed stablecoins. I'm not going down the Luna algorithmic stablecoin rabbit hole for now, because those are not stablecoins. Well, I think that stablecoin legislation is one piece of the legislative puzzle that can kind of be addressed discreetly. And so I still think that that's an area where you could see earlier legislative action than some of the other potential areas, though I expect that, you know, it's a new Congress, so I expect that we'll see legislation from the last Congress reintroduced, maybe with some changes, but I

think we'll see some progress forward on that. I think there are still some differences of opinion on how best stable coins should be regulated or who should be charged with overseeing that space, but I expect we'll see some movement there. But the Paxos enforcement, why do you think that we're seeing that now? I can't speak to that. I saw the articles that you're referring to, but I can't speak to that one way or the other. That makes sense. Do you think that when we're talking about stable coins at this point, I sort of alluded to Luna before and the idea of algorithmic stablecoins. But do you think that the focus will be on the centralized stablecoins where it's very easier

to see the backing and understand the statements? Yeah. I mean, there's a question. I think some people would like to put in place a ban on algorithmic stablecoins. Other people are more open to the idea that there could be algorithmic stable coins that they're obviously quite hard to design, but there could be algorithmic stable coins in the future. And so why close the door on them? I would put myself in the latter camp of saying, look, I can't envision now what people will come up with in the future,

but you can build some requirements around stablecoins. I think most of the focus now is likely to be on the centralized stablecoins in terms of legislative focus. Yeah. And I do still believe that's the first place that we're going to see anything. So what would you say to people in this industry? You sort of floated the idea of a roundtable or coming in and speaking. What can we do in a positive manner? Because we're always sort of criticizing regulators and decrying all the bad things happening. How can we engage positively? And do you think that there's an atmosphere where we can engage positively and actually affect some meaningful change here in a direction that would be more logical for the industry? I do. I mean, I think it would be helpful if people are thinking of what kind of a regulatory framework makes sense. Where should the limits be? Where's regulation

really not needed? Come talk to me about that. I think some of my colleagues on the commission are very open to discussions on that as well. You know, concrete examples of why just coming in and registering is problematic would be helpful, and that will help focus our efforts then on areas where we maybe need to make some adjustments. You know, maybe the answer back from the SEC is, well, no, we think you need to make adjustments. But at least having the attention on the particular areas where there are problems in complying with the regulatory regime as written would be helpful. And as I said, I think really thinking through what do we think as American people designing our regulatory framework, which is how people should be thinking about it. It shouldn't be thought of as top-down regulations. Where do

we think the line should be on what's undecentralized activity? I really encourage encourage people to take hold of this issue area, talk to regulators, talk to legislators as we try to figure this out, and think about financial privacy as well. I think this is a pivotal moment for us to decide as an American people what we think about financial privacy and where the limits should be in terms of allowing the government to do its performance functions, but also protecting the financial privacy of the American people. We need to have those conversations as well. I'm glad that we have you and that you're at least willing to listen. Well, I hope we can make some good progress during 2023. I really, it would be great to see some, you know, some positive progress toward a better dialogue, which I really think it could work out very well for all of us if we were willing

to take that positive step. I'll cross my fingers and hope that we see that this year. Thank you so much. It's always an honor and a pleasure to speak with you. Great to speak with you as well. Take care, Scott.