The Wolf Of All Streets - SEC Hints No Spot Bitcoin ETF! | Crypto Town Hall With Dave Nadig, Dave Weisberger, Matt Hougan, Bruce Fenton, Simon Dixon, John Deaton, Dan Spuller, David Silver & Others

Episode Date: June 30, 2023

Crypto Town Hall is a new daily Twitter Spaces hosted by Scott Melker, Ran Neuner & Mario Nawfal. Every day we discuss the latest news in 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 everyone, just obviously getting everybody up on stage, working through a few technical difficulties on my end. But we should be ready to go momentarily. And obviously, you know, we have breaking news today with the Wall Street Journal article and the SEC coming in hot as the SEC tends to do, saying that... Oh, let me get the exact headline before I say anything wrong. SEC says spot Bitcoin ETF filings are inadequate. We will get to that in a bit as we get all of our panelists up. And obviously the market we will discuss because Bitcoin has been bouncing all over the place. All coins have been moving kind of nicely and now spazzing to the downside as expected. But maybe this headline is more of a nothing burger and yet

again, just some clickbait and a very temporary impediment. But we're going to dig into all of that momentarily. But first, what we actually intended to talk about and something I'm very excited about is what's happening in North Carolina and in general at the state level for Bitcoin. We had the announcement there, and we'll share Dan's tweet up above. Another bipartisan victory in NC with passage of HB 721, Bitcoin Digital Assets Custody Study Bill. Dan, I'm going to go to you. First of all, I guess, give yourself a very quick introduction, and then we can dive in. Thanks so much. Dan Spooler here. I'm co-chair of the North Carolina Blockchain Task Force. I also serve as head of industry affairs for the

Blockchain Association out of Washington, DC, my day job. Thanks again for having us. Yeah, we've had a lot of progress in North Carolina over the years, and particularly this summer. I think a lot of this happened a lot faster than many of us expected, but it's been an ongoing process. Just quick background. Yeah, I've been into Bitcoin personally since 2012. Me, a couple of friends, my brother, we really started doing the meetups way back. And then we put on a series of conferences in Raleigh and in Charlotte, CryptoLina, Bitcoin Expo. And that was 2014 when we launched that. And we brought on really a lot of big names at the time.

Ed Moy, the former director of the USMH came. We had Adam Draper come. We brought in just a lot of folks that weren't normally coming to the meetups. Early on, we really wanted to expand the scope of the space and to really raise awareness beyond just the usual suspects. And fast forward, 2019 rolls around. And after some success with updating our state's many transmitters laws, we got to work with the state's lieutenant governor, then Lieutenant Governor Dan Forrest. He set up a task force called the North Carolina Blockchain Initiative. We're a little bit different than some of the other state associations. We're not a trade group ourselves. We're a government-appointed task force, and it was put together by an executive order rather than a legislative committee.

And it's nonpartisan. And the goal was to really serve as a primary resource on this emerging digital asset ecosystem. And we launched was to really serve as a primary resource on this emerging digital asset ecosystem. And we launched right before the beginning of the pandemic. So the first year, we were doing a lot of Zoom calls and a lot of webinars and a lot of just... We intended to do a roadshow, but we were put on the sidelines. But we made the most of it. And we put together a pretty comprehensive report on how the state could evaluate and leverage this technology, not just digital assets and Bitcoin, but lots of different use cases. Presented it to the state legislature. It didn't really go too far, but one of the recommendations we had was the development of a regulatory sandbox. And then more recently,

we proposed this, it was a combination of a state's precious metals and slash Bitcoin depository study bill. It started off, and I think Representative Mark Brody is joining us today. I think he's having some technical difficulties, but he's the one who really has been spearheading this for us. And it's kept us busy. Again, this happened relatively quickly. It was a rare collaborative effort between the precious metal gold crowd. It's called the Sound Money Defense Funds Group that advocates for gold. And we approached them and we said, well, hey, maybe we can collaborate on this bill. And let's add in a little provision that would include the mention of virtual currency,

which is how Bitcoin is defined in state law. That dates back to the money transmitter update. So we got Bitcoin, we added that term into the bill. And I went down and I testified a few weeks ago to make sure that it was passed out of the rules committee and hit the floor and it passed about two days ago. And since then, we've gotten a lot of inbound inquiries. Is the state going to officially put Bitcoin on the ballot sheets? I mean, I certainly don't know. That's what the headlines looked like, right, Dan? The headlines looked like, so even mine, the additional headlines, it looked like a bill had been passed that was allowing the state to do that. But this is obviously a bill that's passing to allow the state to do the study,

correct? And that's exactly it. I mean, I'm not here to curb anybody's enthusiasm because I think this is an amazing step. And I think this is the first, to my knowledge, in the country where a bill actually passed advocating for this. And things have been proposed over the years, but this actually passed one chamber. Now it's off to the state Senate. But it is just that it's a study bill. And I'll reiterate, it's an act to study the holding of bullion and virtual currency, Bitcoin, and their potential benefits, and whether to establish a state bullion depository for such assets. Now, a physical depository for Bitcoin, that's not necessary. The state would just use custody provided.

But the study is what's important because it's finally an official study and there's money been appropriated towards this that's going to allow our state to learn and explore and research the benefits of this. And it comes down in Representative Brody's case to sound money. I mean, he was a big proponent of that and over the years he's been a big gold advocate, but he's now very interested in Bitcoin. So philosophically they're aligned now. I think the education's important here that we can finally get this.

And I think this is the next natural phase that we've seen over the years on the trend cycle. We've seen, first it starts with early adopters, experimental phase, then it goes to institutional, like we've seen micro strategy and other balance sheets in the private sector. And then the long run, we're going to see governmental adoption. It's already happening in El Salvador, but I think this is a good step and that it sticks. Do you think that we're going to see most of the movement here at the state level? I mean, obviously, you're with the Blockchain Association right in D.C., so you happen to have a passion for Carolina because you started there,

but this is probably something you're working on in multiple states. Yeah, I think this is going to be a domino effect. Obviously, other states are doing fantastic work, Florida, Texas, a variety of states. But I think the study is a great start. And I think we will see more action in the states. We're already seeing states. But to our credit, the federal level, we have seen a lot of development there, particularly with the leadership of North Carolina's Patrick McHenry, Financial Services, and a few other champions. Yeah, we were working on getting him here today, but hopefully next week. But he was tentatively going to join. I'm working on it. We're going to try and get him. I know he's super excited. We're big fans of his at the state and federal level.

But yeah, I think the action certainly is happening at the state level. And it's just much more nimble. And I think also, you can factor in game theory. I think just a lot of states are going to be competitive, inherently competitive with one another. So each state is going to want to try and be just that. So we're North Carolina's front and center. We're a very pro-Bitcoin state for this technology.

And I think we're going to see more companies come. And I think we're going to see more legislation. The other thing I didn't mention, which we can get into later, is the anti-CBDC bill that we did. That was actually passed unanimously. And we could probably do an entire Twitter spaces on that topic. But we got that passed as well. Yeah, I saw that. What I find most interesting here is that I was expecting you to say

how challenging it was to do it bipartisan when you were talking about the bill, and you were actually talking about how challenging it was to get the Bitcoiners and hard metal guys together. It's funny enough, yeah. It's funny enough. Yeah, that was... It's funny because, believe it or not, a lot of the younger guys that are into gold and Bitcoin,

it's pretty easy. Because philosophically, again, I think they agree on the sound money argument. The Peter Schiff's of the world, that's a little bit tougher to sell. Yeah, well, that makes sense. But Peter Schiff is now doing ordinals on the Bitcoin blockchain. So maybe not that challenging. I know we were trying to get Representative Brody up. I'm not sure if he was still having issues to discuss. I see Eric here as well. Did you have anything to add before we move on to the Bitcoin ETF topics? that key point that once one state adopts some legislation like this,

we see the dominoes fall. We've seen it happen with a number of pieces of legislation that whether originated in our state or others. So it's a great first step. And it figures that the SEC will come in and poo-poo a little bit of good Bitcoin news, but that's the way it goes these days. Kind of their thing. Yeah, that's their thing.

If we're being honest, guys. So awesome. Well, feel free to stick around. I think we're going to move on, but we'll all be watching North Carolina and any updates that you guys have moving forward, please share. And then if you can get Representative Brody up,

we would love to have him. I know he's having some trouble doing that. Yeah. We'll send you guys questions too. Perfect. Perfect. Awesome. So guys, just to reset a bit,

you'll see that one of the co-hosts on stage right now is Crypto Town Hall. That's Crypto underscore Town Hall, as I've mentioned and been mentioning. Please follow that account because that is eventually where we're going to be moving to to host these Twitter spaces so that we have a dedicated channel

and a dedicated Twitter account to do that from. It actually used to be the Wolf of Wall Street's podcast account. I donated it to the Crypto Town Hall because I really obviously believe in what we're doing here. And so just please, please, please follow that account because we do not want you to miss these moving forward. Obviously, guys, the big news right now, SEC hints no spot Bitcoin ETF. But the question is, is that really what's happening here? As you dig in, this may just be another clickbait article from the Wall Street Journal. Their headline was SEC says spot Bitcoin ETF filings are inadequate.

But potentially this could just be one clause where they can just refile and basically name the exchange. But listen, I know I saw Dave. Maybe he left. OK, well, I got Matt Hogan here anyway. So we've got all our ETF people. Matt, I mean, what do you make of this news? It rocked the market here, at least temporarily. Yeah, it was pretty impressive news. Great to be back on.

What a service this space is. You know, I read the Wall Street Journal article as well. I should say up front that Bitwise has a filing in with the SEC, and I can't comment specifically on that filing or any other filing, but I can comment on the space in general. I think the answer to whether this is big news or a nothing burger is something in between. And I actually take it as relatively positive news. I do think for the large part, reading through what's written in the Wall Street Journal, it feels like almost a technical rejection, right? The filings on record that described the surveillance sharing agreement didn't disclose the name of the exchange and didn't

disclose the details of that, how those shiveric sharing agreements would work. And, you know, what the Wall Street Journal article says is that, quote, the SEC told the exchanges it returned the filings for those reasons and that they need to provide enough information about the details of those shiveric sharing agreements. They can update the language and refile so i i suspect that that is what you will see i suspect you'll see um all these folks go back to the drawing board uh refile and will be on their way um i take this as more honestly more positive than negative it shows constructive engagement um and uh it's not just sort of letting these filings run for 240 days and rejecting them at the end

of that period, which has been the historical precedent to date. So I don't think this is the end of spot Bitcoin ETFs. I think it's a delay, but maybe even a positive delay or at least modestly positive is my read from what the Wall Street Journal wrote. Yeah, we're already seeing, though, you obviously mentioned 240 days. We've seen news that Cathie Wood and ARC, their decision expected, at least their first decision expected, August 13th. That was actually much sooner than I expected. Yeah, you have to think of it the way my 16-year-old thinks of homework assignments,

which is that they're a series of deadlines that can be pushed back and pushed back and pushed back. The way it works technically, I believe they have 90 days to issue the initial response, or they can ask for more time. And there are these statutory links that they can ask for more time. They can ask for 45 more days and then another period of days. Eventually, you get to the end of the point where they have to make a decision. That point is 240 days from the initial file of the 19b4. So whenever the 19b4 was filed, they have to make a decision within 240 days. All the other deadlines in between can be pushed with a simple piece of paperwork. And historically, what we've seen is that all of the Bitcoin ETF applications have

been pushed to that full 240 day period. Now, I actually think if they go about approving a spot Bitcoin ETF, there's no guarantee that they will wait all 240 days to do so. They may do it before then. But yeah, you shouldn't look at that interim deadline that's getting trumpeted. It's anything other than sort of a clickbait deadline that can be pushed literally with a single piece of paper from the SEC. And that's what they've done for the past 10 years in evaluating spot Bitcoin ETF applications. Got it, Dave. Go ahead. Dave, go ahead. Sorry. Yeah, sorry. I mean, look, the fact of the matter is history is a guide,

right? Except for there's phases in relationships. And having gone through multiple periods and multiple filings over the years of different broker-dealers with the SEC, effectively, this is, I believe, extremely positive news. And in fact, I was reading it as you were having your guest on your video on your YouTube channel this morning. I think it marks a break in phase. We went from the basically NFW, let's be politically correct, phase to we're going to deny it. We have no interest. Forget it. To, okay, know phase to you know we're going to deny it we have no interest forget it to okay here we are now we're in the negotiation phase and yes they're going to negotiate and they're going to be sitting there there's going to be meetings with the staff and they're going to say okay how does this surveillance sharing work we want to be able to look

and get things you know detailed things like it let's, let's be clear of what they're going to ask for. They're going to ask for PII. Uh, they're going to want to know, okay, you're going to, they're going to want a Coinbase to agree to filing SARS suspicious activity reports. And then they're going to have to, if the, if the regulator says, okay, this does look suspicious, who is doing this trade? That's this exact process that they have with every other asset class that they surveil, and that's what they're going to want. And in point of fact, there was never going to be an approval without that, without the ability to track down, okay, we think this looks manipulative. What's going on here? And once they get that, then understand what that means politically. It means politically, they can then take a huge victory lap. And this is clearly not what their intent was all along. But at this point, they

could say, listen, we held out, we forced them, and now we finally have a much safer surveilled market. That's, I think, what they want. And frankly, unless he is an idiot, and I think he's quite smart, I don't think he's dumb, he'll take the win when he can get people to give them that and i'm quite confident that they will because everyone has a huge vested interest in doing exactly what i just suggested yeah i i don't disagree anybody else have a opinion here hey scott uh on that yeah thanks um i agree with david what we have some of us like you scott myself we've been saying that they're pushing the crypto markets down including bitcoin until the traditional players get in place get a bigger slice and what what you see is the softening now

right is it a coincidence that after black rock and all these others file an ETF, we don't get a rejection. We get a negotiation. We get a softening phase. And that's exactly what's happening. And so I think Dave's 100% on the mark. I think it's good news for Coinbase because I think they'll be listed. So not financial advice,

but I bought some of that today. That's really all I have. Yeah, I mean, what's interesting here, obviously, is that maybe this is just a very small technicality, and the SEC is asking for a bit more clarity. It shouldn't be a surprise if they're saying we're going to have a surveillance sharing agreement

and we're going to be working with an exchange that the SEC would say, okay, show us the agreement and name the exchange. Right? I mean, Matt, is that accurate? Yeah, I think that's exactly right. I think that's exactly right. I do think, as the other speaker said, this is a positive, right? It's negotiation phase. They're going to want to see those details. And that's a reasonable position for them to take. I think it would be unreasonable to take any other position, to be honest. So I do think this is a positive development

and the market will come to realize that pretty shortly. Okay, so is there anyone here who thinks that this is a massive negative, that there's something nefarious going on here? Or is this just semantics? Simon, what do you think? Sorry, you called me eating at the same time i wonder i'm

yeah yeah you're getting revenge i did that to you once um um yeah uh well yeah we haven't had things like this in any of the previous applications so to me if all the other applications have led to the same result and this one we get a different thing then I interpret that as bullish but when I saw the headline I've actually got an outstanding bet with Rob from digital asset news and I said the ETF will be approved because it's BlackRock and he said it wouldn't and the loser has to what has to wear and I love Machinsky t-shirt. So I was just getting ready for that one. I do not want to see anybody in that t-shirt, literally ever. I mean, Bruce, listen, you always went on

a bit of a rampage about the SEC yesterday. So what are you thinking here? Yeah, I think it's, I mean, as much as I'd love to say it's some big conspiracy or something, I think it's, I mean, as much as I'd love to say it's some big conspiracy or something, I think it's fairly routine. It is sort of, I don't think it's a negative towards BlackRock. I think it's, if anything, it shows, I wouldn't say favoritism, but it shows kind of some respect for the process and perhaps some of the, you know, public outcry about this, you know, because the SEC doesn't have to answer. You know, when we became registered as a broker dealer, there was a FINRA thing that we needed approval on, and they had six months, they had 180 days to approve it. So unlike the 170, we knew they were going to take a long time, like 175th day, we're like, oh yeah, they should be getting back to us any minute now. And then, you know, 177, 78, 79. I'm like, really?

Are they going to really wait till the last day? Wait till the last day, wake up in that morning, still nothing. They waited till three, the markets close at four. They waited till 345 on the last day. And then I've talked to many people where that's a common thing. They'll just wait till the last minute. They want to delay these things and draw it out. And that's common.

So it's actually kind of a, you know, maybe a tiny favor to black rock to say like oh hey you you didn't uh do this piece here from what i understand it was fairly minor it was like they didn't name the spot exchange or something so um you know overall i think you know i think the assessment of the you know john and and others is is is probably, you know, really correct that they're going to, you know, they need a victory. Never. I've been registered under nine SEC chairs, and I've never, ever, ever seen anything close to that. You know, maybe certain niche industries or something, but I've never seen it where, like, everybody seems to hate the chair and, you know, lack of respect for the whole agency. It's just, you know, they've got to be feeling this pressure.

So, you know, hopefully they'll, you know, come around and we'll be in a new era of, you know, get some of these things approved. You know, they have some concessions they want and we, you know, move forward. Because the bigger picture is that securities are important and it's really, really, really harmful to America to have this kind of behavior. You know, we need to have free markets in America. It's what our country is all about. We have to allow entrepreneurs and capital formation. And they've just been like the frog in the boiling water with all of these procedures. You know, AML, KYC didn't even exist when I started my career. Like none on's current form was very, very rudimentary. You know, it's so, so this idea that, you know, they have this birthright to know every single thing about everybody and where you are. And,

you know, it, it, it, it's not moral. It's not, uh, you know, correct. And, you know, shouldn't even be part of the, of the United States. Uh, you know, it's, I don't feel like it's in line with our, our constitution or anything or anything else. And it also doesn't work. It grinds things to a halt. You know, we'd have such a wonderful and vibrant if they wouldn't have had such a pain in the neck to make everything work. We'd probably have 100000 new securities trading. We could have tokenized the world and us though, Bruce. Don't worry. And I'm right there to help. They're coming. So listen, we got three Davids on stage, three Davids and Davids. But we were talking this morning on YouTube for 35 minutes about ETFs the minute you signed off. Yeah. Look, I mean, nothing like news when you're talking about news. With all respect to our other friend, Dave, I actually don't believe this is a real phase change from denial to negotiation. I think this is a continuation of denial. Them simply leaning back to SIBO and NASDAQ and saying, nah, isn't a negotiation. It's a continuation of them saying, hey, we need a surveillance agreement with a regulated exchange, which is what they've been up significant size, which is what they've been saying, believe for five years. So I don't really see this as moving the needle on that.

And if anything, I think that they'll probably just continue to kick this can down the road for at least another year. I'm not somebody who believes that somehow we're in some final negotiation phase. And I also think it's ridiculous to think that the SEC actually responds to pressure. I just don't actually think that that's true. And I think if they had responded to pressure, they would have done it a while ago. I think this is basically an administration call to keep crypto out of the hands of the regulated markets for this administration.

So I'm not a big believer that this is super bullish on approval. I agree it should be. I'm not happy with this situation. I agree with the previous speaker's comments about what would be better for this country, but I'm not sanguine about this. I actually think that this will continue to get delayed well past the existing deadlines Hogan was talking about and probably well into the end of next year. Hey, can I just go ahead with a quick question because I got to take off soon. Hey, guys. So last year when the Grayscale ETF got rejected, one of the SEC's arguments for the rejection was that the filing didn't demonstrate enough to protect investors against fraud and manipulation. Specifically, the SEC filing said rules of national securities exchanges must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices

and to protect investors in the public interest, and ETPs of a certain size must meet these regulations. Although surveillance sharing agreements'm just reading the uh file right now although surveillance sharing agreements are not the exclusive means i read your listing exchange of equality trust etc needs obligations uh blah blah um basically it's saying that uh people can use the great race scale ptp to uh to manipulate the markets. What has BlackRock done differently this time in light of this? Has it learned from this and done anything differently? Nothing. Nothing.

There's really nothing. Not true. That's absolutely not true. I mean, we don't know all the conversations that have gone on at the staff level, but it's very clear from the Grayscale judge and what's going on. They're going to lose that argument, David. They are going to lose that argument because there's literally no way you can't find one human being who has announced a credibility to say that the futures backed ETFs are less subject to manipulation than spot. There's literally not one human being that has

any credibility because mathematically it's an absurd argument. And the judge is basically saying... But that's not the argument. That is categorically wrong. That is not the argument in the Grayscale case. If you go look at the brief, the SEC concedes that their goal as regulators is not to prevent manipulation.

They say that numerous times. Their goal is to detect, and they actually state in the brief, that regardless of whether manipulation occurs in the spot market, futures market, that's beside the point. The goal of the SEC is to ensure that if someone were entering the spot market, they'd have to go on to markets of sufficient size. And we want surveillance sharing agreements with those markets of sufficient size to be able to detect. And during the oral arguments, go back and listen to it, the council arguing for the SEC basically conceded, our job is not to protect or prevent manipulation as the SEC. We want to be able to detect it so then we can go on forward and bring enforcement action.

So- That's exactly what I said before. But no, no, it's not because you said to prevent manipulation. You said there's no- No, no. Well, what I said in my first comment, is very important here is what they want is to be able to have suspicious activity reports be the responsibility of the exchange to get filed to then be to go to a regulator to look after and then when the regulator says this is something we need to look into for the exchange to be willing

to part with the the pii with the account information of who is doing those trades. Correct. So with the futures, well, they've already asked for it. With the futures, we threw a dozen orders. So with the futures markets, okay, you have those robust CME-based surveillance sharing agreements, which are set forth in detail. And the SEC says, that's enough. We want, because it's upwards of 90% of the futures volume trades to the CME. 90%, right? Contrast that with Coinbase, which is the main aspect of the iShares filing. Coinbase has fewer than 20% of global spot volume, and their surveillance sharing agreement with NASDAQ,

which will be found to be woefully deficient, doesn't capture 80 of the volume you would not need they have they have 70 plus percent of the volume of u.s dollar base it doesn't matter that's that's not the that's not the global market it's not the global market the futures market is not the global market either correct which zebo's market share is way lower than Coinbase's market share as far as the global market. 100%, but they're not approving spot. They're approving futures. It's a different product. No, no.

SIBO's market for futures, or when you include perpetual swaps in futures, SIBO's market share of the global market in Delta 1 derivatives is way less than Coinbase's of the Bitcoin spot market, period. Yeah. So I take the total opposite approach on what do you think is going to happen in the grayscale case. And I think I'm going to be proven right in this, because if you actually look at the standard for what it means to have an arbitrary and capricious ruling, it basically means that you have to not necessarily be wrong in your analysis. You have to have made it with some sort of bias or some sort of lack of clear understanding. And the case law actually tells you the regulators are allowed to be wrong. That doesn't mean they're arbitrary and capricious. Arbitrary and capricious means it's something that has no rational basis, zero rational

basis for the approval. It's one of the lowest standards in the law. So there's just a ton of deference. And even if the SEC were to lose in the grayscale case, it doesn't necessarily mean you greenlight approval of the spot ETF. What it would do is it would require them to go back and issue an order that is not arbitrary and capricious. That's the big mistake that people keep making, that finding that order is arbitrary and capricious, means that it necessarily gets approval in the other direction. That's not the type of agency deference that we have. Yeah, Joe.

Joe, yeah, and even Dave, when we were discussing Nautic this morning on YouTube and something we've discussed in the past quite a bit, actually it could have an even worse consequence, which could be basically removing the futures ETF. 100%. That's exactly right. That's my belief.

I think that's actually what's going to happen. The issue is politics. It really is. I mean, it's always been and always will be politics. The issue is this particular story gives them a chance. It's a chance. Gives them a chance to actually deflect some of the criticism that is being levied upon them by a cadre of voters that are absolutely critical to this administration to stay in power, which is the young people. And never forget, we're dealing with political organizations. And you say the SEC doesn't respond to pressure. That's hogwash. The SDC, like every other agency in the federal government, responds to whatever the administration thinks is important. And this administration, like the previous one, but this one may even be more, responds to polls and politics. And so it really is a political question. is they can undeniably claim to have done the right thing and deflect opponents' criticisms

if they get the kind of sharing agreement that they want. Now, you're absolutely right. There's no question legally they can stonewall this till this administration is gone. There's no doubt. The issue is here's something else that's worth pointing out. When the SEC wants to stonewall it, they don't go to the Wall Street Journal and leak things months before they need to say a word. In this particular case, they leaked things for a reason. Why? It's because this is a PR war. This particular SEC is engaging specifically in PR in a way that no previous SEC that I've ever seen in 40 years has ever done. And why would it be the reason to leak this information if not to start currying that political narrative that they want to draft? You mean past SEC chairman didn't make cute cartoon videos

about Kim Kardashian? I mean, this is the extraordinary aspect of this. You're exactly right, Dave, on that point. I completely agree. The fact that this story is even out there just shows you, I think they view this particular space with animus. That's my view. I don't think there's any question about that, Joe. I mean, they've basically said, and we've spoken with people, when an SEC commissioner like Gensler comes in, they basically say, listen, these are the things that are important to me. These are the things that are important to this administration. This is where we need staff. And by looking at how they've staffed up, where they've spent their money, the people they've hired, it's very clear that this

is Gensler's fight. Of all things, like the anti-crypto army coming down from Elizabeth Warren and such. I mean, this is what Gensler really believes is one of the most important mandates that he has in this space. It's undeniable. Can I ask you a question? Yeah, please. Now, Joe, you're one of the few people I know out there when the BlackRock ETF was announced, a lot of people said, oh, you know, it's a sure thing. And I know that you spoke up and said otherwise.

Do you not see this as any softening, or do you still believe it's going to be a strict denial? Yeah, I think that the only thing that gives me pause is this ruling, because I do think a lot of the impetus behind the recent filings is the hope, it's a hedge, right, for potentially a favorable ruling from the Grayscale case and i i that's what i think is the trigger for all this it's not some secret uh inside intel that blackrock has on what it takes to get it approved or a softening or etc i view it all all is basically responsive to the grayscale case and it's a very minimal hedge to get these from statements on file even if they're kicked or but but joe joe i don't disagree with that at all but still this is blackrock coming

out publicly filing a bitcoin etf they have to care deeply or at least have an opinion here that this could happen because even if grid they believe grayscale is going to win blackrock wasn't even in the ring still yeah no i'm excited to enter the ring deciding to enter the ring i think was inevitable. I don't necessarily think that they were going to always stay on the sidelines with how fast moving and growing the industry is. I just think that's kind of silly to make that expectation. They were eventually, you know, I think many in this space have been calling for big money to enter and it increasingly trickles in. It's not kind of the avalanche that people were talking about even back in 2018 and in 2017 it's more of a slow trickle and i think that that's you know in a lot of ways

that's due to the regulatory environment and people being cautious but you know to the point is like you know i think the question was originally was is this a softening okay i don't think there's any evidence that suggests that um maybe it's a softening when it comes to BlackRock and their approach and their willingness to sort of put their name out there. Maybe they're willing to, you know, really be more exposed and as being open to this. But, you know, in terms of the SEC, I don't see any evidence. I mean, if anything, I think that the recent filings against Coinbase and Binance shows that the SEC is willing to get even more aggressive. And by the way, I will just tell you, I'll go on record saying I expect numerous additional suits to be filed in the next 90 days against major players. So this is the beginning,

not the end of the SEC's- Okay, Joe, let's talk about, I don't disagree, but I think that there's a lot of people who believe that the SEC has bit off. I won't say necessarily more that they can chew, but as much as they can chew with their current staff with going against Ripple, Binance, and Coinbase. So you say you expect a lot of enforcement action against major players? Doesn't necessarily have to be SEC. Okay. I know that you're talking about DOJ and Binance, of course, but if we're talking specifically about the SEC, I would make the argument we're going to see a whole lot of enforcement actions, but it's going to be mid to lower tier size companies are going to be forced

to basically just, you know, pay the fine and move on because then the SEC gets a ton of wins without actually having to fight any of these people. So you don't expect an SEC suit against the prime trust? Oh, well, but the prime trust is down to being almost a company of insignificant size and listen i i literally we've been on top of prime trust since day one i i was holding the information about them uh losing private keys for weeks because we didn't want to share that until that was somewhat public knowledge so i think that uh prime trust is a massive massive black eye on this industry that hopefully just doesn't get talked about as much as... I just...

Yes, when you have a trusted, regulated custodian that not only loses private keys, but then commits fraud to cover it up. Yes, that's a huge problem. And I think we will see action there. But I think Prime Trust has nothing left to even fight it. I mean, they're done. I'll just state this, okay? Because I got to jump in a second for Cole. But ultimately, okay, there are portions of both the Coinbase and Binance

complaint, and also the CFTC complaint against Binance, which people forget about. You can copy those allegations verbatim and state them against every major crypto exchange that operates in the United States. So the notion that some folks that are bigger players are just going to not face those types of claims brought against them about being unregistered broker-dealers and unregistered clearinghouses and not proper registered exchanges, I think that's fiction. I think it will come for everyone. And I think it's just a question of strategically, and manpower is always a concern, right? But strategically, what is the rollout? And the SEC sent a message by going after a big player, a major player in Coinbase. And I think that does not necessarily mean other players underneath them will face the

exact same allegations in the near future. And I assume the implication, I put words in your mouth, but when you said not necessarily the SEC, I think you were talking about potential DOJ action, correct? Or even CFTC? Yes. And state regulators. So, you know, there's a whole apparatus, regulatory apparatus. They can go at you many different ways. It moves slow and it grinds, as people like John and others know. But, you know, they make tactical decisions based on limited command power. And it was not a mistake that they went off after the big gorilla first. And I think there are other smaller gorillas that will face similar claims almost verbatim. Right. I think they're going to end up set. My point was, I think you're right in that they're going to all end up settling, which will be just win after win after win for the

SEC, probably at least from perspective. One thing real quick, what does a settlement look like when one of the claims that you're seeking is to bar them from engaging in exchange-related activities? Yeah, they pay a fine and then they go out of business or they just offer Bitcoin trading services and go out of business anyways. I know what you're saying. Listen, Joe, I don't disagree with the more enforcement actions coming. I was predicting that they were suing Coinbase 10 months ago. So I agree with you. However, I don't think there's anyone bigger, more significant than Coinbase unless you're talking about Circle or Tether. And I don't know if you're hinting at any of that. DCG is large as well. Not as large, but DCG is the other large player, I would say,

in the United States. Thanks, Scott. Thanks, Mari. We got to jump. Take care, everybody. All right, Joe. Have a player, I would say, in the United States. Thanks, Scott. Thanks, Mari. We've got to jump. Take care, everybody. All right, Joe. Have a good one. Go ahead, Dave Weisberger.

So, I mean, Scott, I just DM'd you a link that you should post, which is Coinbase's answer to the SEC complaint. It is an incredibly easy read. I need it in the form of a... Dave, to be able to post it, we need it in the form of a tweet. I saw you sent the document, but I'll look for some. Okay. I'll do that after. But the point that I want to make is because of what John said, Coinbase said, basically, they're basically saying before we can even think about settling, they're asking the judge to dismiss. And they're asking it on very interesting grounds and grounds that, frankly, I would love to hear John's point, John's point of view, because to my non-legal brain that just kind of is legal adjacent, having reading pleadings and stuff, it feels like between West Virginia versus EPA and today's case, throwing out the student loans, et cetera, that this Supreme Court is extremely clear and overbroad executive actions.

And Coinbase is going right to the heart of the accusation, saying that the SEC does not even have jurisdiction to bring this suit. And that is extremely important because effectively, this is not we think we can settle. This is we are going directly at it. And it's a very big deal, I think. And it's also another reason why the SEC is probably more likely to want to get a win in this case because it's going to be very difficult. But it's a really interesting read. I will tweet it now. Yeah, let's go to our lawyers, John and David, who hopefully are not billing us for the time that they speak. Go ahead, David.

I'll give deference to John. John, you want to go first? Go ahead, David. I've been speaking. Go, brother. Okay. I'm just going to jump on what Dave just said because I think when we were talking about pressure,

I think we have to remember sometimes we all talk to each other in a vacuum on crypto Twitter. The pressure of the outside world is not the pressure that the sec feels especially in these crypto cases they are not feeling pressure to do anything this is still actions that are wildly enthusiastically supported by the old guard of the political party um So it's very important to remember that Gensler is, this isn't like a, I guess we're playing baseball right now.

This isn't a manager on the hot seat who's losing. Gensler has the support of all of the people he needs in government to continue the path he's going on. I think that's really important that just because we are all bashing on what's going on. I think that's really important that just because we are all bashing on what's going on here, the people he reports to are not bashing him for the same thing. In fact, they are enthusiastically supporting the path that he's on. That's number one. Number two, the Coinbase, you know, first of all, everyone keeps calling it a motion to dismiss.

Coinbase filed an answer. That means this case is going forward. They filed what is amount to a press release. It is beyond brilliant. It is beyond well-written. It was put together probably before this case was even filed. They filed it, I think, about six weeks early. The all-star team representing Coinbase knows exactly what they're doing. The case was never going to be dismissed. So what'd they do? They wrote a motion and said, we'd like a judgment on the pleadings as a matter of law. I think Metal Lawman and I, John, were going over this yesterday on Twitter.

I offered him my firstborn child. If Coinbase wins on that argument, they're not going to win on that argument either. Why would you want your firstborn child, though? It's my easier of my two children. Oh, damn. I mean, at the end of the day, I'm not in the market for more children. So at the end of the day, what we're talking about here is, you know, public posturing on Coinbase is fantastic what they're doing. They're building an army just like John has built an army of people for supporting him.

And that is incredibly helpful moving forward. But the SEC does not care about what crypto Twitter thinks, believes or cares about. As long as the administration fully supports what's going on. And I think John is right. I mean, I get quoted all the time. There's been DOJ investigation going on into Binance. They're going to announce that shortly. You know, and the more that that unfolds, we have to separate the Binance lawsuit and the Coinbase lawsuit. What everyone here wants is for Coinbase to win on the law and saying they've done nothing wrong. And if they have done something wrong, it's because it's ambiguity in the law and Congress needs to fix that. But for the moment that they've done nothing

wrong, finance is a whole different story. And it has nothing to do with what we're all talking about, because we all want to be talking about the legitimate side of crypto. We don't want to get snarred up in the prime trust conversation where someone screwed up and then did criminal actions as a trust and stealing client funds. That is not the defense here. The defense here is what Coinbase and Gemini have been doing for years, which is saying, we are doing this legitimately. We are doing this and we are giving you our plans and everything we have done is right. And that's the support that we should all be giving. And I think ultimately that's going to be the winning argument here. Even if Coinbase pays a fine, SEC takes a fine,

they'll say whether it's a million, a hundred million, a billion dollars, it doesn't matter to me. They'll post the day one. But ultimately, we need Coinbase to win on the law. And we have to make sure that we all support positive actors in the space who are doing it right. John, go ahead. Yeah, I agree with all of that. And here's the thing to note, the Supreme Court, when the EPA West Virginia case came out with the major questions doctrine, I made a tweet that said, I don't guarantee a lot of things, but I guarantee if this gets to the Supreme Court, the SEC loses. And that I would encourage everyone to read the Coinbase pleadings because I described it as a work of art. I didn't think you could get much better than the Ripple legal team. And then the Coinbase team came out and went with this.

But the bottom line is, we may see an interlocutory appeal. What you have, for everybody to understand, is you have Congress has already, in the Senate and in the House, has initiated legislation demonstrating its intent to legislate this area. Couple that with Gensler's confirmation testimony where he says there is no regulatory framework for digital assets in the United States, basically conceding by admission

that it falls within this regulatory gap, which is the third thing the Hinman email showed that the SEC has acknowledged that there is this regulatory gap in between the CFTC, SEC. Where do these digital assets fall into? Then you couple that with there's not a single case in U.S. history where a investment contract in the secondary market was also determined an investment contract. The only case to address it said that it wasn't. And that was in a full circuit of the Ninth Circuit. And then there's never a case where there's been no privity between a buyer and promoters. Take an XRP holder or a Cardano holder or an ETH holder who has no knowledge of Vitalik, no knowledge of Ripple

or anything. And they buy this commodity, this digital commodity. They have no privity between this issuer and promoter. And then you couple all that with the EPA and then the decision yesterday, and this Supreme Court is screaming that they will kick the FCC out and say, this is for Congress. Congress didn't need the authority to do this. You've admitted before you went on this political agenda, you admitted that there wasn't a framework for these digital assets, and you can't just change your mind like that. And so, you know, my real issue is how this judge addressed this motion. I'm not saying the judge is going to agree with Coinbase, despite it being a legal work of art. But the question then is, do we see an allocatory appeal directly up after that?

John, so I mean, invoking this major questions doctrine, right? And we've been hearing a lot about that. You kind of just mentioned it. I mean, is that something that they're going to be mentioning immediately as a effort to get this thrown out? Or is this something that we'll be hearing about for the next three or four years as sort of this court case grinds on? No, that's what I'm talking about, potential interlocutory appeal. Unlike in the Ripple case, which preceded the EPA West Virginia Supreme Court case, the SEC has invoked the major doctrine. They allude to the Hinman emails

where it says regulatory gap. They cite Gensler's testimony where he admitted that there was no regulatory framework. And so what everyone needs to understand is the Supreme Court has said, unless Congress has specifically designated you and delegated the authority to a federal agency, when there is an issue that's a major question that affects, you know, economic and financial markets, great significance, put it just like that, then that agency, unless they've been specifically authorized, can't do what they're doing, basically. And so with the EPA, they couldn't just unilaterally start requiring these,

you know, emissions requirements, the same thing the SEC is trying to do with the ESG disclosures. And they shot that down with the EPA. And this court is very conservative. If it reviews Howey, the lower courts watered down the solely language of the Howey case where it said that you have to rely solely on the efforts of the promoter. Lower courts have watered that down. It's never went back before the Supreme Court. And so this conservative Supreme Court, the writing's on the wall. Yeah, but it has to get there, right?

I mean, so we're talking about years down the road that we'd even be seeing them challenging Howey or any of... Well, that's true, but the question is, the Second Circuit is going to be faster. And does the Second Circuit, you know, and see the writing on the wall and apply that EPA decision? So I'm not I'm not saying it's great news. This is going to happen tomorrow. What I'm just saying is that what the Coinbase has done is a is an additional legal wrinkle where the whole case could be stayed for a while as we go up on an expedited format, what's called an interlocutory appeal. Yeah. I mean, listen, I might be in this

echo chamber or bubble, but it doesn't seem like the SEC is doing particularly well in court in any of these cases, right? Endless pushback in the Voyager bankruptcy, grayscale, now people saying 70% chance that grayscale wins, whatever that means for an ETF is up for interpretation. Ripple, I mean, it doesn't seem like the SEC is getting very many favorable opinions from the courts. No, they're not. In every single court, they have actually gotten smacked down, starting with the judge in the Ripple case saying they lacked faithful allegiance to the law and that basically said they were being complete hypocrites.

And then you've seen every single other court basically take them to task. Even in the library case, I mean, the judge, you know, views his role as very limited. But I encourage everyone to read the transcript that's on my site of the hearings that he's basically, you know, arguing with the SEC. he's basically you know arguing with the stc why don't you do something about the secondary issues you admit that there's all these holders out there that are users of a technology that are not investors that are actually using as utility tokens like clarify it and the stc says we don't do that i mean that's like a direct quote we don't do that yeah go ahead simon yeah i was just going

to give an update on the core because uh it directly relates to this exact conversation on the celsius case um so within the celsius case there was massive manipulation on the short side and the long side of the cell token um and the those that were victims of the sell token. And those that were victims of the sell token, the price of the sell token during the time that it actually filed for bankruptcy, excuse me, sorry, was actually going to determine the recovery that they were going to get.

Now, the judge actually called the SEC to make a determination whether cell token is a security in this case the reason being is because uh the in the reorganization plan that was submitted to what is due to be submitted to the court they wanted to give a lower price for those that held cell token due to the market manipulation. And so the judge is actually calling upon the SEC. Now, the SEC hasn't said anything in the case right now. I speculate there's reasons for that because I believe that there's an impending indictment

for Alex Mijinski and they're waiting for the moment, the correct moment in order to do that. But now the judge is calling in the SEC, so they've got to make a determination. Now in Voyager, it was interesting because they did determine that it was a security. But the difference in this case is that the UCC, who are representing creditors, they're saying that the token should actually be subordinated if it is a security. So they're using the Howey test in order to make that determination.

So we're going to get another one in the Celsius case, but it might move to settlement before that determination is actually made. But just wanted to update people. Now, another interesting turn of events is that those that were representing the sell token were saying, well, if sell token is the security and should be subordinated, then we're making the claim that the actual earn program and every claim of every earn creditor should also be subordinated because obviously the equity holders get wiped out in this case.

But I just thought it would be worth bringing up because we're going to get another one of those. Is it security? Isn't it security? And the SEC is going to have to come and step in. And then there's going to have to be put in front of the judge. Yeah, thanks for that update. Dan, since we have you here and you're in Washington, you're sitting here thinking about all of these things. I don't know how political you get, obviously, but, you know, for anyone who missed the beginning, we were talking about what's happening in North Carolina. I mean, Dan, what do you think of the general sort of attacks here by the SEC and where do you stand on everything we've heard here? here. Well, if you get a chance, Marissa, who's our policy counsel, and Jake Chavinsky, who's our chief policy officer, put out a statement yesterday. We have a pretty strong opinion

on Gary Gensler. Yeah, I need to pin that. I'm going to go find it. Jake, that was incredible. I tweeted it yesterday, but I'm going to go find that and pin it. Yeah. Yeah, I think we just hit fortune actually yesterday too. I mean, listen, he's got to recuse himself in our opinion from a lot of these cases. I was never a fan. I was actually always skeptical of him despite even, you know,

the work he did at, at up at MIT. And I know a lot of people didn't like Jay Clayton either, but I think Jay Clayton didn't really have any interest in learning more about the industry, you know, but he wasn't, Gensler's particularly dangerous though, But I think Jayden Clayton didn't really have any interest in learning more about the industry. Gensler is particularly dangerous, though, I think, because he knows the stuff and he knows the industry pretty well. And I think he's treated it pretty unfairly.

But I'm not on the policy side of the shop. But I will say, though, that we have strong opinions on them. And we think there needs to be some serious changes made. Yeah, you guys can see that tweet. I pinned it above from J.T. Rubin. I'm a huge fan. Sorry, Dan. I thought you lifted your mic to speak again. I mean, David, you just

heard everything that John said, that being David Silver. I mean, your opinion clearly is that the SEC is doing these things for a reason. They're generally winning. It doesn't feel that way. It's not. It's all pretty devil's advocate for a moment. If John is right, which by the way, I think ultimately John's going to be right. But ultimately, the Second Circuit, you know, for Coinbase to do this, to do the interlocutory route, do all these legal maneuvers for them to win, they can only win in a conservative court. They first have to go through a liberal Second Circuit court. It's just going to take time. What Coinbase is doing is a targeted press maneuver.

They know that the and I think everyone's talking about this. They know who's following this and who they are. They are preaching to the choir. They are not preaching to the older institutional D.C. legacy lobbyists.

Yeah, they're playing to us and it works well. Exactly. And it's brilliant because what they're doing is brilliant. I'm not arguing what they have written. What they have written is poetry. But you govern in prose, not in poetry. And the prose here is that the legacy institutions are spending a ton of money, and Dan's group and Jake Stravinsky,

they're spending money to battle what the legacy institutions are fighting for right now. Okay. It needs to be very, very clear that if you had said that three weeks ago, I would have been inclined to agree with you. But we have two of the top asset managers in the world who are on the opposite side. We have internal, I've talked to Democrat lobbyists, not just Republican lobbyists, but Democrat lobbyists who are fed up. And they're telling us that there is a significant undercurrent of this guy talking about the FCC as we don't want this to be an issue to let that Republicans can bludgeon us with. Obviously, the Democrats are focused mostly on trying to get Trump nominated because he's easiest to run against, but there are still Congress people who are going to be in difficult elections. And the absolute reality is they don't want a political issue. And so, yes, there are definitely some, certainly in the banks, who would love to make

Bitcoin go away, but I think that they're coming to the conclusion that they can't. And it's really important to understand that BlackRock and Fidelity joining the fight politically, remember, this administration regulate or rules by poll, opinion polls. If the various people involved on this call and everyone else ends up getting influenced and you start seeing real clear politics polls

talking about this as an issue, and Scott, you've talked about that, it will matter. I suspect that people in the administration understand that they really need to defang it. And this may very well end up going that way. That's really the issue because you're 100% right. No question about it. The SEC can 100% stonewall this until the... But can't the SEC, both David, can't the SEC actually defang this by approving a Bitcoin spot ETF, throwing the red meat into the water and calling it a day? Well, that's my theory. And I may very well be wrong, but that's been my working theory. I mean, I think that everyone is under the impression you can't stop this.

You know, the ball's rolling down the hill. It can't be stopped. It's how is the SEC going to pivot to take the win? I think we've heard a lot of different ways today of people saying how things are going to pivot for the SEC to take the win. I think the way, and probably Bruce is going to jump up and down and say, that's the problem with what David Silver is about to say. The way that the SEC is going to pivot here is people are going to lose their privacy rights and there's going to be a lot more government regulation in crypto. And personally, I'm okay with that. But now you can have all the OG that I've been around since 2013 that I consider myself not OG, maybe like second or third generation.

But you're going to have all the OG who say, oh my God, we won, but we lost what we believe in. And what's the win there? So of course, I agree that that's where we're moving towards. We're moving towards what I would consider a healthy KYC AML. But a lot of people on this call are going to be like, oh my God, that's horrible. Did we throw the baby out with the bathwater? Well, that's definitely where we're heading. Yeah, there's a lot of cognitive dissonance, whether we should be cheering BlackRock or Wall Street in general, if you believe in the original ethos there. And I agree with you, but that's know, we have to be pragmatic and live in the world where we do.

And right now, the world we're living in is this fight for the SEC and whether they're going to approve of these or not. Scott, I agree. Well, I was going to say, I agree with what both have said. There's no doubt that Coinbase is engaged in a public opinion. And I do believe BlackRock and Fidelity and the $27 trillion of assets trying to get in cumulatively is a change. But you got to understand the dilemma we have is that Elizabeth Warren has chosen an anti-crypto

platform for re-election joe biden the president is talking about gaps uh stopping crypto traders from taking advantage of tax loopholes or whatever he said and and so i think unfortunately for the democratic party they went with the anti-crypto 2024 platform the question is do they pivot from that or and how do they pivot from that in an election year and and i pivot by approving the etf and firing gary gensler done no no no no they pivot by approving the etf and claim the win that they have by by their steadfast i know that's what they're going to say the rhetoric look... Look, we all know I've talked about it. I was a communications rhetoric major and a debater.

Their easy win here is to say, listen, we have fought for years and we have successfully gotten the ability to understand and surveil for manipulation. Look how great we are. And that is, I think, what the smart move would do. Now, whether they're smart or not, we'll find out. As far as Biden's thing on taxes, I mean, look, he points to everybody for it. I mean, watch, I don't think there's a person listening to this

call who thinks that crypto trades shouldn't be subject to the same 30-day out of the position before being able to declare a- 100%. 100%. I doubt there's anybody who thinks, or disagrees with the actual policy. It would be great if that happened. It's the rhetoric. Right. It's the way that they're positioning that. They're not saying, hey, guys, the wash sale rule doesn't apply to crypto.

We should quickly close that loophole because people are avoiding a bit of capital gain. They're saying on the one side of this chart, we have wealthy crypto traders who are breaking tax laws. On the other side, we have Republican starving children. And that's literally what the graphic was. And do we care more about starving children or rich, wealthy crypto investors? By the way, I don't know anyone who made money in crypto last year

and we have a tax problem anyways. But it's the positioning that's the issue, not the actual issue. Oh, a hundred percent. And that's exactly what I think happens here. I look, if I were advising this administration, which I can't imagine why I would do that, but if I were, I would basically say, listen, here's how you position it. We have fought for years to force the crypto industry. We brought them to their knees where now they are willing to allow us to surveil and stop manipulation. And we are therefore protecting investors

in these products. It almost writes itself. I also agree with that 100%. And then if we're going to slide further down to that theory, they can give the Bitcoin win and still crush everything they view as crypto or attempt to.

Well, that's the other point here. That's really a very important point, Scott. The Bitcoin ETF thing has literally nothing to do with them going after the Bitcoin use case. And we haven't talked about Promethean and all that nonsense. But the truth of the matter is that's a separate issue. And you can still be anti-crypto and at least allow people to invest in Bitcoin. Now, that probably would give Elizabeth Warren dyspepsia even thinking about that because she's really worried about Bitcoin more than anything else.

But the reality is a lot of people look at them separately. John, I see you throwing up a lot of hundreds over there. No, I really don't have anything to add except that. But, you know, here's the thing that I would say. I thought by now that Gessler would have taken a big win by negotiating some kind of settlement in the Ripple case. And that hasn't happened. And from people I've talked to him inside that have been inside the room with him. I mean, this guy is a megalomaniac like no other. And so I think he is a bit unpredictable. He will succumb when the White House comes calling and asked him to step down or to back off or whatever. That will happen, especially in the election year. The real issue we need to get is we need to reach Democrats

that are more reasonable, more moderate, who need to get is we need to reach democrats that are more reasonable more moderate uh who who need to start speaking up when that happens because this is all political what everybody's been saying david's been saying it's 100 right this is a political agenda and that's what's being implemented here and and these people who are going by the polls in the election year, when this anti-crypto platform becomes a political liability, then things will change. You know, it's astounding to me, John, though, when you zoom out and think about it. I mean, I've been here much later. I came in much later than most people here. I started in 2016, really got passionate about it in 2017. But if you had told me in 2017 with conviction that we would be

a platform for parties in the United States government, that the president would be talking about this, that we'd be arguing about the SEC, it would have absolutely blown my mind. And I would have told you that you were nuts. So, I mean, the fact that we're big enough at Bruce, I wouldn't know your feet. Bruce and Simon, you guys have been here the longest probably, but Bruce, like, I mean, is it at least bullish or a positive development that we're on the grand stage and have become a part

of the most important conversations in the world? Yeah, I think it's, you know, I remember when it was the weekend, there was a really interesting weekend in 2013. It was the same weekend Overstock announced that they were going to accept Bitcoin. No, actually it was Tiger Direct was the first major retail announcing that they were going to accept Bitcoin.

And it was the same weekend that Charlie Shrem got arrested and that Vitalik announced Ethereum. And it all happened right down in Miami. And Bruce HSBC got done for a truckload of money for the illegal drug cartel. That's right. $400 million, I think it was or something. And so that was the biggest news then. I mean, to think about how far we've come since Tiger Direct, many, many times, especially early on, I used to say Bitcoin is a binary play. It's either going to work or not work. And I said that less and less as time went on because the odds of it just not working, you know, going down to zero and just like, oh, you know, because if you're really, really early,

I mean, there was a lot of that was all anybody talked about in 2011, 12, 13, you know, like, is this real or not? You know, is this just a silly, stupid hobby that's going to fade away and fizzle to nothing? Or is it real? And is it actually real? People view this as money. Well, what's cool about this narrative now is that we're past that. You know, there's very even even Peter Schiff has softened. There's not major voices that are just, you know, there's people who don't like it. There's enemies, but there's not a lot of major voices who are like, oh, this is going to fizzle like it's kind of here. You know, every newspaper in the world has a Bitcoin price feed, usually on the cover. Interesting,

it's more common than the stock exchange. Not every newspaper in the world covers the S&P 500. The American ones do. But Bitcoin, I've been all over the world and I see the Bitcoin price right at the top, usually top upper right corner or something like that. It's accepted all over the world. Everybody knows about it. It's a real asset that's here to stay. And I think that's what this narrative is. I used to joke back in 2013, I should find the tape that I said, I said, if the government really realized how this is going to work, they'd kill everybody in this room right now

because it's the only time you could have stopped it. It's too big to stop now. There's nothing they can do in the US. And this is the interesting game theory that these tyrants at the top are going to have some cognitive dissonance dealing with. It's the first time that there's been a real global asset like this that they can't stop it. There's nothing the United States can do to stop Bitcoin.

They could declare it a felony and even I'd stop or leave the country. You know, I mean, nobody smart is going to openly commit a felony. I'm not that much of an activist, but even that wouldn't kill Bitcoin. It might even cause a rally because of the game theory. You know, China would probably put the gas on even further if the U.S. did that. And then three years later, we'd be eating crow and coming back and say, okay, we're going to unban it. It would be like prohibition or something. That's a really interesting narrative that's, to me, that's come out of this

to have, you know, Black Rock, you know, which you can barely conceive how big the news was when L.E. was first getting their tiptoes. They did it actually sort of a little secret. You know, they had, I went out to one lunch and Alec and Garzik and Peter Todd, you know, host these folks for lunch. And then they, you know, didn like i went out uh to one lunch and and talek and garzik and dr todd you

know host these folks for lunch and then they you know didn't talk about it much or they just kind of you know a couple people would post here and there um you know they were almost doing it on the quiet because it was so unusual for a big company a serious company same with overstock you know being very uh you know proactive and early in this uh but now it's a thing, thanks to Saylor and NYDIG and the size and scope of Coinbase and 50 million users in America and all this stuff. It's a really big deal. And I think it's not 50 million in America,

but the point is it's a big deal. It's a different narrative than we've ever had before. I think it's exciting. So that's the positive of it. I'll take it. Go ahead, Simon. Yeah, yeah. Thanks for bringing that up, Scott, because it is really sometimes you really need to have perspective, you know, in 2011, when I spoke at that first Bitcoin conference, there was about 50 people in a room. It was a bunch of coders, hackers and activists. It was us versus the banks. And we were never going to succeed. It was just never going to be what it, you know, what happened.

But there was just a bunch of people under a delusion that it could actually work. And after that one-day conference, this is what it used to be like, we had to go around Prague. And you had to go around and pick up these secret codes around Prague. And eventually you arrive at what can only be described as a crack den in Prague. And you have to go around all these different places and you did a special knock on the door. You knock on the door and if you knocked in the right way after getting this SMS, we walked into a bunch of people coding, wearing their anonymous masks. there was a bitcoin atm and i purchased my first bitcoin

there at three dollars um and i actually used one of them in a in a hacked up vending machine to buy one mask bar that i bought for one bitcoin i'm sorry yeah i know you've learned a lot i know you've spent a lot of bitcoin in the past that would be very expensive now. Yeah. But to think that, you know, we came from that. And I remember when it was like one article every two weeks about, you know, one little cafe or something was accepting Bitcoin and they suddenly get a rush of customers. And just everything we've been through throughout all these cycles to be here. Now, what is it? That was 12 years ago where BlackRock is applying for that ETS. And we're really... Every single person in the world,

there's not a person in the world that hasn't heard of Bitcoin wherever you go, which is just incredible. And just a big thank you to everyone that's contributed to getting us here because it really is the ability to earn your own money spend your own money and have an exit from the traditional financial system i cannot think of anything more important to fight for in terms of its impact on life liberty

people and freedom go ahead dan i love that sign go ahead dan totally agree with what simon and bruce were saying one of the things that really stands out to me, my co-chair, our reporter down there, was the fact that now there's presidential candidates that are fully embracing this publicly. And all the way down the ballot too, governor, state, the Congressional Blockchain Caucus has completely blown up since its inception way back in 2014 when it was essentially just a few, Mick Mulvaney and a handful of others. But, you know, RFK Jr., he's all in. You know, it used to just be, I think, Rand Paul, if I'm not mistaken, was the first presidential candidate, I think, to accept Bitcoin as a campaign contribution, or it might have been his father. But now it's just become more mainstream,

and I think that's a pretty big testament to how far we've come. Yeah, I mean, it's a part of the conversation of the presidential race. I mean, it just literally doesn't get bigger than that. And we already know the opinion of every single presidential candidate on the asset class a year and a half in advance. Astounding. It's astounding. And I can't think of a better way for us to wrap up than actually some positive words. Obviously, guys, the title here, SEC hints no spot Bitcoin ETF. We kind of litigated this here live before. It seems like it was a pretty clickbaity article by the Wall Street Journal that this might just be technical. The SEC asking for more information, we can debate what that means. But I don't think that this puts any sort of

kibosh on the idea that the ETF could be approved. Anyone who thought it was likely to be approved still thinks so. And anyone who thinks it was likely to be approved still thinks so. And anyone who thinks it was unlikely to be approved, shockingly, still think so. If anybody is looking actually to advertise here on the show or to be a sponsor, we have a pinned tweet above. You can contact that email. We've had some awesome sponsors

who have become a part of the show. And we really appreciate that. You guys have no idea how much work and resources go into producing this show on a daily basis it's probably uh cost me uh the majority of my sleep which was already on short supply but we have a huge team working here together they all work their asses off on a daily basis to produce this mario's team my team ran's team, booking all these guests, coming up with the topic, sharing the research. We have 10, 12 researchers literally live during the show in

the back in a WhatsApp group sharing us with their research. So this isn't, just to be clear, I don't know why I was even talking about this, but we don't just show up and throw some things at the wall and hope it works. This is very well planned and we really try our best to be accurate to deliver the best possible information. So we really try our best to be accurate to deliver the best possible information. So we really appreciate you guys tuning in. Once again, before we go, Crypto underscore Town Hall. You'll see it as one of the co-hosts right now is Mario, myself, and Crypto Town Hall.

You'll see Ran is up there as a speaker. He kindly gave up his co-host spot today so that we could tell you guys to follow that Twitter account. It will be where we will be launching these Twitter spaces from in the future. So please do that. Everyone else, thank you so much. Obviously going to a holiday weekend here in the United States. I hope everybody has a wonderful weekend and we will see you guys back on Monday.

Thanks.