The Wolf Of All Streets - What Happens If The CLARITY Act Fails? | Chris Giancarlo

Episode Date: August 3, 2026

Chris Giancarlo explains why innovation in crypto won’t be stopped if Clarity Act doesn’t pass. He argues Ethics is an important issues but there can always be another excuse to stop the bill from passing. We also cover the ongoing legal battle between the prediction markets and state regulators. Chris makes the distinction between how prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket are a marketplace rather than a sportsbook or a casino. Despite the bear market struggles and delays in legal frameworks, Chris is optimistic about the outlook of the industry. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The crypto industry believes it needs the Clarity Act to move forward. But what if it doesn't? Today I'm talking with ex-CFTC Chairman Chris John Carlo about crypto regulation. This is a change that is going to happen whether the Clarity Bill passes or not. It may change where it gets built and what gets built. Financial privacy. The Bank Secrecy Act has a lot less to do with secrecy than it has to do with government surveillance. It's about surveillance of our financial transaction.

Prediction markets. People like predictability. And they don't want a poll of 800 people. By the way, that's the size of the average poll. They want information derived from tens of thousands of informed participants with skin in the game that are penalized if they're wrong. And why innovation may continue,

regardless of what happens in Washington. Innovation is going to come anyway. It's a question of whether we control it. We'd let others control it. We also discuss the unintended consequences of new crypto laws and the battle over who controls the future of digital finance. Does crypto really need permission from the government to succeed?

Watch and find out. What if you can short Bitcoin without touching a perm? Today's video is sponsored by Kalshi. On Kalshi, you trade which way Bitcoin's headed, up or down, and short it as easily as you go along. As of June 16th, Bitcoin's around $66,000 and Kalshi traders give it a 50% chance of dropping below $50,000 this year. And you can watch those odds move in real time.

It's not just price. You can trade whether a crypto bill clears Congress or how a regulatory decision plays out. Pick aside, yes or no, and get paid if you're right. No leverage, no liquidations, just a clean yes or no. Sign up with code WOAS, trade $10 and Kalshi gives you $10. And if leverage is more your thing, Kalshi's got regulated perps too. Either way, it's fully regulated. Head to Kalshi and use code WOAS.

Trading carries risks, perps use leverage so you can be. liquidated, not financial advice, offers subject to Kalshi's terms. Start at the Clarity Act. What better place to start right now as we kind of come to the finish line of it potentially or not potentially passing and it seems that there's a highly predictable ethics fight that will be going on. I'm sure by the time this comes out, maybe that would be starting to settle. But I think there's exactly the only way it was ever going to go. Yeah. First of all, I think

ethics, it's an important issue. I think it's a little bit of an own goal on the White House's side. You know, when I was in government, even though I discovered Bitcoin early on and was a proponent of it, I didn't invest in it because my agency was making rules for it. And I still think that's the right course if you serve in government. When you serve in government, you accept there's certain restrictions. And I would have liked to have seen not this issue be the reason why clarity doesn't pass if it doesn't pass for this reason. But however, I would say I actually think it may be a little bit of an excuse. I'm not sure Democrats can pass this bill even if the ethics issue were resolved. I think there suddenly may be another issue because they need a reason to justify

what's really going on, which is their hard left, doesn't want them to pass this, because this democratizes the control of value, and the hard left wants control of value in the hands of the government. And, you know, every Democrat that is up for re-election is worried about a primary fight from the left. And so I think, and I don't mean to be harsh on either side of the aisle, I just think that the anti-cryptal army is there because there's a Luddite, side of the left and there's now an even stronger side that's primaring a lot of these Democrat candidates. So I worry that clarity doesn't pass. Now, what I'd say to the industry is perhaps it's time to stop making such a big deal out of clarity. I mean, the industry is running

around saying we need clarity, we need clarity. We do. But the internet is still happening and there's never been an authorizing statute 30 years later. If we don't get clarity, innovation goes on. And so, yeah, I'd like to see clarity passed. I think it's got a lot of value in it. It's got, you know, amongst many good provisions. It reauthorizes Lab CFTC, which I started when I was at the CFTC. I'd like to see not just the CFTC, but every financial regulator in Washington. In fact, every regulator in Washington have an innovation center in their own house with expertise there, which is what Lab CFTC did for the CFTC. I'd like to see clarity pass, but I think we need to brace ourselves that it might not,

and the world is going to go on. I had to smirk before when you said democratize and then talked about the Democrats. There's a certain irony in the fact that they would be the party that would be opposing the democratization of finance when I'm old enough to remember they were supposed to be the party that would have supported something like that. Actually, I find Bitcoin and crypto to be very progressive at the core. I've always thought that the left should have been the supporters of it. I agree. I think, unfortunately, and I talk about this in my new book, which would be coming out in October, called The New Adventures of Crypto Debt. The dominant political financial philosophy coming out of the Reagan Revolution in the 1980s, driven by Milton Friedman and before him, Frederick Hayek and Austrian economics, was that when you allocate capital, the best basis to do it is on market basis. The market, albeit not perfect, will allocate, and I think, you know, even the Clinton presidency recognized that with its approach to the Internet.

And I think there was broad agreement amongst the middle of both parties that the market will solve the allocation of capital issue. Well, going into the 2000s, the Obama presidency, Jack Rubin, but mostly, and not Jack Rubin, but his Treasury Secretary Geithner and others, and then the financial crisis led to a counter belief that, you know, actually the market's done a bad job of allocating capital to certain underserved communities and therefore to address that shortcoming of the market, we need a political component.

And in many ways, Dodd-Frank was the victory of Washington over Wall Street, and what we said was now the allocation of capital is going to have a political-driven component to it, and then we had the community reinvestment Act and how capital is allocated with banks, et cetera. crypto challenges all that. Crypto says, you know what, actually, we don't need Wall Street or Washington to allocate capital.

We'll get the algorithms right. And if we have the algorithms right, the algorithms aren't going to recognize somebody's skin color or their other differentials. We're just going to allocate capital where capital needs to be allocated. And crypto is very much a threat to that. And I think for some, on the Democrat side, Elizabeth Warren, having striven to use Dodd-Frank to get in a position of power for the allocation of capital. She sees crypto as a threat to that newfound authority for Washington. I also think that there is, based upon the demographics, a Luddite component to more the Democrats than Republicans, although it's there with the Republicans as well, that sees this technology as a threat.

You know, the same grandparents that can't download the new version of software need to call their grandkids to do it, see crypto and AI is, you know, what's wrong with the existing financial system? I've got no problem going into a branch bank, why should you, right? They didn't grow up in a network world, they grew up in an analog world, and I think there's a human aversion to change. And so the author Doug Adams, one of the favorite authors who wrote The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, has a quote where he says, anything that's invented before you turn 35 is super cool

and maybe the source of not only lifetime fascination, but a lifetime career. But anything that's invented after you turn 35 is dangerous, suspect it needs to be suppressed. And I think there's an element of that in our political parties, and I think it's borne out. Now, the good news is, I think the anti-crypto army of Elizabeth Warren has now become the anti-AI

Army. And they've sent, and with a little bit of luck, even if clarity doesn't pass, this innovation is going to put its roots down so deep with the help of leaders at the CFTC and the SEC, like my CILIC and Paul Atkins, that even if we don't get clarity passed, the roots are going to be too

deep, that they're not going to be uproof when the pendulum inevitably changes and inevitably changes, and hopefully it changes to the kind of Democrats that are pro-innovation and not the type of Democrats like this DSA people that actually want all control of all capital in the hands of government. You mentioned the own goal by the administration here with the Clarity Act at the beginning, but then you loosely said, and I want to kind of pull that thread, maybe there's a little bit of an own goal from the industry right now in the way that we talk about clarity, which you said. Totally. If we're out on the streets, the industry is going to have to say, well, we told you all that it had to be passed, and now we're still telling you, keep investing, keep building. We need to back off and just simply say, it's going to be what it's going to be, but the internet got built even without an authorizing statute.

This is going to get built whether there's a clarity bill or not. The internet is an unstoppable force. Now, it may change where it gets built and what gets built, but it's not going to change whether this internet of value, the internet doing to things of value. the internet doing to things of value what the internet has done to information and communications. Think about what the internet has done to photography. It changed it from film-based photographs that once they're

developed and in your hands, sit in your hands and maybe sit in a photo album, or maybe you can put them in a U.S. mail package and they'll get to somebody in two or three days. The internet's changed that. Now you take a photograph and you can instantly post it online. You can edit it, you can send it to anybody you want in nanoseconds, photography has been dramatically changed once we put it on a network. Well, what this wave on the Internet is going to do is put our things of value on the network.

And the changes that are kind of come out of that, the ability to move money, to move things of value, to transfer ownership, is going to be infinitely easier and infinitely more democratic. This is a change that is going to happen whether the Clarity Bill passes or not. And I think that's got to be the industry's message. Clarity will bring order to how that change happened. But it's not going to stop that change. You really changed the way that I think about legislation in our last conversation in New York City

when you listed the unintended, or maybe intended, but the potential consequences of the Genius Act that we were cheering, most notably the fact that you effectively now had government and private company surveillance into our transactions, which was exactly what we were railing against when we feared a CBDC. Are there unintended potential consequences to the Clarity Act that could be very similar, and maybe do we not even want it to pass?

Yeah. So, first of all, now that a year has gone by, and we just celebrated this week, or last week, the one-year anniversary of the passage of the Genius Act, so it's worth just teasing that out a little bit. That is remarkable. that's going to have a remarkable impact. For the first time in human history, world citizens, people in the world are going to be able to opt in or opt out of monetary systems.

They're going to say our government in this country, whatever it may be, is totally effing up our monetaries, debasing our currency, it is doing other things that I don't wish to be part of. And therefore, with a swipe of a mouse, I'm going to opt out and opt into the American monetary system. I'm going to opt in not just to the U.S. currency, but the way that currency is based and balanced

and hopefully not further debased, that's a huge democratizing impact on the world. I mean, that is just worth celebrating. If you believe in individual autonomy and freedom, that is a huge freeing moment because up to now, everybody's locked into the country of their birth or the country of their residents and the monetary policy goes with it.

So that's a huge accomplishment. And I think that would have happened anyway, but with the Genius Act is furthering it and directing it and dictating what's in the holdings of those stable coins and doing so much more. So I think it's really good. But it had an unintended consequence, which we discussed last time. And that is it superimposes on this new system the Bank Secrecy Act. And for those of your audience that don't follow, the Bank Secrecy Act has a lot less to do with secrecy than it has to do with government surveillance. It's about surveillance of our financial transactions. Now, there are bad guys that use our financial system, and law enforcement does need to know what they're up to so they can prevent bad things.

But that doesn't mean they need to surveil all of us and everything we do, which is what they do do. Now, let's turn to the Clarity Act. The Clarity Act, unfortunately, takes that same position that all financial transactions need to be subject to the Bank's Secrecy Act and therefore surveillance. I tend to believe the banks, and I write about this extensively in my new book. The Bank Secrecy Act is it's time for a complete revisit of it. I think it's violative of Americans' Fourth Amendment rights to privacy in their private transactions. I think it's gone way too far beyond what it was meant to do. Some of that started upon its passage, but most of it was accelerated with 9-11 and in the rules that came after that.

But we've lost our bearings on it. We've given our government way too much. control of our financial wherewithal. And I think in some ways it's the biggest impediment of realizing the very important democratic and democratizing values of this new innovation. But I think, aside from that, I think there's a lot of great value in the Clarity Act. We will work out interesting warfare between some of the financial regulators like the CFDC and the SEC that have raged for decades between those. We'll sort out who's got, what turf to do. So I think those are important things. There's a lot of other elements of it as well.

So again, I think we have a lot of reasons to want clarity to pass. Maybe we can fix the Bank Secrecy Act even afterwards. But if it doesn't pass, I assure you this innovation goes on. It seems like we're in a unique position right now. We're actually, regardless of clarity, CFDC and SEC seem well aligned. They are. Right? This isn't the Gensler fighting for turf with the CFTC, I don't, you know, I can't speak specifically to the, how contentious the environment was when you were there. But it seems like, once again, to President Trump's credit, the right people are in place to move this and other innovation forward. It just seems like Atkins and Seleague are not going to be fighting over who gets to regulate something.

Look, I think it's, there are fully thought through disagreements with a lot of Trump politics, and I think people may disagree or dislike some of his appointees to many different offices. But I think it's globally recognized that Trump appoints very good people to financial regulatory agencies. I have, you know, the word of governors of the Bank of England and regulators in Japan and Singapore tell me that the regulators that are in place during Trump one, the regulators in place Trump two, the financial regulators are really very, very good. And I think the one thing they all carry in common is that they are not afraid of innovation. They are open innovation.

They recognize that the one thing we do better than most other countries in the United States is innovate. That's our strength, right? We don't make things anymore. But what we do is innovate things. And we do that very, very, very well. But you can't be a builder if you're fighting with your regulator because your regulator doesn't like new things. your regulator wants the world to stay as it was. And sadly, during the Biden administration,

if you just were doing something that had never been done before, you were pretty much shut down by the SEC and the CFDC. You're practically a criminal. Simply because this isn't the way we do things. You know, there was a conflation of financial stability equals status quo. And if we just stay with the status quo, we won't have disruption in the financial. system. Well, the fact that matter is another great author, Lampedusa, who wrote the Leopard, says that if you want

things to stay the same, you have to change. Innovation is going to come anyway. It's a question of whether we control it. We let others control it. And I think we're now to a regulatory class of regulators on the financial services side, the banking regulators, the market regulators in Washington, that recognize if we want to have the world's biggest and most liquid markets, then we need to innovate alongside with them. You have this unique situation, the CFC, where CELIG is effectively a commission of one. Yes.

What would that have been like for you? Well, look, I'm a big believer in the commission system. And I would like to see Chairman Selig have four commissioners around him. I think the rulemaking is better. when you've got input from a 360-degree angle from both parties. The rules that I was able to put through were improved because of the input of Dan Berkovitz and Russ Benham, my two Democratic colleagues when I was there,

as well as Brian Quintends and Don't Stump the Republicans. They all came at it with a different point of view. I think it refined it. It's like forging iron, the higher the heat, the stronger, the output, and I think we produce some good rulemaking. I'd like to see ceiling. On the other hand, it takes two to tango. I understand that Leader Schumer has never put forward names to fill those slots at the SEC and the CFDC.

Now, I haven't spoken to them about it. I'm sure there's some rationale. I'm not pointing fingers. But I don't think it's simply a matter of the Trump administration not wanting to appointing commission. I think it's a plague on both their houses. And it's unfortunately some of the times we're living in. But look, I can tell you this. I've spoken to Chairman Seelig.

He's going to go forward whether he's got a full commission. or not. Well, why wouldn't he? Of course. His mandate isn't to sit still and wait. That's right. That's right. It's not his fault. You take the job, right. You take the job with a full commission. I didn't have, I served, by the way, as the only Republican with three Democrats during the Obama administration for two years. And I don't remember newspaper articles saying this is not right. It was what it is. You just go on with what you got. It seems that the major turf war right now is not between the regulators, but between the states and the CFDC, specifically with prediction markets. The stories are crazy.

Everybody's suing everybody. It's state-to-state. Is this gambling? Are they derivatives markets? I mean, how do you view this quick evolution in prediction markets and how it should be handled? The only reason why I think there's so much heat around this is because there's a lot of money involved. Always. Right. It's about money. It's all about money. And people can amplify their voices because they got a lot of money to spend to amplify their voices. The fact of the matter, it's not complicated. We decided after the Great Depression, the 29 Depression, we decided in the 1930s that retail establishments would be regulated at the state level and markets would be regulated the federal level. And that's the way we've rolled ever since the CFTC was created in 1936, not as as an agency, as a Bureau of the Department of Agriculture,

but with oversight for global markets and national markets. And the SEC, of course, was created in 1933 and 34 to oversee national markets for securities. The reason why I say this is not complicated, if you think about what casinos do, and if you think about what sports books do, they operate a retail establishment. A casino says, come in and take our odds. you can take the odds or you can walk out the door, but you can't make the odds. The house, the casino is the party to every transaction.

If you win, they lose. If you lose, they win. It's a retail establishment. They put their prices basically up, and you can take them. No different than a shoe store says, these are our prices. But you can't walk into a shoe store and say, I don't want to pay that price. Here's my price. You can't walk into a casino and say, I don't like your odds.

I'll give you my odds. And the sports book works the same way. It's a book. The bookie is the transactor with every trader on the book. That's a retail establishment. That gets rigged at the local level. A prediction market, it's a marketplace. There's no bookie.

The house doesn't make the odds. The house only puts forward a proposition. Will somebody win or lose? Will price go up or down? And the participants are the ones that set the odds. These are two-way markets. That's a marketplace. Marketplaces get regulated at the federal level.

It doesn't matter whether it's sports or the outcome of an election or the outcome of whether oil prices are going up or down or whether there's going to be a war or a conflict. Those are just the proposition. The odds are set by the market participants. That's a marketplace. This isn't complicated. The CFDC has been regulating national and global markets since the 1930s and doing it well. Let me tell you something.

The U.S. oil futures market, the U.S. interest rate futures markets, are a factor of a thousand times bigger than the prediction markets. And have you heard about the CFTC failing on the job? During the great financial crisis of the 2008, not a single CFTC market failed and not a single CFDC intermediary regulated

firm failed. Sam Bankman-Fried, the piece of his empire that didn't fail was CFTC regulated. The CFTC knows what it's doing. It can regulate global market. It's got this. This is not a biggie. The only reason this is a biggie is because casinos are worried. Now, by the way, casinos make 90%

or more of their money on one-armed bandits. So slot machines. So these really aren't a threat to their business. The sports books make all their money on sports, and they all make their money on setting the odds, which is not what prediction markets do. So honestly, this isn't really a threat to existing business? It's a jumpball for a new business,

and that's what's really going on here. This is about money. It's really not about the law. The CFTC is going to win these cases. They'll eventually make their way the Supreme Court, And the decision is going to be a simple one. Is it a marketplace? A marketplace is determined by can you take both sides of the market or either side of the market.

If you can, that's federally regulated. And by the way, that's good public policy. Do we really want 26 different states trying to regulate cross-border global markets? CFDC has information sharing arrangements with every major regulator around the world, from Tokyo to Singapore to Paris to London. The states don't have this. They don't have the ability to surveil these markets. CFDC can do this and the CFDC can do this in spades.

But it's interesting because, I guess on the surface, people just say, that's a sports bed. Right. So, so I get it. But we don't have a separate regime for sports. Right, but yeah, but what I was going to say that's so interesting is that you said it's really a threat to the sports books and the casinos, why do the states care so much? Is there revenue that's coming from that to the state? Of course.

So it's money. Look, you know what the analogy for this is Uber. When Uber came along, it faced monopolies at every airport. and every downtown. Why? Because you had these taxi and limousine commissions that derive revenue from the local ride hailing business, and so ride sharing is a threat to their business. But fortunately, the American people said, wait a minute, I like this service. So if you're not going to offer at this airport, I'm going to fly into another airport. If you're not going to offer it downtown, I'm not going to stay downtown. And so what happened was the American people

demanded that ride sharing be on a similar footing as ride hailing. And what do we have today? We actually have both ride-hailing and ride-sharing. You have a choice. And Uber and Lyft have broken through all those monopolies. The same thing's going to happen here. You've got prediction markets come along, and what are they now? They have this monopoly of local gaming commissions, tribal state county gaming commission saying, wait a minute, we like our business it is.

It generates revenue. These commissioners are in fees. There's contributions to our local politicians. We like the way it is. Well, the American people are actually going to say, you know what? but we like prediction markets. We don't want to have to go to a bookie every time we want to discover whether it, what the election outcome might be,

or whether I'm going to be able to afford gas this summer. Prediction markets are becoming really popular, just like the weather channel is really popular, because people like predictability. And they don't want a poll of 800 people. By the way, that's the size of the average poll. They want information derived from tens of thousands of informed participants. With skin and the game.

with skin in the game that are penalized if they're wrong. If you respond to a telephone poll, you can give them a whole lot of bollocks because it doesn't matter. There's no penalty for getting it wrong. But if you go on a prediction market to give a lot of bollocks and you're wrong, you're going to lose money.

So it's people with skin in the game, and that's going to provide predictability for things that are actually more important than the weather. Like, what will gas prices be, what will interest rates be, who will win this election when you've got a communist

running against a free market person? The outcome really matters. It's really interesting, though, because it's not about gambling. It's not about gambling. It's about who's on the other side of the transaction. It's about predicting. And so prediction markets are going to take off like Uber and Lyft are because people like it. And guess what?

The gambling will still remain. The people that want to go to a casino and have them buy drinks for them and have the bus take them and all those things will still get all of that. Stay in the hotel, see the show, all that stuff. That's still all going to be there. The sports books will be there. But prediction markets are also going to be there. And the Supreme Court's going to basically rule that if it's a market, it's federally regulated, and if it's a retail established, state regulated.

And that's good public policy. Americans that should actually say that makes sense, because it does make sense. As with anything new, it's the Wild West. It's something new. It's going to get money involved. It makes sense with money. Insider trading has obviously been the big conversation there. Oh, but guess what?

Guess what? Where have been most of the insider trading on the Straits-R-M-O's issue? in our oil markets, the same markets that have been around for 100 years. There's as much insider trading going to there. So everybody said, oh, prediction market, there's inside of trading going everywhere. That's why you have regulars. That's why you have cops. That's why you have an FBI.

And the CFDC is really good at catching these guys. The FBI is good. We will have bad guys as long as there's any opportunity to make money. There's nothing about new technology that gets rid of criminal intent. human nature doesn't change with a technological revolution. We just need to make sure that the agency's got the resources to go after them and find them. As they do in our existing markets, they will do it in this. You know, the gold market is probably the oldest market in the world.

It goes back to Samaria, right? And there's been criminality in that market ever since, despite the fact that we've got good regulators on the beat. So I say all the time it's regulators job to stay one step behind. They'll never be one step ahead, but not two steps behind. sense. Maybe I'm cynical, but I would imagine that there's insider training on every single thing that's traded everywhere on the planet. It's just a matter of size. Absolutely. And media publicity, because the media will go to the one topic. If you put crypto and insider trading together on a headline, people are going to read that story. If you put crypto and insider trading

a game in financial futures market, nobody's going to read it because it's just not the hot topic. But it's just, that's just man bites dog. That's age old. If a dog bites a man, nobody's going to read the story because dog bites a man every day. A man bites a dog, the story you're going to read. Yeah. What are you working on these days?

Oh, my goodness. So I'm working on my new book, and it's coming out October 27th, and I'm in the stage where you're proofing galley proofs, printers proofs. And every time I come across a typo, I pull my hair out, because if I think there's one, there must be 10. Yeah. So, but it's, it's, I'm really excited about this book.

It's called The New Adventures of Crypto Dad. And it's going to take the story of where we were when I left the Trump administration 2019 forward into where we are today. And so much has happened. So much has happened in terms of the, what I call the industrialization of crypto. When I first wrote my first book, Crypto was a funky new asset class. Now crypto is really the architecture of a whole revolution. and finance. And that's where I write about it. And I'm delighted to have, having helped me on this,

my son, Luke, John Carlo, who's head of digital assets, America's with state of Georgia. He's here somewhere. And together, we've looked at this innovation, really from the point of view of architecture. But I think it's not a dry read. Because it's like my first book, it's very narrative-oriented. I take people inside to the White House, inside and to some of the conclaves that were held in the lead-up to the 2024 election where both political parties were formulating their policy. And I had an inside seat, but not just Trump campaign formulation, but also Biden campaign formulation on this. It looks at some of the characters in the industry like Sam Bankman-Fried, who I worked very closely worth in the early years, Shane Copeland, the founder of Polly Market and the prediction markets.

So I think readers are going to enjoy this. It's a fun ride, but it also makes some points about where this innovation is headed. While you're not riding, you're still. helping and advising and guiding. So, you know, what are you seeing on the street right now? Where do people really need help when it comes to the, you know, the future of this asset class and how to navigate this still wild west of, you know, regulation and legislation? That's a really good point. Look, markets, common markets go. The hot money is moved out of crypto. And I don't mean that as a pejorative. I just mean the high risk, high reward traders have moved out into prediction markets, into perpetuals.

And so there we've seen the froth come off crypto and prices down. That puts a lot of pressure and a lot of balance sheets in the space. And so I think we're going to go through a consolidation phase in crypto. And I think the strongest L1s, the strongest L2s, the strongest builders, the strongest app makers, the strongest wallet providers will be the ones that survive. I think we're going to see major financial institutions now building on this architecture in a big way. So I've been very involved in digital assets, the creator of the Canton Network. And I identified that years ago as I think one of the winners in the space because of their

emphasis on commercial privacy but regulatory transparency, which as someone who, before I went into government, built trading platforms, I really believe that's one of the right answers to this. So I think the industry is going to be both challenged, but I think out of this is going to come the best built technologies, the best strongest platforms, the best balance sheets. And what I would say, if I can leave one message to your audience, if clarity doesn't pass, it's actually going to, one of the by-prox is going to separate the men from the boys. Because the people that are afraid of building are not, and the people that are fearless will, and I think that's, 10 years we're going to look back and say those who didn't build got left out.

and those that ones that had the courage to continue building are the ones that are going to benefit from this innovation. So I think if clarity doesn't pass, the premium for courage is going to go up. And the discount for fearfulness is going to knock some people out of the game. Fortune favors the bold. Fortune favors the bold. We could do this all day, but I think that was a perfect place to wrap it up. Thank you so much. Scott, great to be with you.

Thank you. Today's video is sponsored by Securitize. You've heard the word tokenization, putting assets like funds, bonds, treasuries, and stocks on-chain. Securitize is the regulated infrastructure, the biggest names in finance build on. They're the tokenization partner for BlackRock's on-chain treasury fund Biddle, working with New York Stock Exchange, Van Eck, Hamilton Lane, and Apollo. SEC regulated entities nearly nine years running. Most money still moves through slow, decades-old systems.

Securitize puts the real asset on-chain itself, not a synthetic, a rap token standing in for it, and regulated in the United States. It's the institutional grade bridge between traditional finance and crypto. They didn't just build it. They just proved it, listing their own stock on the New York Stock Exchange and simultaneously tokenizing it on-chain on Solana and Avalanche. The first and only public company built entirely for this. Their mission, tokenize the world. Learn more at securitize.io. This is a paid partnership, not investment advice.