The Clarity Act could decide crypto's next ten years

Transcript

in Washington D.C. Yeah. community bank lobby as opposed to the large bank lobby are distinct. Mhm. They're they're different from each other. They have different organizations that represent them. They're all member of of one big umbrella organization, but they generally have different policy objectives, and they also have huge political operations. What's up, everybody? It's LG Doucet here, and welcome to the Milk Road Show, the daily crypto show that is counting the days until all-time high, even if it feels like we're counting backwards. Today's April 9th, 2026. We're recording on April 7th. This is a pivotal month for crypto in a way that we will feel for decades. In fact, today's guest told me that this is really a once-in-a-decade

opportunity to get some kind of bipartisan legal framework for crypto, meaning that if the Clarity Act doesn't pass, it may literally never actually happen, and that the deadline is looming in just a few weeks. Adam Meinhardt, head of public policy at Chainlink, joins me today to talk market structure, what it really takes to get thing this thing through, what the effects will be in either scenario, and he's also here to discuss a very underrated feature of crypto. Adam, welcome to the show, man. Hey, thanks, LG. Uh great to be here. Okay, so you were telling me right now, what is the office you sit in? I need to up your credibility here, because we have a lot of speculators, fund managers telling us what they think about clarity, but nobody's got more authority than you. So, tell us, where do you sit?

Um I sit in Washington D.C., uh right in between, uh geographically, the White House and Capitol Hill. I'm working out of the Blockchain Association's offices. Have an office uh right there. A lot of other companies, many you've had on the show, uh have offices here, and the building's kind of become uh a little bit of the crypto building here in D.C. So, uh probably 10 to 15 companies that you know very well are here. Mhm. Mhm. Mhm. Other companies that uh want to see this thing pass through, I assume. Um Exactly.

>> Adam, what's what's what's the mood right now? Obviously, there are bigger um stories in the world, and we've covered them many times in the show, but this thing is still coming up. What is kind of the the the sentiment on on the chances of this going through soon? I'd say nervous optimism. There has been so much time spent on this yield issue between the exchanges and the banks about the ability to pay rewards or not, that there's a sense that we're getting close to some form of agreement on that that could allow the bill to move forward. Mhm. At as of this moment, we have not seen the language for the bill yet. So, there's hope that both sides, the exchanges and the banks, will like it enough to say, "Let's let's

do this." So, I'd say nervous nervous energy, optimism that we we start moving forward here. Who's who's the biggest hold-up these days? Cuz I know we we've kind of the the the updates have been kind of washed through the news because there's there's just so much more happening, but is it are we seeing more resistance still from the exchange side, or is it or is it the banks pushing a little too hard? Kind of where do you sit there? I mean, are you working at a Chainlink, so I feel like you'll be on the crypto side, but tell give us an honest take as best you can. Definitely. Um the banks have pushed extremely hard to prevent anything that looks like yield or rewards from being paid by any exchange on platform. You know, it's it very much is a competitive issue for them, particularly for smaller

banks that really chase deposits with uh with interest rates, and frankly, don't want to pay higher rates. Uh it really would undercut their their profitability. So, the banks wanting to drive a hard deal has been a major impediment to this. The exchanges clearly are at the table trying to do what's best for them, trying to make make a a good deal for themselves here, but it's really the banks that have that have really put their foot down and have really reached for, um I think in many of our views, kind of unreasonable uh an a unreasonable endpoint that really would hurt US consumers. I mean, the idea that you

can't get paid yield on static USDC balances seems really anti-competitive. So, I mean, I'll leave it there, but >> [laughter] >> I think yes, you're right, I'm in this industry, but that's really where we're coming from. As we're breaking down some trade ideas here on the show, I want you to imagine getting an alert the moment that we make an actual move, because that's what you get now with Milk Road Pro, a real-time notification that tells you the second one of our analysts buy or sell anything. Check it out below. Has there been uh you've been on the Hill I think you were telling me your entire career. Is there any precedent for and maybe you can just help me understand how how bills pass, bipartisan bills pass, and and any precedent for other laws where there

is a clear kind of triangle between like the lawmakers and the uh incumbent industry that has done things a certain way for a long time, and then the newcomers of the industry that have carved out a whole new thing, and I guess the lawmakers are kind of just playing are just trying to balance everyone's interests here. It's very common. We see this all the time across any industry where there is an incumbent and an innovator, whether it's health care, energy, education policy, transportation. Obviously, we're seeing this in AI in in how data is moved now. So, very common, and I would, you know, I would let the listeners know that there's over 10,000 bills

introduced each Congress. That's a 2-year period. Probably less than 200 substantive bills will actually get signed by the president. Mhm. A very small percentage of legislation that gets introduced that you hear about actually gets to some form of substantive discussion where you're actually taking time out of senators' daily days, uh senior people in the White House, Treasury really negotiating. So, very rare that the crypto industry and crypto legislation is getting so much airtime, but very common in terms of dealing with innovation for any industry. It really is it you know, it really comes down to

a competitive mode that a lot of incumbents use legislation to enshrine. That you really do have a regulatory capture going on. So, you see that with the banking industry. Who who usually comes out on top? You know, I I I don't want to be myopic here. I would say usually it is the incumbents, Yeah. and it's usually hinges it usually hinges on two factors. One, a real connection to voters, a real grassroots connection to people in their town, state, city. And with banks, particularly small banks, you have that.

They're usually community banks, 50 to 100 employees, maybe, in uh say like Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The local congressman or senator may actually know people who work at the bank. They may have known people who worked at the bank for years. That sort of very um intense relationship model doesn't exist in a lot of industries. Banking has it. Um labor unions have it as well. The other issue is is the political side of it, which is campaign cash, and I think crypto definitely had a huge advantage in the last election cycle. We have seen banks really come to the table with more money and upping their game on the political side, which is really investing money in reelecting members of

Congress. So, for those those two those are the two levers. Your your grassroots connections and campaign contributions in terms of influencing people. So, banks have definitely up their game on on the latter, and they definitely have an advantage on on the on the grassroots side. I I think crypto is really on the side though of of consumers here, and I think if people understood this, and they're so frustrated at getting, you know, 25 bips or less on their checking account when they could get more elsewhere, and this is just one option of what of many that already exist, it feels nonsensical. Right.

Is this So, maybe you can help me kind of connect a few dots, because we do so much of what we featured in the last like 6 months to 2 years, I'd say, on the show, on Milk Road and and other crypto publications as well, is the institutional bid for crypto. And I know that there's not like the banks pushing back are not necessarily the J.P. Morgans, the BlackRocks, but to me, that's I've always seen all that. I'm like, that's just one one big party. It's all they're all one group of people, the people that, you know, that run the banks and run the funds and all that kind of stuff. Like, you guys are all one big group. And so to me, it it this has always felt like such a disconnect, and maybe it's just a battle over that product like you're saying

about the yield. They just don't want to lose out to that. Um but to me, it's like day after day, we're seeing headlines like Fidelity's hiring all these asset managers, BlackRock this, J.P. Morgan's going to launch a coin, blah blah blah. Can't everyone's adopting can't all these different um institutional adoptions, and yet the bank it feels to me like it's the same people that are trying to stop the actual advent of this. Well, I mean, I I agree with you, and I would the point I would make is that when you look at the banking industry, it is very much not monolithic. You have within the GSIBs, the large bank group, the eight GSIBs, two are custodians, Bank of New York and State Street. Two are really almost pure investment banks,

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, not as much retail exposure. The retail exposure ones are Bank of America and Wells Fargo that really are trying to bring in deposits as a way to fund loans. So, even across the large banks, you have a variety of approaches on how important this issue is on yield. I think where it does become concentrated is for community banks whose model is really bring in deposits at a lower rate and lend at a higher rate. That's the business model. There's not no investment banking, there's no M&A advisory. It's basically you know, it's a simple balance sheet.

We want to We want to bring money in at a lower interest rate, lend it out higher. Um and that margin is where they live and die. And there's a lot more small banks and they tend to be very politically powerful. Again, for those those two reasons. Got it. Okay, that makes sense. That's a good way to kind of it kind of explain it. Yeah, I didn't never thought about it. You were talking about the grassroots um you know, representatives, right? That it's like in their jurisdictions, like a lot of those small banks are going to be like, "Don't let this thing go through, man. You're going to crush us, you know?" Cuz cuz they're not they're not those bigger entities that necessarily have all these different, you know, parts of them or, you know, people that are going to launch on >> And in Washington, D.C. Yeah. community

bank lobby, as opposed to the large bank lobby, are distinct. They're They're different from each other. They have different organizations that represent them. They're all member of of one big umbrella organization, but they generally have different policy objectives and they also have huge political operations. So, while they are small banks, um they are not small politically. The community bank lobby in D.C. is extremely well organized and extremely powerful. And when you have members of Congress who go home and meet with their local banker and five or six employees who may live a couple blocks from them

and they their kids go to the same school, it's it's a different influence operation. It's very real and tangible. Mhm. [clears throat] Mhm. I never thought about it that way. We got to get somebody from that lobby on or somebody from that group on. I want to I want to talk to them. You You make it sound like it's like Dairy Farmers of America or something. Something you're like, it sounds so innocent on the surface, but their their strength is so is so powerful, you know? Don't mess with them. 100%. I mean, it's a real You know, labor unions is a good way to think about it, too. You have union workers in every district. A lot of their parent power emanates from that.

Mhm. Mhm. The community bank lobby, never really thought of that. Um okay, let's let's shift back to to to the probability of of this actually happening and what happens whether it does or it doesn't. You called this the once-in-a-decade opportunity for our industry. What do you mean by that? Right now, the uh the political environment in D.C. is perfectly set up for this to get through. You have a White House that is very uh pro-innovation and has shown a lot of interest in working with the digital assets industry, both the crypto folks as well as the TradFi folks that want to do crypto. So, you have a very

pro-innovation White House. And then on the Hill the Republicans control both chambers and have both wanted to pass these bills. Um the House has, the Senate definitely wants to. So, really what we're talking about is needing seven Democrat seven Democratic senators in the U.S. Senate is really what we're talking about. You need to get 60, not 50 in the Senate. So, um I don't think we're going to see an environment like this for some time. So, right now, the crux of getting market structure done is really getting those seven Democratic senators plus the 53 Republicans, maybe you lose one or two here or there on the

floor. Um so, maybe seven to 10 to support it. That is as low of a political bar as you can get in this town. Now, cuz if you have a Democratic White House or you have a Democratic House or Senate where you could have a Maxine Waters or Elizabeth Warren instead of Tim Scott or French Hill the approach to these issues becomes very, very different. Their perspective on it will not be everything that industry wants. Um it'll be far from it. Uh I think you'd expect to see a very, very different political uh environment then. So, right now it feels like this is as easy as it's going to

get. If we don't see it now, I'm not sure when we will. Mhm. Mhm. Man, [clears throat] that's that's that's the second time in a couple days that we get that that scary kind of premonition. Crypto taxes are a nightmare. You've got trades across 50 exchanges, DeFi positions you forgot about, NFT flips, staking rewards, airdrops, and somehow you're supposed to report all of this to the IRS. Good luck. Cue the solution, Sum. You may know it by its old name, Crypto Tax Calculator. The Sum platform connects to over 3,500 exchanges, wallets, and crypto projects, including full support for DeFi, NFTs, staking, and airdrops. It finds deductions you'd miss, reconciles massive [music] transaction histories without losing track, and generates IRS-ready reports that will help you pay the least tax

[music] possible. Oh, Sum is also the official tax partner of Coinbase and MetaMask. Rated 4.6 out of five among Trustpilot. Turn crypto tax chaos into confidence. Get started for free at milkroad.com/sum. That's summ.com. [music] Milkroad listeners can also unlock 20% off their first-year subscription with code milkroad20. The transparency of traditional blockchains forces a difficult choice. >> [music] >> Utility or privacy? You shouldn't have to choose. >> [music] >> Midnight empowers innovators to break free from this limitation to a place where privacy isn't just a feature, but foundational.

Go to milkroad.com/midnight to learn more. What about let Okay, let's assume that that Okay, let's let's talk worst-case scenario before we talk best-case scenario cuz we always want to hear best-case scenario. We want to be bullish, but let's let's start with the the worst case. So, let's continue with the thread that you just outlined. Um and let's also uh assume another terrible scenario that the current war in Iran drags on and it becomes a the worst-case scenario, but I don't know. I don't want to go there. But anyways, you know what I mean. That it's like this thing's not over, there's no taco, nacho, whatever. It's just that it drags on in in some kind of horrific way. And the Clarity Act, no, doesn't get those votes, doesn't get those reps, and it's gone. And then we go to the Democrat Democratic swing in the

midterms. What then? What then for our industry, Adam? It becomes It becomes a regulatory-led approach to getting market clarity for digital assets. We're already seeing it from Paul Atkins at the SEC. We're seeing it from Mike Selig. We're seeing it from the uh the three banking regulators, FDIC, OCC, and Fed, as well as NCUA. Um So, it's really a regulatory-led approach, uh which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing. Regulations are easier to overturn than laws.

So, if I had to take my choice, it would be, "Let's get laws on the books." Laws are very hard to change once they're on the books. As you can see with passing Clarity, passing a law to undo it would just be almost impossible. Right. Now, overturning a regulation can be done a little bit more easily. It's It's still a It's still a challenge to do it, but it can be done. But I think what we'll see if the House goes Democratic, if we don't see this bill move anytime soon, if the Iran war lingers, we already have the shutdown at uh Homeland Security, which is hanging over a lot here, uh budget issues, etc.

Um I think you're going to see the SEC and CFTC provide as much clarity as they can. We've already seen them do it with recent announcements on defining what a digital asset is, when it's a security, when it's when it's a commodity. We're looking at the innovation exemption coming out of the SEC as well. Uh and then we're looking at the uh CFTC going deep in this industry um from their perspective. So, I think we're looking at at right a reg-heavy approach, which I I don't think is an awful outcome. It's certainly better than nothing, um I would say. And I think they can do a lot.

Are the institutions kind of planning for this? It It feels that way that it's like they're kind of even they're hedging for either scenario, right? Because they're still from what the news we track, it's like they're still doing this pretty by the book, right? Uh well, I think what you see from most companies is a two-pronged engagement. You You're engaging on the Hill Mhm. with [clears throat] your objectives on market structure and the narrow things you may want, as well as trying to get the bill over the finish line. But then you're also engaging with the agencies. So, you're working with the SEC, the CFTC, educating them on on what you're doing, what your perspective is, slightly nuanced from what you are with Capitol Hill, but you're doing the same sort of education and advocacy game.

It's prudent planning for any organization. Most big organizations will look at D.C. as a whole and plan where to engage with. So, I think right now you see people doing both. Right. Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. They They think in much much longer terms than uh they do think in decades, typically, from what I've understood of institutions. So, >> Definitely. And yeah. And the SEC and now the CFTC have functionally created entities within their agencies to engage with industry on crypto [snorts] policy issues. So, they've been doing that for uh months, almost a year at the SEC. So, they've been doing a lot of this engagement, and that's what we're

starting to see with the rule makings coming out. Mhm. [clears throat] Mhm. Okay. That makes sense. That's this is it's it's you're painting a good picture for me that this has been This has been in the works the institutional bit has been in the works for way before even this bill was kind of there and it will continue in ways with or without it. Um it's just more in the short term and I guess probably more of a retail effect as well. Probably a blocker of innovation as well if there's just if it's overly regulated in that in that swing. Um okay. So let's talk best-case scenario. Okay, let's say tomorrow a ceasefire great everybody's happy. We're all going to shake hands.

We're rebuilding the infrastructure we destroyed get the ships going through or shaking hands and in person everybody's happy and um clarity like boom you get those votes we're through by end of April off to the races like you can you can offer yield to your clients no problem. Um what then? Yep. Um I mean obviously that's an extremely bullish scenario for the >> [laughter] >> bill overall. Um I think it's possible. I think if we achieve an agreement on yield maybe as soon as this week then we'd still have to work through a couple other issue sets including DeFi issues in particular which are always tricky politically as well as ethics issues and I think ethics

issues in some ways are more challenging than the yield issue. The yield issue is a is kind of two sides of the industry really fighting it out on a competitive mode. The The ethics issue really touches on the Trumps the Trump family's interests in digital assets and Democrats desire to constrain them. So there you kind of put in a pure political bucket where these other issues are really they're really about policy and law competition.

Ethics issue really becomes a political issue. It's really hard to map issues out that are purely political. There's such a heavy emotional component to them and you can start to see that you could see a world where they become campaign issues. So that I would say ethics becomes a wild card in all of this. I don't think anyone really knows where that's going to end up. I know there's probably people in the White House and Democrats each with a very different view on what they want. But in terms of what can get you again coming back to those seven Democrats what can get you those seven seven Democratic votes on the floor unclear. So I put ethics I put a big asterisk next to ethics assuming we get

yield done. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. And then the DeFi one did you is there an asterisk there as well? And we had we did I'll I'll I'll level with you as well. We had Jake Chervinsky on last week from Hyperloop Policy Center to also kind of give us a you know on also on the ground view and he was really pointing to that. He was like listen like you are really going to hamper a lot of innovation here if you make developers responsible for not for assets that they never have custody of. A wonderful you know so I feel like is that is that a similar sentiment to kind of how you see it? It is. Love Jake.

Jake works in the same building I'm in now. I figured. [laughter] Love their team over there that they're they're they're building. Um Yeah, the issue of developer protections is very much a red line within the industry that exists and if without that that I also put an asterisk next to that. If you get to yield if you get an agreement on yield and then some sort of back door deal is made that undercuts protections for software developers and writing code like here you know the bill could take another U-turn here. So that's a a tricky issue and Jake's right right to flag that as a as a as as something

we're all laser focused on as well. Who who would be most against that? Like is is this also the Democrats that are they're trying to be convinced to sign this thing or is like like is who particularly if that even is a question like who doesn't like that? >> Yeah, I mean on one side obviously you have all the companies that employ developers and who don't want to be criminally liable for code that's put out into space that's then used if it's used nefariously. On the other side you really have you have a group of Democrats that very much wants to arm law enforcement with as many tools as possible to go after bad actors in the space. I mean clearly I mean with

Drift we're we're seeing that. So I think I think that's where they're coming from. The issue I think that many are seeing and I want to be careful how I characterize this is the depth of knowledge required to understand what is really a computer science and legal issue wrapped into one that's very very complicated and relies on concepts such as what truly is decentralization. What really is custody? It's very hard to get two people talking about the same thing productively and I think that's what we're I think we're seeing a lot of challenge in having these discussions and agreeing on what is necessary for

law enforcement to have. I think the view of many of us is what already exists is sufficient to go after all of the bad actors. It's It's not so much an issue of giving new legal authority. It's really an issue of enforcement. You have the legal authority. You just need to enforce it and I think some of this these groups of Democrats would would be saying no we need need even more legal authority.

I think a lot of industry would say it's duplicative unnecessary potentially harmful. So that's really where the rub is coming in. Mhm. Mhm. [clears throat] It's probably I could imagine too from you know policy is is typically or can be so slow that I feel like it's it's probably hard for lawmakers to see the difference between a Ross Ulbricht and a tornado tornado cash developer or or or a Drift hacker. You know what I mean? That it or a Sam Sam Bankman-Fried. You know what I mean? It's like it's kind of hard to you don't understand enough of the nuances for it probably really hard to understand what the difference is between all these different bad actors. There's such a variety of them and some that you know many of us some of those people we don't consider bad actors people that are in the industry and you know Tornado Cash

is a good example, right? All of all of our companies depend on people coming up with novel products writing code and putting it out there for consumers to use in a certain way. If it is used for a bad purpose should the person who designed the code be criminally liable for how someone else could use it? So I think for us the answer is definitely not. For others there's questions of intent of if you knowingly created it. There's all these like certain levels of granularity that come into the conversation make it really really tough.

Is this I feel like there's so much precedent though when I think about it of like somebody made a product and people used it poorly. So are they liable or not? Like McDonald's in the 80s like the guy got a heart attack and then he was like oh it's McDonald's fault they shouldn't have made bad food. Exactly. [laughter] I mean well the one where they spilled the the hot coffee. The coffee yeah landmark case yeah. Exactly. But you have this you know you have this in the gun industry gun you know how guns are used. Cars I mean lots of liab- product liability issue where it begins and where it ends. So from that perspective it's a great point.

It's not novel in many ways to this industry. Deciding where that line of liability begins and ends is something that that policy makers are always trying to figure out. I think what makes this more challenging is the technological component here and some of the the concepts that play are hard things to understand and they themselves require deep learning and understanding. So and again DC is an environment where things are generally done in 30-minute meetings and these require really really weeks of study to really understand [clears throat] the nuances. Wait, what

do you mean they're done in 30-minute meetings? What does that mean? I mean the the engagement a lot in this city is often dealt with in 30-minute meetings on the hill where you'll hit your your top line points. You'll have a discussion and you're really not going to go down to say the 5,000 foot level. You can have follow-up meetings but this would be an issue where people really have to devote a significant amount of time not just to market structure overall not just to DeFi overall but to developer protections and how they are dealt with by law enforcement authorities. So you know that's that's probably you know 10 hours a week for a couple weeks really

understanding it talking to legal professionals talking to people like Jake talking to people on the other side in law enforcement and trying to figure out what's what's right here. Like do [clears throat] law enforcement really lack the tools that they're saying they do or does industry is industry right is really by saying that the tools you're asking for are duplicative unnecessary and would leave software developers unprotected? So it you know it these are tough tough technical issues. Stablecoins are reshaping the financial order but most companies don't have the opportunity to participate in the rewards they generate. Plus launching a stablecoin means wrestling with complex regulations

building bespoke infrastructure, and burning endless developer hours. Enter Bridge and its new product, [music] Open Issuance. Bridge lets companies send, store, accept, and even launch their own stablecoins instantly. Seamless fiat-to-stablecoin flows, control over reserves and rewards, and [music] full interoperability across every Bridge issued token. No more patching payment rails, no more months-long launches. [music] Visit milkroad.com/bridge to see how it works. Speaking of consumers and retail in the space um you I feel like you have a take that I hadn't really thought of too much, especially coming from uh somebody on the hill, right? Somebody works in policy heavily, about I guess it's kind of a competitive advantage uh

for crypto, but it's also something that that hopefully has some kind of effect on how lawmakers see this industry differently than a lot of others. Please tell me about that. >> no, definitely. You know, a lot is made about the crypto user being a political force, and you know, you know, you know, perhaps the the industry side may overstate, the other side may understate, but I think the the the one aspect that is unique to crypto, if you look at it as a product, is that the users of crypto are fanatical. There is a cultural underpinning of crypto users that I would consider to kind of sports fandom, that you almost feel like you're

joining a team. You love Solana, you love Bitcoin, you love, you know, the Link Marines, XRP Army. It's fanatical. You have, you know, people wear t-shirts, they get tattoos. So, that emotional connection really ups your political game and your ability to have political influence. I don't think you see that with iPhone users. We all have iPhones, but there's not a whole lot of people who are fanatical about their iPhone. They love it, but not in the same way I think a lot of people love crypto. Um so, I think it's deeper. Uh I think for many it goes down to your down to kind of these core rights you hold. I think they they really embrace that. And then um kind of this like

cult-like status it has makes it a unique issue if you're a politician and you see crypto people coming in. These people may just vote on crypto. Um they really really care about it. So, um if you're a if you're a member of Congress in Wisconsin, I'm sure you're wearing Green Bay Packers gear um throughout the year and that's going to help convince voters to support you. So, I think crypto has a similar edge here. I think politicians really have to recognize that this just really isn't about crypto per se. There's a cultural underpinning to it that's strong.

Uh and that really ups the political influence of it. If crypto was a sports team, which one would it be? Um What what kind of fans are we like? >> I got to say Oakland or Las Vegas Raiders. So, it's kind of where it's where my brain goes. So, >> [laughter] >> uh you know, a little bit irreverent, um you know, rough around the edges, um likes to push things in a different way. So, >> [laughter] >> I think the Davis family, I think Al Davis and the Davis family I I would be would be very representative of the crypto industry. All right, let's pull it up. This is let's pull it let's look at it. This is this is who [clears throat] this is who Adam says that we're like, all right? Is these these this is us.

This is this is the You know what? Crypto conferences I used to go to NFT ones, it definitely feels this way. This is we're definitely a little bit Yep. This Here we go, a little Homer Simpson in there. Yep. >> [laughter] >> Oh, getting the Chiefs fan. Yeah. >> [laughter] >> So, if you're looking at that as a member of Congress, you're kind of like, all right, these aren't just people using a product. These are people who have a strong cultural tie to it, and they may act differently. So, I think some politicians are are seeing that. Yeah, okay. Yeah, that makes sense. I'll I'll take that. Is this um I have a a more political question for you and something I've wondered for a while. I remember the day when uh you know, maybe 2 years ago or

pre-election and Trump was speaking at an event and somebody asked him like, hey, what do you think of Bitcoin? And he was like, yeah, I love Bitcoin. And then suddenly it's like a something flipped for them and suddenly a huge part of his re-election um was about uh or his campaign was about Bitcoin. Was that some Do Do Do you Are you kind of kind of describing the same thing where they saw an opportunity his camp saw an opportunity to really kind of pull in this kind of more crypto crowd um and get votes? 100% It's um it's a big community both from a grassroots perspective. Uh I think Stand With Crypto has shown that there there are crypto users who want to be politically active. There's also a fundraising base to be tapped there. Um I don't want to

be naive and not not mention that, but that's the reality of politics in the US is it costs money to run for elections. Um so, yeah, and I do think the cult the cultural underpinnings it's it is a great base to have within your camp. So, I think um it was very politically astute to reach out to crypto in in the way that they did. Mhm. Mhm. Mhm. How is you did mention a point to me earlier about how um the Trump family's uh crypto endeavors uh have potentially impacted the progress of something like Clarity. So, maybe we can just end on that as something that I hadn't really thought about. No, totally. World Liberty Financial, strong connections to the Trump family, will come into focus

when we talk about the ethics part of the market structure. So, I think unfortunately, I think a lot of Democrats want to use that as a reason to potentially slow down the bill. Um what I would say is if if I'm the Democrats, the way I would think about it would be we need the bill cuz this bill would subject any company operating in the US to the same rules and regulations, consumer protection, uh market regulation as well. So, um I do think though that you're going to see a lot of folks seize on those sorts of crypto connections not in a helpful way, and I I hope that doesn't become another

asterisk on this bill like yield has become. Um that could potentially block it. So, um TBD on how ethics is ultimately addressed, but I think you're going to see a lot of people bring up um the Trump family's efforts in that area. So, um for better or for worse, I I I uh I disagree with the strategy. I think you're better off saying we're passing this bill so everyone in the country is subject to these rules and standards that can protect consumers. Why wouldn't we want everyone subject to that? So, >> Mhm. Mhm.

I [clears throat] think they have to I personally think Democrats have to be careful on that point. So, we'll we'll see how this goes out. >> Yeah, that's a kind of rehashing the recent [clears throat] past, but you know, in a trade-off for what would be a lot of progress, basically, uh which is which is very much needed because you have so many other companies and people waiting on that before they can, you know, deploy products to people. Well, at the core, these bills, the Genius Act and Market Structure Clarity, are really consumer protection bills. These are really setting up frameworks for how these products are regulated. So, the idea that we would not want to protect consumers because of what is largely a political issue, >> [clears throat]

>> you know, it feels so um myopic. It feels so uh phony in many ways. So, um hopefully it doesn't come to that. That makes a lot of sense. Well, Adam, thank you for uh all the clarity about Clarity. Uh it's been great to chat with you, man. Um always great to hear hear from people on the ground. Uh I think that that is our best source of information. Um you know, I wish we had the Citrine analyst on as well, whether that's a real story or not, but uh to talk about the war, but I feel like we're getting the same thing in terms of of policy from you uh in a much safer way as well for for the person involved.

>> [laughter] >> Totally. Well, really appreciate you having me on. Hit me up if you ever need anything on DC. I'm a Oh, man. I feel like we're going to hit you up pretty soon, man. I feel like this thing When's When's this supposed to pass? What's the date? Well, they're talking about a markup in committee next uh in 2 weeks, and then the Senate floor and potentially the House. So, you're looking at April, May, maybe into June if again if things come together on yield, DeFi, and ethics. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, it's it's it's it's like pretty much now. This has got to happen now. Yeah, those those 30-minute conversations are currently happening uh on the hill. Yeah, they're running around talking. Yeah. Okay. Okay, awesome. Well, I think we'll definitely try and get you back on to at least

whatever ends ends up happening in the next 2 months, we'd definitely love to hear from you again and have you break it down for us. >> it. Love what you guys do. Again, thanks for having me [music] on. Appreciate it. Thanks, Adam. Thanks. Want insights on what's moving crypto markets and how we're trading each event? Subscribe to our channel, join the Milk Road daily [music] and pro newsletters, and start investing like the top 1%. This show is for educational purposes only. Nothing we say is financial advice. Investing is risky. Never invest more than you can afford to lose.