Clarity Died in the Senate. Does Crypto Even Need a Law Now?

Transcript

How far do we want to go to get a bill? At what point are we harming this industry's growth and potential and the competitive nature for this industry to thrive with other industries? For the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act on the Sunday's release text, they lost the criminal liability shield. That's what exactly what Senator Cortez Masso wanted. Uh it removed all reference to the 1960 criminal statute. And so if you're a non-custodial developer, you have civil liability protections from this bill. uh you can't be tried civily, but if someone uses your technology that you've created for some kind of uh illicit activity, you can still be criminally liable. And that's exactly what we were trying to fight against. [music] >> Hi everyone, welcome to Unchained, your no hype resource for all things crypto.

I'm your host Laura Shin. Thanks for joining this live stream. First, we're going to take a quick word from the sponsors who make the show possible. This episode is brought to you by 1-in Aqua, the shared liquidity layer from 1 in. Back multiple liquidity positions with one wallet balance and keep your tokens in your wallet until a swap fills. See how it works at 1in.com/aqua. Today's guest is Cody Carbone, CEO of the digital chamber. Welcome, Cody. >> Thanks so much for having me, Laura. Good to be here.

So the clarity act failed to pass the cloer vote that would have allowed it to move to the floor for debate. This caused a lot of consternation on crypto Twitter. There was also a lot of fingerpointing between the Democrats and Republicans. Fingerpointing from crypto Twitter to various politicians of all stripes. What went wrong? What was the ultimate blocker? >> Yeah, it sucks. There's no way to sugarcoat it. It It really does. We've been spending years on trying to get this bill over the finish line. Um ultimately politics beat policy. That's that's it. This became political. You saw every single Democrat vote no on the motion to invoke closure. Uh they were uni they were aligned together. They weren't going to allow a win here for

Republican offices. It's a 630 page bill. Uh four pages of that is ethics. I know that there were some other issues on the substantive side around BRCA and stable coin yield that we can get into, but ethics really carried the day. And unfortunately, there wasn't enough alignment and politics won. And that's a pretty sad state of affairs for an industry that has been trying to ask and achieve regulation for so long. And now we have to go to plan B, C, and D. Uh, which I think we can, but it's unfortunate.

So, I have to ask a spicy question. So, um I I I probably align a little bit with the Democrats that Trump's self-deing and grifting was pretty beyond shameless. >> The the funny thing is I the timing of this is kind of crazy. somebody who's not a crypto person uh who has a background I think in intelligence did an analysis of corrupt world leaders just in the last day or so and took the UN's definition of corruption turned it into eight criteria and gave each a 100 points or or or maybe it was altogether it was 100 points and scored the leaders um that history remembers for looting their countries so like uh Marco Suarto uh Moufu Abbacha Putin beyond anyway that you know I don't know all of these. Um I definitely

know Suarto though because I used to live in Indonesia but anyway so she put every president US president since Eisenhower on the same scale um you know uh both parties and um she uh ended up scoring Nixon at a 41. There was no other American president that scored above a 25, but Trump's second administration scored a 91, which puts him in league in the same league as Su Hartil and Moubufu um and above Marcos and Abbacha. So her conclusion was that Trump is quote not only the most corrupt president in American history, at this pace, he finishes his term level with the most corrupt rulers of the last hundred years. So given that situation, so I understand this that I took us out

of crypto for a moment, but you know, I understand the ethics provision didn't land in a place that the Dems would be okay with. Um, but you know, I'm sort of wondering, you know, here they are. They have now uh blocked passing anything. So now the status quo will prevail. So then how does that square with their desire to curb some of this corruption? >> It's bizarre to me that they would take the status quo over what we've heard Democrats and Republicans both say were 80% of the ethics demands from Democrats. I was shocked. I honestly shocked on Sunday night when we saw the updated text and the president had to agree to state AG's having enforcement

power here to putting his assets in a blind trust. I thought from the the first ethics provision that came out several weeks ago initially from the White House that was im immediately um dismissed from Democrats that that was as far as the president was willing to go. You know, putting limits on himself. Uh it's it was unprecedented. Everything about this administration is unprecedented. But I I was I was shocked that he was going to go even further. And I think it illustrated how much that Republicans and the White House specifically wanted to get this bill done, how much they cared about this. I was hoping that as an this is a negotiation, there's going to have to be give and take on both sides that Democrats would see, okay, he gave us a little bit of what we wanted. It's not perfect, but now we have some

constraints on his ability to deal in digital assets. now we know that we have some control and we can sell this back to our base and it wasn't good enough and that was disappointing to me and that wasn't just on ethics that was on every single provision that they had been negotiating this far that from my position sitting in the room sitting with these offices both Democratic and Republican staffers who have been wanting this for so long that there needed to be negotiation on both sides and at the end of the day what it seemed to come down to is that Republicans were continuing to negotiate sometimes at, you know, the the harm of the crypto industry. Uh, I don't like what they did on DeFi. We can get into that. But Republicans were negotiating, negotiating, negot. And I think what pissed them off at the

day and why everyone walked away from the table, walked away from the table after this bill failed is that Democrats were saying, "We're not negotiating. You're giving us what we want or there's no bill. There is no middle ground here. There is no compromise here. Give us what we want or there's no bill." And unfortunately, that's where it ended up. And that's why every single Democratic office voted no. >> Okay. And then I have to ask um so I saw that last night Elanor Terret of um crypto in America, she tweeted that the Democrats who support crypto legislation want to try to pass it in the lame duck.

And so it made me think, do you think that some of the reason that they bulked was because of the election coming up, but that after that then they'll be okay with with the compromise and pass it? >> I don't know how sincere this message is from those Democratic offices. I'm going to be completely honest. I think that uh if they wanted to vote yes, they would have continued to negotiate and at least voted yes on the motion to proceed and the motion to invoke closure. I I think a lot of people what they get wrong here about what happened on Tuesday is that this wasn't a vote on final passage. It was just to continue debate. It was really a vote to to talk about the bill. They needed them go into the amendment

process and they could have offered amendments on ethics. They wanted to kick the can down the road as far as possible. And I think if the Democrats had it in a perfect world that they would have made sure that they never had to go on record and they didn't vote on this bill until after the election that they wanted to see if they can keep the crypto super PAC money at bay as long as possible after this vote has already been delayed several months. I mean we talked about the initial Senate banking markup in January. Senate a marked this bill up in January. I know then it got delayed for several reasons until May and then we've continued this process, but I think Democrats wanted to kick the can down as far as possible and maybe after the election, they'll be willing to go back to it. Um, but I don't know if that's going to be good enough for

Republicans. Republicans have been very, very clear. This was our best and final offer. We're not willing to go any further. I don't think Republicans are comfortable going back to the White House and saying, "Okay, we've already had to twist your arm twice, Mr. president on this ethics deal. Can you go back and give more more here more here so Democrats can say that they have a win? I I don't know if that's realistic. And so I don't know if lame duck is possible. Maybe cooler heads will prevail. Maybe everyone will walk away from this week and say, "Let's forget about clarity for a little bit. We've got, you know, six weeks until the election. Maybe we come back after and we're sitting in a lame duck. We don't have that much to do. We've got to fund the government. Yes, we've got to do NDA. Yes. But maybe this is a good time.

Everyone forgot about September failed vote and we come back to the table. I I think that's unrealistic and unlikely, but crazier things have happened in DC. >> And just to um expand a little bit on a point that you made, obviously crypto money has been very influential in at least the last election and I'm sure a lot of the politicians are going to be aware of that as a factor going forward. So expound on what you said about how election money or or um yeah just just any you know kind of influence from the crypto industry might have influenced the thinking around this vote. >> Yeah. I mean crypto pack money the political arm of the crypto industry was one of the most influential sectors in

the 2024 election. Single-handedly won races. If you look at Ohio where Bernie Mareno beat then the Senate banking chairman Sheriff Brown a lot of that and Bernie was a great candidate, Senator Marino was a great candidate but a lot of that was crypto pack money and for you know for the super PACs out there that can influence races specifically at the House level those smaller races smaller dollar races they've been sitting on the sidelines saying okay let's see what happens with this vote now if you're a Democrat and you are concerned and you don't want to vote yes on a because you don't want to get Trump a win and you don't think you're ever going to get vote yes because it looks like then Trump can continue to do what he does is selfdeings in digital assets then you want to delay this vote as long as possible. Hey, you can say in the

media, I am pro digital assets. I want to get a bill done. I'm listening to the industry. I am engaging with Republicans. I want to get a bill done. But if you're not going to vote yes, then you're probably a little nervous and hesitant about what the pack money can do to your race. if you're up for election. And so if you can continue to push this now, we're past the primaries. So they've already moved it that far and we're going into a general election. If you can keep the crypto pack money at bay where they still think you're an ally even if you're never going to vote yes, that's the best place you want to be. As soon as you're put on the record, you're forced on the record and you vote no, then you're showing that you don't really you're not really that interested

in regulating this industry. This is a bipartisan bill. You've done a lot for it. If you want to actually prioritize this industry, put politics aside, do something that's good for the economy, good for the country, then you've got to vote yes. And I think the packs hope hopefully were looking at this vote very closely on Tuesday. And now we'll start to devoid capital very quickly into some of these races where some of those people voted no. >> Okay. And last question on uh the blame game issue. Yeah. >> How much are the banks to blame for this failure? I will always be perplexed by their strategy. I am fascinated by it. I don't understand it one bit. From the beginning, the banks have said, "We want

to tank this bill. We don't like the stable coin reward provision." Stable coin rewards weren't even uh a concept for the Clarity Act when the House passed the bill. They made it a vocal issue of this legislation. And they were willing to tank this bill up until Tuesday's vote because they don't like the rewards issue. Now, it's the same thing on ethics where I won't understand the Democrat strategy. The banks get the status quo now that the bill has failed, which means rewards can thrive. I already saw that Coinbase has upped the reward uh for on Coinbase for Coinbase One members. I wouldn't be surprised if every exchange starts upping the rewards. The status quo now exists and continues and will probably thrive and the banks get nothing. And even put the stable coin reward piece aside, the banks needed this bill. You talk to

banks privately. You talk to the bank trades privately. This is a good bill for them. There is a huge section in the banking title about peri uh activities that banks can now do with digital assets. It allows them to interact with permissionless blockchains for the first time. It I am shocked that they went all in on taking this bill when they need this bill. And it was another example. It was pretty illustrative that they were not willing to compromise because they thought they could get their way and this bill would still pass. and now there's no bill and now they have to take their ball and go home and stable coin rewards will exist and now it's a lot more difficult for banks to compete on the digital asset side. So I I think they deserve some blame. Uh I I am again still shocked and perplexed by it. Crazy advocacy strategy to me. I would love to

hear how they're feeling today uh now that this bill may not have a chance to go forward, but they deserve some blame because there are Republican members here. Uh you know, three four Republicans voted no. One was Senator Tillis who really changed his vote for a procedural reason from yes to no. So three Republicans voted no. And I think if you ask all three, it was because of the banks. They felt like they were hearing from their community banks at home that this was going to cause deposit flight, lending concerns. So the banks deserve a lot of a lot of the blame as well. >> All right, so in a moment we're going to talk a little bit more about what this status quo will look like going forward, but first we'll take a quick word from the sponsors who make the show possible. $540 million. That's how much

concentrated liquidity sat idle in a given week in the first half of this year. About 30% of the DeFi TVL if you're wondering. That's according to Dune Research Commissioned by 1 in. But there's a solution. 1-in Aqua is the new shared liquidity platform. It lets LPS back multiple positions with the same token balance and keep their tokens in their wallet till a swap comes. Why does that help? Because the LPS don't have to split their tokens across positions. They can cover more market conditions and pairs with their full balance. That means more activity across deeper liquidity. See how it works at 1in.com/aqua. Remember that providing liquidity carries risk and fees aren't guaranteed. Back to my conversation with Cody. So,

as we're streaming here, the SEC announced this morning, and it was actually just as we started this live stream, um we should have an article on the website as at this moment that they are granting an innovation exemption for tokenized securities venues, aka TSVs, um which basically means AMMs, and also for liquidity providers on them. and the stock tokens that trade on them will be required to be fully 1:1 meaning they will have all the same rights and dividends etc as a normal stock. Um I'm curious for your reaction about that announcement and if you think it indicates that the US doesn't necessarily need a crypto law that it can accomplish what it needs to with simp you know simple rulemaking by the SEC and CFTC.

>> Well, you're breaking the news to me. Uh so I'm pumped to hear that this is out. Um, it's unsurprising. We've known this innovation exemption has been worked on by the SEC for months now and we're ready to go and there's been some fits and starts. Um, but I think the the most compelling thing here is that it is illustrative that these agencies are now going to move like gang busters that as soon as this bill failed, they had pages. We have met with the SEC. We've met with the CFTC. They have binders of proposed rules and guidance ready to go to implement as much of the ethos, objectives, goals of clarity as possible. And this isn't going to be a short-term effort between now and the end of the year. I think this is going to between now and the end of the administration. That the next two and a half years are going to be a onslaught

of proposed rules and guidance from these two agencies. And I think the innovation exemption was just the start. I think they're going to try to see it and push the bounds of their authorizing statutes, implement as much of clarity as possible through these two agencies. So, it just shows that to your to your question, we're going to move forward. Yes, we don't get legislation and there's concerns about that. There are there are going to be questions about what can't the agencies do that the statute that Congress was going to be able to do. Um there's going to likely be uh lawsuits against the agencies as we see and it's not unique when whenever there's a rule making um and how fast and quickly can they do it and the durability side too. You know agency action is not as durable as as legislation. Uh you are essentially

leaving it up to the whims of administration to administration. And so if you get a hostile administration in two years what does that do to the agency action that we received over these two years that are coming up? If you're a company that's building in this space, are you comfortable enough with proposed rules and guidance that could be overturned in two years? I'm sure that's a question every compliance team is asking right now or I'm sure much would rather legislation that can have the durability of two decades versus two years. So it's going to be a fascinating uh fascinating to see what happens over the next two years if all these builders institutions in this space take the agency action and say okay we trust this enough we're going to still go full deployment of capital into digital assets and

blockchain in the United States. So I, you know, want to talk about that a little bit because I saw this really interesting tweet where somebody basically said that um if the US uh gains uh or you know if the US gets wide adoption of crypto during the next two years simply based on the SEC and FTC CFTC rulemaking that then essentially it would be nearly impossible for the next administration to roll back a lot of their regulations. So yeah, do do you see that as a potential possibility that um just so let's say clarity never gets passed and um during that time the CFTC and SEC

create a lot of rules that allow the industry to just thrive and get rooted here in the US then you know and and then let's say that the next administration is unfriendly to crypto what could happen or what would um not like be possible at that point. >> So the hope is that SEC and CFTC as you mentioned do all these rules, all this guidance over the next two years that the market does respond and we don't take our foot off the gas and every big institution keeps building and building and building that they say you know what this is enough for us. This is the guidance and clarity we need. We don't need the legislation. We're going to keep going in the US. If that happens, then I think that tweet that you referenced is right that it gets very

difficult for the next administration to overturn everything day one because then you're creating systemic risk. If digital assets and blockchain are already woven into the fabric of the US economy because everyone just said, you know what, we never needed a bill. We're taking this guidance as gospel. We're reading it as law. Uh and we're going to keep going and going and going. Over the next two years, it gets very hard to unturn to undo all of that. If the market doesn't respond like that and we see some of these big institutions that have had huge plans in the United States say, you know what, we're going to pause a little bit. We're going to look to other jurisdictions that are moving ahead with clear regulation. Our compliance teams are uncomfortable building with the thought that everything can change in two years and

we could have a hostile administration two years. We're just going to pause and slow down and we don't see this mass deployment of capital into the US digital asset markets. Then I think it becomes, you know, where the the next SEC, CFTC can very quickly undo everything because you're not going to have that huge market reaction. And that's where it gets scary. Legislation is very, very hard to undo. You need to pass another bill. You need to amend it. Uh, in terms of agency guidance, the next SEC chair, uh, whenever they're sworn in in 2029 with the new administration with a stroke of the pen, can undo everything Atkins did. That's scary. So, how will the market respond over the next two years? That's what we all need to look to. If people are celebrating this agency guidance and say we're going to continue to go, you start

to see offshore talent and capital come back, liquidity come back in the US, we'll be in a good spot where I think then you almost tie the hands of the next SEC and CFTC where they can't do much. >> And so, um, this, you know, exemption for tokenized securities venues that I just mentioned to you, it's actually only granted for 5 years. So let's say that there is no crypto legislation that's passed um you know before the next administration and the next administr administration is unfriendly to crypto. Uh what could happen to that rule? Would it just depend on how integrated um you know that kind of trading is in society or or yeah what are the possibilities there? >> I I think that's exactly it. I think the

next ex SEC will have to come in and look how integrated is this? If we are going to undo this uh overnight. Um what will that look like for US retail investors? What will that look like for US institutional investors? Are we going to be taking away a lifeline uh that you know if if there mass amount of Americans uh retail and institutions are starting to use uh tokenized equities and that's becomes a massive part of the US capital markets. it gets very difficult for the next SEC to overturn it. If it doesn't be take off uh and we don't see the growth that we expect that we've seen in the offshore markets for tokenized uh American equities then it doesn't get that difficult that we say you know what we go back how will the institutions respond the issuers

themselves that's what I'm going to be fascinated about are the issuers going to take advantage of this and say hey we we think this is a good option for us or are they all going to be like the AMC CEO and B could be like no I don't want this um that'll be very fascinating And I think that will dictate what the next SEC can do or what happens after the 5 years runs out on the exemption. >> Yeah. And just to expound on this rule for the listener, um what was interesting is the way that it's set up is that the venue has to reach out to the issuer and notify them that they're intending to do this. And then the issuer has 30 days to respond. And if they don't respond then the venue can use that as a green light to go ahead and list. And um you know obviously if

they hear back uh you know cease and desist as the AMC CEO said then of course uh the venue cannot list it. Um so you know the two paths to listing would be either like an explicit blessing or even just silence. Um but the other thing that was interesting is so I explicitly asked them well what about all these synthetics you know these derivatives where you don't get the voting rights you don't get the dividends all those things and they said you know this exemp exemptive exemptive relief only applies to the ones that are one to one and are basically like a stock just in a blockchain wrapper and um [laughter] when I kind of pushed them because so

there's um the securities transfer or what's it called? Securities transaction association or something like that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. They they requested that the US that the SEC explicitly only allow the type of um stock tokens that they just gave this exemptive release to to relief to to exist and to never allow any synthetics on the US uh on shore. And um when I asked if you know this exemptive relief was the answer to the [laughter] STA in terms of like we will not allow it. They they wouldn't say you know whether or not they were making any statement about synthetics whatsoever.

But they just re reiterated that they are currently illegal in the US. And they said actually a few sort of disparaging remarks about the synthetics. So, it sort of seems like they're um dispositioned in a negative way toward those assets. Um, but it it was just interesting to me because I was like, well, I'm pretty sure a lot of the crypto community is very interested in this synthetics. >> Yeah. And I'm fairly surprised that they didn't address it at all. Um because this is what you know th this in innovation exemption we've been talking about for months as we mentioned and this was supposed to come out several months ago but it was held up at the last second because of the synthetics that they wanted to fully grasp it and understand it and see how they can address it in this exemption. So I'm

fairly surprised that it wasn't raised. Um I'm going to be fascinated what it means for that market because it's thriving offshore. So, are you going to see, you know, synthetic, we'll continue to use the AMC AMC example, synthetic AMC tokens offshore, u but not in the US. What will that do for some of the liquidity in these markets? I don't know how the SEC will respond to that, but it seems like they they're making their position clear that by ignoring it uh in this exemption that they don't think it should exist here. >> Yeah, the actual quote was something about how the synthetics will continue to exist out in the wilds. was um >> the spokesperson described it. Um okay, so let's let's uh move back to clarity because obviously we

>> had this failure this week, but you know, as I mentioned earlier, there still is talk that this could happen. We still do have two and a half years. Um so I'm curious, you know, this ethics provision has seen numerous different iterations. Each side is given concessions. Are there any other kinds of changes that are left to be tried that haven't yet? >> So, the two other big issues uh that were continuing to be debated up until the vote were on amending the blockchain regulatory certainty act, which essentially is this protection for non-custodial developers um and other infrastructure providers, but from having to be money transmitters and comply with bank secrecy act obligations. The other issue was stable

coin yield which we've talked about given the banks you know this limitation on rewards that there has been this mass concern from community banks regional banks and the largest gives that if you allow stable coin rewards to exist even if they're just limited to transaction activity like this bill had it then you're going to cause this mass flight of capital from these banks and they're not going to be able to lend. Um, Democrats were given a lot here in the Sunday release text from Republicans on these two issues specifically. And I think as a digital asset industry, we want a bill, we want a bill bad, but we've already given so much uh on blockchain regulatory certainty act specifically and on stable coin yield. Um, how far do we want to go to get a

bill? At what point are we harming this industry's growth and potential and the competitive nature for this industry to thrive with other industries? For the blockchain regulatory certainty act on the Sunday's release text, they lost the criminal liability shield. That's what exactly what Senator Cortez Masto wanted. Uh it removed all reference to the 1960 criminal statute. And so if you're a non-custodial developer, you have civil liability protections from this bill. Uh you can't be tried civily. But if someone uses your technology that you've created for some kind of uh illicit activity, you can still be criminally liable. And that's exactly what we were trying to fight against and it wasn't good enough. And it's exactly what some of the Democrats asked for. So going back to the drawing table, if we're going to get

clarity pushed, how much is the digital asset industry going to be willing to sacrifice? How much further are we going to be willing to go? I I don't know the answer to that. And I think it's something that all advocates, all businesses in the space who have been engaging Washington need to ask themselves. We all want to get a bill done. We we've been willing to compromise. I don't like that there's any prohibitions on stable coin rewards. But that's that's what we had to do to compromise to get a bill done. We had to prohibit getting any reward that looked like an interest bearing deposit. Rewards are now only limited to transaction activity, what was in this bill. I don't think that's fair. But I had to, you know, bite my tongue and say, "Okay, it's best to get this bill forward. You have to compromise. has to

be a give and take. Are we willing to go further? I don't know the answer to that right now. It really depends on how constructive negotiations are. And are we going to get any assurances that if we continue to give and give? And I think Republicans in the White House are asking themselves right now. Are we going to get any asurances that if we give, you're going to vote yes on the Democratic side that you're going to get the 60 votes? That's a it's a tough place to be. And now, you know, we've got two weeks left of session in September. then it's the election and then it's the lame duck and then you're possibly going into a divided Congress where you might legislation may never see the light of day. Um so the timing is tough. We want to get a bill done. I

don't think anyone from the digital asset side is saying, "Hey, we're completely wiping our hands with this and walking away, but we need to make sure that we're not giving up the farm to get a bill and then the bill is not great for our industry." >> So it almost feels like the lame duck really is the last best chance. >> I think so. I I don't think we see a bill next Congress if the election turns out to be a divided Congress. If you look at the House, if the House flips to Democratic control, Maxine Waters will likely be the chairwoman of the House financial services industry. She is not a fan of this industry. Uh I think her focus has been very clear on what it would be as chairwoman would be on subpoenas and investigations into the president and some of his digital asset dealings. there has been very little

appetite from not all I mean we almost got a 100 house Democrats to vote for the Clarity Act last year. Um but in terms of the people who are in leadership there doesn't seem to be any appetite um to get this bill done. So I I would find it very difficult that we would see some mass bipartisan compromise between a Democratic House and Republican Senate. But crazier things have happened. But I think this is likely the last chance uh to get it done until we have a full reset and we go into the 2028 election, which is kind of terrifying. Uh but it's why it's so critical that agency rule making continues and goes out like this. Like I was hopeful that we would see the agency rules come out right away. And I think now the SEC saying, "Hey, we're coming out with the innovation exemption two days after this bill failed." I would

imagine the CFTC starts coming out with things very quickly and we start to see a onslaught of proposed rules over the next few weeks. >> Okay. So then just last question, it almost feels like so let's say that there's no law passed during the lame duck and the SEC and CFTC do furious rulemaking and the industry goes to town for the next two and a half years. Um so let's let's just say you know for a like a hypothetical that crypto really does um gain a foothold and the industry starts to thrive and the market responds and um then we have this new administration you know it doesn't matter really what administration because the facts are at that moment

that crypto is now like a thing in the US so then would it ever be possible that then the US would just never even have any crypto law ever and it would just be all done with this rulem that would be just too difficult to unwind for business reasons. >> It's it's possible. I I think eventually um over time as this rule making really takes hold. And to your point, crypto has this foothold in the US. Then it becomes easier for Congress to say, you know what, let's just codify some of the things the SEC and CFTC have done. Uh and we're not trying to come up with new concepts, new ideas. is you know in this bill it was it's all new concepts. It's the ancillary asset test. It's the network token test. It's the decentralization of name only test. I

think what will happen over time as this industry matures and if they you know if truly people uh get behind the SEC and CFTC rulemaking that over the next few years you will just see legislation that codifies what those agencies have already done. And it's why it's so critical that these agencies get it right. I have all the faith in the world. uh no two better people than Paul Atkins and Mike Sealing to lead us here who know the industry so well. Um and then Congress, you know, it becomes less partisan. It becomes uh less political. It probably becomes less newsworthy. Hey, we're just going to codify the innovation exemption. So we so it stands the test of time. I think that's the most likely scenario at this point. >> All right, Cody. Well, it's been such a pleasure chatting with you despite it being a disappointing week for the

crypto industry. Thank you so much for coming on Unchanged. Thanks so much for having me >> and thanks to all the live stream audience who came and watched. Um, hope you have a great weekend. Bye for now. Nothing new here on Unchained is investment advice. This show is forformational and entertainment purposes only. And my guest and I may hold assets discussed on the show. For more disclosures, visit unchainedcrypto.com. [music] Heat. Hey, Heat. [music] [music]

[music] >> [music]