Will the Clarity Act pass? A16z's Collin McCune on Washington

Transcript

Now all the big institutional investors, the big institutional money, all of the, you know, traditional financial players are all entering the space because it's green light. And we consistently hear that behind the scenes. We need the regulatory clarity. I think the most important thing that people miss about why clarity is so important is >> For years the crypto industry has been asking for a regulation and legislation, but will the Clarity Act finally pass? And what do you need to know if it does or if it doesn't? Hello and welcome to the Milk Road Show, the podcast that knows that spending more than two years in Congress will give you anything but clarity. I'm your host Shawn Gillen today is Thursday, July 16th, and today we are joined by Colin McCune. Colin is

the head of government affairs at Andreessen Horowitz, a16z, where he oversees the firm's political and policy strategy, which must be quite a lot of fun. Prior to joining a16z in 2022, Colin spent more than a decade on Capitol Hill, most recently serving as the deputy staff director of the House Financial Services Committee, where he advised Chairman Patrick Henry and led major work on legislation around digital assets, stablecoins, fintech, and a lot of other things. Colin is going to give us an updated outlook on digital assets laws and regulations, why it matters, and if it's actually going to happen or not. So, if that sounds good to you, make sure you like and subscribe. Share this episode with somebody who's going to enjoy it. Today's episode is brought to you by Bitget Stocks 2.0 with real liquidity, real dividends, and

securitize the regulated rails for tokenization. And without further ado, welcome to the Milk Road Show. Colin, how are you, sir? >> John, thank you very much for having me. I am um I'm doing well. Um you know, in in the famous words of Sheryl Crow, every day is a winding road. Um but we are uh things are positive. >> That is quite an opening sentiment, so I appreciate you being so candid with that. Uh Colin, everyone has been saying the Clarity Act is dead. The president has called another meeting with senators today, I believe at the White House if if my understanding is correct on this, to try to get this bill passed and and push this through. I'm really curious your thoughts on this. Is the bill sunk or do you think President Trump is going to be able to actually finally get this

through Congress? What's your updated outlook on the Clarity Act here? >> Well, first and foremost, the bill is not sunk. Um I I do believe that the Senate is going to move forward on a vote in the near future, um which I think is going to be a a big moment. Um but if I had a nickel for every time that I read a headline or someone else in the industry was telling me that the bill is dead, uh I think I would be a very um maybe not a rich man, but I'd be wealthier than I am today. Uh it has died and been uh you know, brought back to life it seems like a million times. So, I I I will very firmly say the bill is not dead.

Um I Does that guarantee that the bill is 100% going to happen? There are no guarantees in Washington, period. Uh so, uh I I do think though that we're in very strong position. I think there is a really really strong group of bipartisan members in the Senate and in the House. Um and certainly we know very well where the president stands on these issues and I think everyone is still at the table and everyone's working to try and wrap this up hopefully before the August recess in the next couple of weeks. >> Okay, so the president has obviously just like you said been very vocal about his support here. He's also become one of the biggest sticking points for the bill and the ethics considerations. It used to be the fight over stablecoin yield. Now, it's a fight over ethics provisions and the president's own

activities in crypto. Do you think we're going to be able to get through that sticking point and do you think that is the big hold up at this point? >> I think look, I I think ethics is undoubtedly one of the things that I think needs to be addressed in the bill. I think there there are bipartisan group of members now that that have made ethics one of the things that they feel like they need to see to be able to get to a yes vote. Um but it's not the only thing and I think that there are a couple other issues that um have been I would say gating functions for yes votes from Democrats that I think also need to be addressed. Certainly all of the headlines, you know, get that gets captured uh are all around Trump and what he's doing and all these other

things, but the real conversations behind the scenes, I think, are more focused on some of the other substantive parts of the bill, developer protections, which I obviously is very, very important, illicit finance goes hand in hand there. And um and then I think a you know, a couple of the other related issues to exchanges. I feel like all of those issues are very solvable. Um and I think that the conversations that we are having behind the scenes and have had over the last month have been extremely positive. So, I I'm still very bullish on the fact that there is a landing zone. There is a landing zone before Democrats and Republicans, and there is a landing zone for the industry, I think, to get what it needs in terms of clarity, what with with the

protections that come along with that. So, I I remain bullish. >> Guys, listen, we are at a very crucial point in time right now. AI stocks have ripped, they're going to keep ripping. Our analysts on the AI side are up like literally 100% or more on quite a few calls, and crypto is about to boom again, or at least it feels that way. If you want all the inside on what we're buying, what our analysts are doing, what's on their watch list, all of that is in Milk Road Pro, so join at the link below. >> Talk me through a little bit about these conversations behind the scenes, because it's clear that there's a lot of conversation going on in Washington, around Washington, and industry, just all over the place.

What's the organizing function on that like, and and what is the dialogues been like, and and what is so encouraging to you about what you've heard in these conversations? Yeah, well, I mean, look, the the beauty of where the industry was to where it is now, I mean, is an incredible effort by a whole different host of industry players. I mean, we have we now have very very functional trade associations with hundreds of members involved. Everything from D5 to exchange coalitions to broad-based coalitions like the Blockchain Association and the Crypto Council of Innovation. We are members of um you know, all three of those. And I think um that has really given the industry a major voice in Washington. So, I I I think the

organization that is going uh into some of some of these efforts and some of these conversations is really really sound. And it is it is a far cry from where we were even 3 years ago. I think the other part of this is because that's such a broad base of the industry, we're also getting all different types of ideas and all different types of perspectives that have been entered into this chat, entered in these negotiations, which means that not only are the members of Congress who are making these decisions getting more educated on this, but the industry is also getting more educated. And we're getting probably a better product out of it because all of these perspectives are at the table. What makes me bullish about it is some of that infrastructure that I just talked about. But, you know,

candidly, I think there has been a really really strong willingness from members on both sides of the aisle for years now to find a product that um first and foremost provides builders that the clarity that they've been seeking for a very long time, but also there's a consumer protection element of this, right? I think that I think Democrats in particular have been very vocal about wanting and needing consumer protections in order to be able to get to yes. I think a lot of this comes from the fallout of FTX. And and most importantly, I think this bill has those protections in it and would absolutely prevent, you know, another FTX from happening. So, I I I think that sort of incentive alignment from both sides,

people coming at it from all different directions is the nucleus that you need to be able to get things done. The final thing I would say on this is you know, DC is an inertia town. It is a forward momentum on this on on pieces of legislation in particular. So, um we had a lot of momentum in the house 2 3 years ago. We passed a bill. We had a lot of momentum earlier this year. The house passed this overwhelmingly with large bipartisan support. And now the Senate has been working on this at the table for the better part of a year. And and and the fact that we are still having these negotiations and members are indicating that they're closer and we're working towards a very whittled down list of things, that that is the reason I think for optimism.

>> Okay. I appreciate the optimistic view on this. I I think I do want to come to like what good things this bill does. But for some reason for me the most salient things are the opposition at the moment. And you know, I really appreciate you're pointing out that the crypto industry is speaking more with one voice. The Bankers Association is also speaking very much with one voice. And the longer this bill has been in Congress, some critics or or let's say people who are concerned are saying that this bill has now transformed from something to help It used to be something to help the digital assets industry. And now it seems like it's more concerned with being something to protect the banking industry or the legacy systems that are already in place in finance in the United States. Can you talk to me a little bit about that push

and pull that given target and how you see that conversation evolving? >> Yeah, well, first and foremost, I mean, look there's every single major piece of legislation starts in one place and ends in a different. And that is the deliberative process that was established 250 years ago. It you know, until we have a major overhaul of our Constitution, which is not happening anytime soon, this will be the process that we go through. So, I you know, I I think what's most important to convey from our perspective is the fundamental principles that you saw in FIT21 two and a half years ago, the fundamental principles that you saw in the Clarity Act that passed the House,

and now in this bill have been maintained. You know, if we would not be supportive of it if we did not see that the fundamental principles were were in there and I think that they they are and they will continue to be. Obviously, it is one big giant negotiation, right? You have to have 60 votes in the Senate. You have to get it through the committee process. Part of this has been a major negotiation between the crypto companies and the bank banks along with the White House. And you know, like these issues are just going to keep coming up. I mean, the banks, of course, are trying to protect their own turf.

Traditional finance is trying to protect their own turf. They don't want to see sort of insurgent organizations come in and change the rules to benefit people or acknowledge a new way of doing It's just not It's not in the ethos. It's not in their incentive. So, while I think a lot of the headlines, you know, have been very interesting and very compelling that maybe this is moving in a negative direction, from our perspective, it was always going to have to be a major negotiation. And as long as we are not violating those fundamental principles of software developer protections, very clear rules of the road in terms of how token launches can happen in the United States, then we are going to be supportive and I think that that is a

bill that everyone should be supportive of. >> I really appreciate the positivity on this. I think we need some positivity right now. So, thank you for that, Colin. But, there are some people who are still being very negative. On July 8th, Senator Elizabeth Warren tweeted out that the Clarity Act is a ticket to sanctions evasions. And the chief legal counsel for A16Z responded on Twitter saying the lying never stops. I'd love to hear your perspective on this. Why is there still this, like, I guess talking point that clarity is going to help people evade sanctions and and do criminal activity and and how do we go about changing this narrative just what are your thoughts on that conversation?

>> Well, first and foremost Miles is 100% correct. 100% correct. You know, in in in doing very difficult things which this bill is you know, we've been at this for the better part of 10 years. There are always going to be critics. And in politics which is a bare-knuckle bloodsport, there are always going to be people on the other side of an issue. And unfortunately, where we are in the politics that we're dealing with, people will bend truths to their benefit. And so if they find any sort of thing that they can maneuver to fit a narrative, they will. And I think

that unfortunately Senator Warren has been doing this. I think there are also sort of a coalition of people that call themselves consumer advocates who have been lying about this bill for a very long time. I think that they stand to benefit because they scare people and then that is a fundraising mechanism for them. So you know, it's a very clear pathway that happens here and crypto is you know, not immune from the things that happen with every piece of major legislation. What I would say in response from a substantive perspective is there's just no truth to it.

Unfortunately, like there's just no truth to it. Um, anyone who will read through the bill will see in very very plain letter language that all of title three of the the draft that is public, all of title six, all of this addresses both software developer protections which is critical to be in the bill, but also compliance with BSA/AML and illicit finance. I you know, I should also say that you know, we share Elizabeth, you know, Senator Warren's goal here, which is we do not want bad actors to be using this technology.

But, the reality is is that any technology you see out there is going to have some use from um unfortunate bad and malicious actors. You know, what if I were to ask you, you know, um what if I were to tell you that there have been uh 40,000 deaths caused by a a piece of technology out there in the world. If I If I were to walk into Congress and say that, they would say, "Well, we need to ban that immediately." And what if I were to tell you that that's the automobile? There There is There is unfortunately no way to zero out risk. Our goal as an industry, our goal as a16z, and I think I shared by the Senate, is to reduce that risk as much as possible.

And that's why there's over 100 pages in this bill that address this issue specifically. But, to suggest that this is leading or encouraging sanctions evasions is just a flat-out you know, wrong. It's It's a lie. >> Okay, I think you've done a great job of answering some of these criticisms. This makes me feel a lot better, so thank you for doing that. Um but, I do want to get some thoughts on the positives that might come from this bill if it does actually get passed as you're saying you hope it does. a16z wrote a piece in May called What Builders Need to Know About the Clarity Act and uh what it is and why it matters. I'd love you to give us uh a couple thoughts on that from a high level. Why is it so important to a16z, to your portfolio companies, and to the

industry overall? >> Yeah, look, I I come at this from two different perspectives, and let me give you some very basic context. So, obviously, all of the people who have been operating in this space for a very long time know that we need regulatory clarity, which means that we need federal government regulations that are very clear. You can go and you can easily comply with this, and you, you know, are are are within the boundary of sort of the the garden of regulation at the federal level. But, you know, I think it's also important to speak to the people who are coming into the space. You know, the the people who are you know, highly technical in college, maybe they're sophomores at at at school, and they're trying to get they're they're

considering what they want to build. Are they going to build in the blockchain space or they going to go and build an AI startup? Right? As it stands right now, it there are a number of people who are like, "Okay, well, you know, if there's a 40 or 50% chance that I might get a knock on the door from the SEC, that's not a very compelling That's not a very compelling route. You'll just go and you'll build an AI." To give some context, right? The reason that we need this bill in the first place is because right now, if you are building the space, not only is the law not clear, but you're also dealing with a patchwork of state law, right? You're dealing with a whole bunch of different states who don't have um overlapping rules and regulations, and that's also very difficult to comply with.

Every major industry in the United States, virtually every major industry in the United States, has federal rules and federal reg- regulations that people need to comply with. We do not have that in the crypto industry. So, that's the fundamental reason why I think builders should want this, and that's also it like I think that's important context for your listeners. To to be a little bit more granular, the things that we've been struggling with for a very long time is who's your primary regulator? Is it the SEC? Is it the CFTC? Is it a security? Is it a commodity? This bill addresses that. Um if you're trying to build a centralized exchange, okay, who's your primary regulator? How are you going to comply with certain functions within the space? That is now

addressed in this bill. Okay, I don't know whether or not I have software developer protections and whether or not I'm going to get a knock on the door from the FBI, etc. That is also addressed in this bill. All three of those are very fundamental, right? And then I also And then the last thing I would say is the interplay between traditional finance and the crypto industry, which I think it is also now an important part of this industry. Um that is also sort of addressed. There There are things on custody and additional compliance measures that I think are included. All of that is critically important, and I think that's another reason why we're you know, very supportive of this.

>> Real-world assets like funds, treasuries, and private credit are still running on rails built decades ago. Gated, paperwork-heavy, slow to settle. Everyone's talking about tokenizing them, but far fewer can actually do it and do it without cutting regulatory corners. Securitize can. It's the SEC-regulated infrastructure bringing real-world assets on chain. Nine years in, native tokenization not wrapped, backed by BlackRock, Morgan Stanley, and Cathie Wood's Ark Invest, and chosen by the New York Stock Exchange, VanEck, BNY, and Apollo to do it at scale. It's the regulated bridge between traditional finance and crypto. Tokenize the world at milkroad.com/securitize.

>> Everyone's tokenizing stocks these days, but almost nobody's doing it right. Thin liquidity, prices that drift from the real thing, dividends that just vanish. Bitget Stocks 2.0 is different. Real NASDAQ and New York Stock Exchange depth through licensed brokers. Prices mapped one-to-one, dividends paid to your account in real time. Plus, you get the lowest fees in the market at just .04%. And you can trade them like any other crypto as margin, and earn in grid trading. Tokenized stocks finally done right. Head to milkroad.com/bitget to get started.

>> How do you go about trying to synthesize all of these competing objectives from different different players, right? Like you talked about new companies that want to do startups, like young talent who are looking for the industry they want to go to, and then like, you know, incumbents who just need some general regulations, the only major industry without federal regulation. How do you go about trying to put that all together and articulate this in a way that like cuts through the noise in a place like Congress, which is just full of noise all the time? >> Yeah, I I I will be honest, it's a challenge, right? Because I think I think that they're, you know, as we've talked about for a very long time, right? And you know, the market's down across the board, but I would say that you know, that there are two sides to

this. You know, we've written a lot about sort of the technology or the computer side of crypto, and then there's another side which is obviously leans more directly into the financial services space. And you know, um you know, the former has obviously been very slow for an uptick, but it is a real challenge because we are talking about trying to come up with a framework that addresses a whole bunch of different aspects of this industry that is, you know, very wide, very you know, the breadth on this is incredibly large. And I I think the way that we have come about this, and you know, credit to Miles who has written about this, Miles our general counsel and you know, head of policy in the a16z crypto team, he's written about this a lot. I think it comes down to these fundamental

principles, right? Which is how do you look at how do you look at the law as it pertains to trying to write rules for centralized entities versus this new world of blockchains in which we are going getting into decentralized networks. So, we don't believe that the law is fit for purpose. But if we can address that big rock, then it then it helps a very, very wide set of people who are who are building in this space. I think additionally you kind of add on some of the centralized rules and regulations, which I think, you know, also cover a bunch of people who are trying to build similar types of items, then you've kind of covered 90 90 to 95% of the waterfront. So, it's it's

more about building a principled framework than it is trying to write very, very, very specific rules for every single aspect of the industry. >> So, I appreciate you laying out some of those complexities there cuz there's just so much to think through. And if anybody hasn't read that essay by a16z on why clarity matters, I highly recommend checking it out cuz it spells it out very well. But Colin, you spent a lot of your career on Capitol Hill. Your pinned tweet on X is an essay that you wrote, which I thought is really relevant to this conversation, but it's called the precautionary empire, why policy makers fail builders. And I would I wonder if you could share some of your thoughts on why this is such a common struggle for people who are making policy to accommodate rising industry and people who are building new things

and and what your thoughts are on that. >> Yeah, absolutely. I I look, my my fundamental principle here is there's this phenomena that goes on on Capitol Hill where everyone, it doesn't matter which side of the aisle you're from, is pro small business. They're all talking about Main Street. They all want to help entrepreneurs. They all, you know, it it is a incredibly popular talking point, but it's also very popular politically. If you look at polling consistently, I mean, it's like an 80/20 issue in the United States. So my, you know, the the fundamental question that I tried to answer and I was, you know, thinking about, especially as I started A16Z because we are very focused on little tech, you know, our our focus is on startups and trying to help on startup

policy specifically, is, you know, why does this happen? And I think it's it's multifold. The first is there's no one in DC who represents the smallest builders. Thankfully, there are a couple, you know, now venture firms that I think have um taken on this mantle and they're trying to, you know, exercise some of the uh some of the abilities of a scaled institution to come in and have these conversations. But the the long-time thinking from the industry was, okay, um especially from a venture perspective, was we're going to invest in these companies, okay, these companies are going to move from small to medium to potentially large. Along the way, they're going to go out and

they're going to hire a bunch of policy people. And when they hire those policy people and they start fighting on behalf of the issues that are are pertinent to that particular company, that's going to have downstream impacts on, you know, the the people who are going to come up from there. The problem with that, as we know, is as something moves from small to large, the instinct from all of these individuals who are policy makers is to layer on additional regulations. And when you're a big scaled institution, and you've got a thousand lawyers per issue, you can deal with an incredible amount of regulation. I mean, you can just continue to layer on and layer on and layer on.

And so, look, the the charitable version of this is, okay, well, you're just trying to get out of a jam, so you'll agree to something that is, you know, maybe an annoying regulatory burden, but it's not as bad as something else. The more insidious version of this is, if I agree to this regulation, it's going to be very difficult for a smaller competitor to to um to comply with this, and it's actually a competitive advantage from a regulatory capture perspective. Now, where the policy makers come in in this is, if there's no one at the table representing the little guy, then their just their default assumption is, okay, everyone who comes in from Meta, Amazon, Google, etc., is then representing all of tech.

And anyone who's coming in from the financial services space, if they are the banks, or if they are a major housing organization, or they're a capital markets association, they're going to be arguing on behalf of everyone else, right? Now, to be to be fair to these individual policy makers, right? They are trying to cover the entire range of issues before the country every single day. So, by virtue of that, you have to be somewhat of a generalist, and your time and your focus is very, very, you know, it's very limited, including their staff. So, what do you do? You go to the easy brand household names, and you ask them what What you what can you live with, what are you going to do? Not only because they have power, but it's because it's

easy it they're easily accessible. So, um you know, my piece and you know, if if people decide they want to read it, it you know, kind of gets into that a little bit more and and I think it's somewhat also a call to action, which is the little guys, you don't need to you should continue to focus on building, but you also need to understand that even if you spend 30 minutes of your week engaging in policy or educating yourself, it will make a huge huge difference. And we're trying to we're trying to be a part of that change.

>> That's really helpful. Yeah, and I think for people who don't spend their whole careers in this space, thinking through some of the like actual challenges of like how do you make policy for so many different players, so many different competing interests. I think that's just a helpful framing on that. Colin, I want to get your thoughts on this cuz I can't tell how big of a risk this is, but in Europe the MiCA bill, the MICA MiCA legislation framework is already in effect. Japan this week passed legislation recognizing digital assets as financial assets and reducing a lot of the the tax burden on the whole asset class. It seems like there's a real regular risk of the United States falling behind in terms of regulatory arbitrage here and this industry moving overseas. How big of a risk is that from your perspective? Do

you think that if we don't get the Clarity Act, the United States risks falling behind in this industry overall, or do you think that there is enough of a framework in the United States to where we can afford to wait on this legislation a little bit longer? What What is that like in your mind and and how serious of a concern is that to you? >> I think it's a huge risk. I think it's a huge risk and I think it's been a very big risk for a very for for a number of years. I mean, look, I think that the reason I mean, look, the United States is unique obviously because we have this wonderful test bed of entrepreneurial talent. Everyone wants to come here, they want to build, but as we erode that and we erode the trust, uh we know of people who are obviously going we all

know people that are going and building in other places because they can't deal with the wishy-washy or the gray area of the United States. So, uh you know, we're we're really relying on sort of this cultural impact of the last 30 years that I think is being questioned, which you know, kind of goes to the piece that I wrote on the precautionary principle. But, the I think maybe the most important point here is I think a lot of the reason that people have been continued to be encouraged by the United States is because this bill has been kind of knocking on the door for a very long time. And if it if we don't get it done um in short order, I I I I really worry

about its prospects um over the next couple of years. Now, obviously, um I think that the regulators will try and step in the SEC and the CFTC will try and step in and use their existing authorities to write some rules, and I think those guys have been very very productive with their project crypto. Um big shout-out to them. But, but nothing can replace long-term legislation. Right? Because you cuz you were immune to the cycles of politics at that point. Not completely immune, but you you can't have a president in you know, 2 and 1/2 years that hates crypto roll back all of the rules again. Right?

It becomes more difficult. There can still be pain inflicted, and you know, just to be clear, like this will be a long-term, lifelong struggle for the crypto industry as it is for every industry. They You cannot just turn off the lights, right? At some, you know, but but it is fundamental, right? I mean, this is the only way that we can really lock in the certainty that we need for the long for the long term without having to struggle. And so, I would you know, I absolutely worry. Like, you know, the bill fails, it doesn't happen, what does that mean for builders? I mean, if I'm a builder, I'm taking a serious look at it in another country.

>> If the bill does pass, what does it look like when the rubber actually hits the road? And like >> Yeah. >> does this unlock a lot of like just capital investment? Does it unlock a lot of products and services? You know, walk me through what that looks like day one on the Clarity Act. What is What happens? What are the benefits? And And what does it look like when the rubber hits the road? >> Yeah, well, I mean, look, I think the best model here is the Genius Act, right? I mean, there has been an absolute explosion of activity in the stablecoin space. I mean, a lot of the a lot of the new entrepreneurial talent that's coming in, you know, the deal flow that we see on on the on the you know, certainly from crypto fund perspective is involved in stablecoins.

Now, all the big institutional investors, the big institutional money, all of the, you know, traditional financial players are all entering the space because it's green light. And we consistently hear that behind the scenes, we need the regulatory clarity. I think the most important thing that people miss about why clarity is so important is it is a signal. It's a signal that America is here and they've made a long-term decision and you can't just go and undo it. Right? That That is the biggest I think that that's the biggest thing that people miss. And so, I think I think, you know, we will certainly I'm a big believer that we'll see an explosion in the markets. We'll see an explosion of talent, etc. And it'll be

the thing that um, you know, hopefully yin and yangs off the AI sector. But, you know, look, in some ways, you know, passing the bill is passing a framework. Then you have to look then the regulators have to go and write the very, very hard specifics of the law and the rules and issue that. So, it'll, you know, the next 2 years will also be a very productive and very important time while we watch the bill be implemented across the agencies. But, I think in that period all of the pent-up talent and demand will be there so that things, you know, rip.

>> Colin, you you mentioned yin and yanging off of AI and AI policy, AI regulation. Obviously, you do a lot more than just crypto policy at a16z. I'm curious your thoughts on that exact dynamic, right? Of like how these two industries are merging at the same time, support, compete with one another, and what does conversations look like cuz AI regulation is one of the most hotly debated things right now. There's all these people passing moratoriums on data centers and the US had the the export ban on Fable which they lifted. Talk to me about how crypto and AI like dovetail here and and what your work on that has been like.

>> Yeah, well, I I'll shout out um general partner and lead of our crypto fund Chris Dixon has a great piece on this that um you know, maybe we can link in the show notes or something like that. But I mean, we fundamentally believe that uh the two need each other, right? I think AI is inherently sort of a centralizing function as as we've seen now come out in the market. And and you know, blockchain and blockchain networks are inherently decentralizing in that function. I think that you will need the two. So, um you know, there there have been a bunch of pieces written on agenda commerce. But the the we we need a world in which AI can be widely distributed in a very equitable way. Um and I also think that the rails from a financial services perspective

that crypto provides will be incredibly important for um you know, the the agenda world to be able to exercise over um over that because I I look, the the way that the current financial system is set up is it's really obtuse. It's really really difficult to sort of maneuver through. And I think I think that those those couple fundamental principles mean for us that um we need the long-term certainty in the blockchain space. And by the way, from a policy perspective, I mean, we are working on um both at the state and the federal level how we can get some long-term legislation for AI builders as well.

Which I think is going to be really, really important. And I think some of the fundamentals that we're seeing in Clarity will appear in that bill as well. >> Got you. Okay. I want to ask one final question here. We're getting really close to time. Say I had an audience who was watching this conversation and they were saying, "Man, I'm really concerned about the Clarity Act passing and I would like to make my voice heard on that." What would you recommend that they do? Should they just go on Twitter and, you know, send angry memes at Elizabeth Warren or is there someone they should contact? What would you tell our audience to do if they wanted to participate and make their voice heard here? >> Well, I'm look, I'm a I'm a big believer in X and I think that X is is is a

wonderful platform and I think that, you know, more and more people are paying attention to X. But, um, DC is still a very old-school traditional media town. Um, so I I would say there there are a couple different resources out there. The main one that I would direct people to is standwithcrypto.org, which I I believe is the is the address. It is a wonderful organization that a lot of different people and builders in the space support. It's grassroots. It is led by actual builders themselves and they have, um, a platform on there by which you can contact your individual member of a Congress and get involved in sort of community activation events. So, I would definitely check out that. That That is the the primary vehicle. But, you know, a wonderful X posts directed

at people that can turn up a lot of noise is always, uh, you know, a good function too. >> Okay. Well, you can stand with crypto or you can go on X and stand with the memes. Uh, Colin McCune, thank you so much for being on the Milk Road Show. Where can we send people to find more of you and your work online? >> Uh, I'm on X and then you can also find me on the a16z website. >> Awesome. Well, Colin McCune, head of government affairs for Andreessen Horowitz, thank you so much for being on the Milk Road Show. I hope we can catch up again soon. >> Thanks, Shawn. Really enjoyed it. >> Thank you all for joining us. I hope you all learned something today. So, until next time, stand with crypto, stay safe, stay educated, stay bullish, and we will see you all in the next episode of the

Milk Road Show. Thanks for being here, everyone. Bye. Want insights on what's moving crypto markets and how we're [music] trading each event? Subscribe to our channel and join the Milk Road daily and pro newsletters and start [music] 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.