If Biden is reelected, we as a community need to be prepared to have
an arsenal of legal resources because four more years of this critical crypto agenda just
means there's going to be more enforcement actions, more lawsuits. And while the
industry has gotten many favorable results over the past couple of years, I don't
think these attacks are going to slow down. This content is brought to you
by v chain, which is a leading enterprise grade Layer one public blockchain spearheading
a digital revolution from a sustainable, highly scalable smart contract platform. The v
chain blockchain has many unique features, which makes it an ideal choice for Web
three applications. V chain is working with many great enterprises such as PWCGVONCI,
BMW, and Walmart China. Most recently, they partnered with the Boston Consulting
Group to build a revolutionary decentralized application ecosystem. I'm a big believer in this
project. I have been since twenty eighteen. I've been a VET token holder
for years, and this blockchain is highly scalable, great with security and speed,
and it has low energy consumption. If you'd like to learn more about
v chain, please visit vchain dot org. Link will be in a description.
Welcome to the Thinking Crypto podcast, your home for cryptocurrency news and interviews
with me. Today's Perian Boring, who's the founder of the Chamber of Digital
Commerce. Perran, great to have you back on, Hey Toddy, you
going to be here, Perryan. There's so much going on in the crypto
industry. Yes, we have bigcoin breaking new highs and all that, but
as it relates to politics and regulations, there's so much going on and I
have a lot of questions for you. Let's start with Kraken, because Krackin
filed and to dismiss against the SEC with their lawsuit, You and the folks
in the Chamber filed in a me case to support them, and then you
had eight state attorney generals backing Kracking. Now I would love to get your
thoughts on the entire situation there. Yeah, it is an extremely interesting case
to watch, and for those who have been following, you know, most
of the major cryptocurrency exchanges in the United States have all received enforcement actions from
the SEC, and a lot of them are in the middle of litigation,
so this is all going to the courts. Just to kind of summarize in
general, you know, very high level what this is all about. It
really comes down to the SEC trying to expand its jurisdiction as far as it
can get its tentacles into the cryptocurrency space. So kind of the age old
question and the age old debate, and this precedes Chairman counselors SEC is where
is the line, you know, what cryptocurrencies are considered a security and which
ones are not? And Chairman Gensler is really saying that, well, all
of them are, which of course is it is not correct. So and
then they came after Crack and you know, saying you're you know, you're
trading and you're listing essentially unregistered securities. So now they're in litigation over that.
So they have filed emotion to dismiss what they're asking the court to just
completely dismiss the entire case because of how faulty the SEC's arguments are. And
you know, one of the biggest faults with the you know, the SEC's
analysis is there's no limitation doctrine, so where does where does the end start?
So there were some like really funny conversations about like, hey, well
if this you know, if this logic applies to cryptocurrency. That means that
like you know, anything that could appreciate in price would be considered a security.
So like, are my beanie base these unregistered securities? What about like
my Nike shoes? Like you know, some people, you know, sneakerheads
buy those, save them and they may sell for more money in the future,
Like are those down securities? Of course not. So that's really what
it's come down to. So they've filed emotion to dismiss our amicist brief supports
cracking, and we really just you know, agree with that notion that it's
it's legal analysis of cryptocurrency is deeply flawed, and if the SEC wants to
expand it, well, the SEC cannot expand its jurisdiction and the courts need
to enforce that. Only Congress has the statutory authority to tell the agencies what
their uh, their uh their reyatory powers are and what they apply to.
They can't just utilize orly say okay, now we oversee this. That's just
not how the rule of law works in this country. And so they're trying
to like assert that jurisdiction you know, crack and saying we need to dismiss
and then we don't want the courts to kind of endorse the because only Congress
can give that type of authority to any regulatory agency. We don't want to
set it back legal president. So we filed our brief on Tuesday, and
then on Thursday there was another brief that was filed with a attorneys general.
Their brief was not in support of either the plaintiff or the defendant. They
were really just filing on their own behalf as a friend of the core.
But their core argument did coincide with the exact same arguments we were making.
They weren't necessarily getting into it. You do we support this or support that.
It's more we're the states, we have jurisdiction in this space. We
don't want the courts to endorse the SEC expanding its jurisdiction without congressional authority,
because that then completely messes up the entire regulatory framework for the federal government as
well as the states. And again that policy making needs to happen with Congress.
So it's really rare that you would see attorneys general get involved at this
level of a case, and it was extremely positive overall for them. While
they didn't you submit a brief necessarily on behalf of krack In. It did
endorse a lot of the exact same things the cryptocurrency industry is making, including
US and krack In, and it really just shows that the SEC's approach to
cryptocurrency is flawed. Yeah, absolutely, Imperian. I would love to get
your point of view as to what's happening in DC as it relates to the
SEC and how Democrats and even Republicans are viewing the SEC now because they got
called arbitrary and capricious in the Gray Scale case. In the Ripple case,
they lost a significant part of that lawsuit obviously still going on. In the
debt Box situation, they got the judge threatened to sanction SEC lawyers, and
you have the sa B one to one, which the Government Accountability Office said
is unlawful. So has the point of view of what Gary Aganser and the
SEC are doing. Has that changed, especially on the democratic side. Yeah,
it's it's an interesting discussion to have. And the Securities and Exchange Commission,
as well as most of the other regulatory bodies, they weren't political.
They weren't originally created to be these vehicles to execute a political mission. Most
of the commissioners at the Securities and Exchange Commission today don't have actually any experience
working in the security space. They are political appointees. It didn't used to
be like that. It used to be very boring, you know. You
know, the conversations were you know, really technical, you know, ensuring
that companies were following the properate disclosure requirements. But it's transformed over the which
is why personally I'm a proponent of like full political reform in this country and
this is just kind of one one example of that. But it's turned very
political, and so obviously the Democrats are in charge, you know, with
the Biden administration. Chairman Gensler was you know selected by the President to serve
in this role, obviously confirmed by the Senate. But you know, a
lot, a lot of what we see at the SEC and other agencies is
there, uh, you know, effectuating a mission that's driven politically. Uh.
And that's really disruptive to to the markets. And that's why you know,
you see like really big shifts from administration to administration, which is also
extremely disruptive to the market. So this is you know, it's turned very
political. Uh. We would like to see it get back to you know,
more of a technical agency and leave the politics you know, somewhere else.
What do you think about And I don't know if you've seen this,
but Warren Davidson's restructuring the SEC act, I think it makes logical sense where
you know, it's more balanced and less political. Have you seen that I
have? That's you know, definitely a part of you know, these key
themes of instead of having a chairman and this particular administration, Chairman Gensler is
really running the organization through the chairman's office. But it's meant to be a
commission where you have five commissioners and you have a chair but each commissioner plays
a significant role in the oversight of the SEC. And that's really not how
it's being done in practice today. So what Congressman Warren Davidson is putting forward
is something that would put it back towards more of like a typical board structure
where you have multiple you know, commissioners or board members who can level each
other out in the event that politics start getting involved. And of course you
have you know, a certain number that are appointed by a Republican, a
certain number that are appointed by Democrats to try to make it less political.
But you know, it's it's a it's a good proposal and I think you
know the spirit of that we certainly agree with. And you know, ultimately
we need to get politics out of the radio story process in order to have
an efficient, efficient markets. Now, let's talk about what some would call
SAB one two one. I've been calling SAB one to one, but on
the House, in the House Financial Services Commute, I think they voted to
repeal this, but it has to make its way to the House floor to
be voted on. I would love to get your take on that, and
do you have any idea when that vote may take place. Yeah, So
SAB one twenty one. This is the Staff Accounting Bill to enter SAB SAB
one twenty one. These are custody rules that were issued by the SEC on
digital asset custodians. And what they say is that if a custodian is holding
a cryptocurrency like bitcloin on their balance sheet, then they have to have one
hundred percent reserves of another asset like cash. These are completely unworkable. Uh,
this really makes it financially, there's no business case there. It completely
you know, makes it really unworkable for and this applies to institutions. So
are you know our biggest custodians in the world, this is who This really
applies to banks, uh, in order to you know, custody digital assets.
It's really you know, makes it, you know, financially impossible.
They're totally unworkable, and it's proven to keep institutions out of the cryptocurrency space.
So you know, from my perspective, as we continue to grow the
cryptocurrency space, I mean our work here at the Chamber of Digital Commerce,
we're working to promote the acceptance and use of this technology. We want to
support the adoption of course, obviously done in a responsible way, but this
does the opposite of that. As we continue to grow and mature, there's
corporations and institutions and bigger players who need to have institutional appropriate custody solutions in
order to engage in our space. Without that, you're not going to see
institutions in our space in a meaningful way. So it's kind of like a
way to prevent adoption of certain types of actors in our community. So we
have once this came out, we were obviously advantly against it. All our
members are and We did a lot of work on the Hill to educate members
of Congress that hey, our biggest institutions in the world. Here are the
biggest institutions that we serve here in the United States. They are not going
to be able to compete globally with these types of draconian requirements on them.
We need to make sure our institutions can can compete and they can't with this.
So that led to the Government Accountability Office the GOO doing a review of
the staff accounting Bulletin one one. They just shoot a report late last year
that found that the SEC have violated yet again the Administrative Procedures Act and the
way they rolled these out, and therefore Congress can nullify or repeal it's Top
one twenty one. So a couple of weeks ago, our last month,
a joint resolution was introduced in both the House and the Senate to nullify or
repeal these rules. That passed the House Financial Services Committee last Thursday with bipartisan
support. That's really big. So we're talking about politics, right, So
you know, the SEC is obviously run by someone who's appointed within a democratic
administration. A lot of times the Democrats they want to support their party so
they don't want to be critical for them to vote in support. Yeah,
not one but three Democrats vote in support of a Congressional Review Act, essentially
saying, hey, the CEC, like you guys did this wrong. Is
major, extremely difficult to do in the political environment that we work that we're
operating in, which just goes to show the egregiousness of what's happening at the
SEC today. So that's past House Vigil Services Committee. It needs to go
to the floor because it had bipartisan backing, its likelihood of passing the House
is quite high, and then it will go to Well, there's already been
a joint resolution issue are introduced concurrently in the Senate that only needs two Democrats
to pass the Senate, so we can get this done. It won't be
easy, but it is attainable and achievable, and our staff is working around
the clock to secure the votes to full repeal these owner's rules on the crypto
space. And I saw, if I'm not mistaken, the banks Collective group
of banks did send a letter, I don't know if it was the SEC
talking about this that they can't pussy like bigcoin ETFs. If I'm not mistaken,
I'm not getting confused here. Part of it is stop one to one
wouldn't allow them to do that? Is that correct? It's it has proven
to deter all the institutions, including banks, from offering custody solutions. And
of course, you know they don't want to be limited of you know,
what types of assets they can custody, So the banks are against this.
It applies mostly to banks. But these are draconian crypto rules and it and
it's you know, it's going to prevent institutional level adoption of cryptocurrency of these
stay in place, and it already is m question for you, And this
might be a tough question to answer. We know Elizabeth Warren is working closely
with Gary against and she's been the one very vocal vocally publicly about being against
crypto, forming an anti crypto army. This reports that she's sending Gary Against
her questions and answers ahead of hearings and things like that. However, do
you feel both her and Gary have lost some of the win in their sales
with all these losses in courts, all these bad optics, and then with
the election coming up, could they potentially phivot a bit or soften their stance.
What do you think about that you might see that. I mean,
I think they've already done a lot of collateral damage across this country. I
think there's a lot of ground that's already been lost. There's so many different
crypto projects and innovations that Americans are geofenced from accessing, you know, due
to a lot of these efforts. So in many ways, you know,
they've won on a lot of fronts. As you know, Elizabeth Warren has
introduced a bill that would effectively ban in cryptocurrency today and there's nineteen co sponsors
on that bill, so basically twenty percent of the US Senate is on record
of banning cryptocurrency. We've been very loud about that. We also kind of
feel like our backs are up against a wall. Like if you're coming at
us trying to completely wipe out the entire industry, there's no other appropriate position
for us to take as cryptocurrency advocates. And that's kind of why we've been
so strong on this. But you know, there is an election coming up,
and it's it's it's interesting, So this bill that Elizabeth Warren has spearheaded,
you know, we've met with every single you know, nineteen office one
of the offices when we were like, hey, man, like this ain't
cool, Like why why are you trying to ban has like just tell us
straight up, like what is this about? And I won't tell you who
said this, but what they told me is that, you know, their
boss basically just thought crypto was a throwaway issue. That's the word they used,
that you know, all they really knew, all the senator really knew.
And of course most senators don't even send their own emails, so they
don't have a great technical knowledge of our space. We're working to improve that
and we've made progress, but there's still a lot of work to do on
the education front. But you know, what this member office told us was
that they, you know, all they really knew was FTX and this huge
you know, collapse and like no one cares about crypto anymore. Like it
didn't collapse, it's done. It's a fraud. Like that was like what
they actually thought. So they were thinking, oh, yeah, you know,
we'll do Elizabeth wore in this favor and crypto is a throwaway issue,
no one cares, no one's even gonna notice, and and that's why they're
on it. And We're like, what, so we have to show Congress
Krypto is not at the orow Way issue. You made a mistake. People
do care about their access to you know, technology and financial technology, and
don't take that away from people, especially while we're going through such turbulent you
know, economic and financial times, you know, don't take options off the
table, don't remove choices for Americans. So that's you know, that's what
we're doing. And could you know, well, will Elizabeth Warren changed her
tune now that you know the elections are a couple months away? I don't
know. To me, it doesn't really matter. You know, we we
know her position. She doesn't want us to exist. She doesn't think we
have a right to be here, and we're obviously fighting back. You know,
it's funny as you were saying about these other senators who are banning,
who are joining her in this, but they don't have a clue. It
makes me sad at the same time, but also optimisty because it's like,
Okay, it's a lack of education and they're just jumping on the ship with
Elizabeth Warren. But you know, you guys, for example, are in
DC educating, building awareness. So that's the good part. There's a solution,
but it's just sad that it's like, oh, we don't know about
this, but just follow Elizabeth. That's exactly right. Yeah, I do
think we can win this one. I do think we can totally kill this
bill, but it's going to take the community's support. So again, there's
nineteen members on this bill. It's called the Digital Asset Anti Money Laundering Actor,
S two sixty sixty nine. You can look it up on Congress dot
gov. You can look up the list of nineteen Senators that are on it.
Colum show up to their town halls and say, hey, why are
you trying to essentially ban crypto? They may not even realize that's what the
bill does. You'll put them on record that make them defend their position.
And if they signed on to this bill and they didn't realize it effectively bans
crypto and that's not really what they're supporting or endorsing, then tell them to
get off the bill. If they made a mistake, get off. They
have, you know, the option to do that, but we're gonna need
the communities help to do that. But prian, even with the Bitcoin's Body
TIF approvals and big names like Fidelity and black Rock involved. Is it Are
these people such in a echo chamber or in their own bubble in DC that
they're not seeing that. I mean, I understand if it was like a
small crypto company at launch at big twenty TIF, but black Rock world's largest
asset manager. Are they not aware of that? Well? I think everyone
is aware of the spot bitcoin ETFs at this point because it was so highly
publicized the launch. But despite the ETF's launching earlier this year, and I
mean, I'm just looking at your bitcoin coop behind you, despite the price
paying at like sixty four sixty five at this time of recording, I'm March
fifth, there's still nineteen members on this bill right, Like, why haven't
any of them removed their names? So I do. I am extremely optimistic
in the long run, but we still have pretty significant battles that we're facing
today. Sure, now, let's say Biden wins the election on it for
the folks those thing. I'm not trying to say I want Biden to when
I'm just saying in this scenario because people get very upset of politics. But
let's say Biden does win. Do you see Gary Genser retaining his role or
will he be swapped out. So he's serving a six year term, So
when his six years expires, I think he can stay on for one additional
year, but they would have to break they would have to nominate somebody new.
I don't know how long he would he would stay, but he has
you know, he has six years that he can stay. But I think
overall, if Biden is re elected, we as a community need to be
prepared to have an arsenal of legal resources because four more years of this critical
crypto agenda just means there's going to be more enforcement actions, more lawsuits.
And while the industry has gotten many favorable results over the past couple of years,
I don't think these attacks are going to slow down. So it's it's
I think it would require, you know, significant legal resources, and we
should be prepared for that in the event, in the event that is what
happens. Yeah, absolutely, And man, it's even though like you said,
we're winning and we're fighting back, it's costing a lot of money.
Some of these companies have to pay incredible amounts of capital to fight and with
legal fees and so forth. Now, speaking of election, John Deeton is
running against Elizabeth Warren. I will love to get your thoughts on on what's
happening there. Yeah, it's really interesting. I'm glad that John is running
because that's that's been a tough seat the general. I guess idea or agreement
is that this is a significant you know, blue state and it's just you
know, hard for a Republican to win, which is why you know,
there wasn't really any like real GOP challenger to Elizabeth Warren. And I'm not
totally sure how John ended up being the person, but I'm glad he raised
his hand, and I know he he you know, he told me that
he's putting his own money into his race and his campaign because he you know,
he believes that, you know, he can win, and he believes
we need somebody better in office than you know, this woman that wants to
ban Crypto, and I totally agree with that. I do have a little
bit of history with her, you know, her her district when I worked
on the Hill, Scott Brown was the Massachusetts from from uh, Massachusetts,
and she had challenged him when I was working on the Hill, and and
I watched that race very closely when she originally won, and Scott Brown only
lost by a couple of percentage points, so it was a closer race than
what I think people realize. But you know, I think it just goes
to show that the American people do not want people in office that are taking
away their access to any type of technology, and that they don't want you
know, that they want better options than people who are who are trying to
limit their access to to options for choice for sure. Look, I know
it's going to be an uphill battle for John. Elizabeth Warren has got her
war chest. She's got a lot of notoriety, branding and so forth.
But John at least has a lot of I think the entire asset class of
crypto behind in the industry and crypto holders, and maybe the macro factors of
what's happening with the Biding administration in the border and all the other problems we're
dealing with. Uh, maybe John has a chance here and it would be
amazing if he's able to unseat her. Yeah, yeah, it would.
It would be an incredible victory for you know, anyone in the crypto space,
but also just people who are proponents of freedom for sure. The other
thing that we saw pop up recently, the EIA bringing up energy fut again.
I feel like it's twenty seventeen. It's like deja vu. I don't
know, maybe every four years they're going to bring this up when the price
is going up. We saw the Texas Blockchain Council launch a lawsuit they won
that. We'll love to get your thoughts on this is this another Elizabeth Warren
agenda to try to you know, stop bitcoin mining and things like that.
It was, it absolutely was. I shared a clip on my Twitter account
just a couple of days. It was a post that Brian Morgenstern had shared
and it was in exchange with Elizabeth Warren and the EIA, that's the Energy
Information Administration, and it's Elizabeth Warren. Really, I mean she's pressuring the
EIA, you know, in a congressional hearing, saying, you know,
you need to issue this mandatory survey. She says, tech talk off times
clicking like we we you know, we need to get this information so we
can you know, address you know, our concerns with cryptocurrency mining. So
this absolutely, I mean, from you know, my opinion, was a
politically motivated effort. What this was is you know, an emergency mandated survey
on eighty two bitcoint and cryptocurrency mining companies. Uh, and it was it
was a mandate, so if you don't respond, there would be charges of
thousands of dollars a day if you don't respond to the survey, and it
required them to fill out some extremely sensitive information. The kind of interesting thing
here is that you know, mining is you know, uh, happening on
a blockchain. You have more information about cryptocurrency mining than any other type of
minding you could think of. Uh, there's a lot of data that has
publicly to anybody, So why do they need, you know, this type
of information from the from the industry. We're not against data collection, we're
not about sharing information, but we are we are absolutely against the government abusing
its powers. The way this emergency order was issued did not follow the appropriate
process. So our you know, the teams of lawyers that we worked with,
they found at least six mistakes that the EIA made. You have to
check a bunch of boxes in order to issue a mandated emergency survey. You
know, you have to prove there's an actual emergency. They said it was
cold in Texas and that was the emergency despite you know, they're not really
being any issues with the grid. And then there's other you know, procedural
things that have to be done, and we found there was at least six
things that they just criteria they didn't meet, So that's why there was a
lawsuit. So the lawsuit was filed by the Texas Blockchain Council and Riot.
They were co plaintiffs. We later joined as a plaintiff as well, and
the EIA settled with us and we were initially given a temporary restraining order,
So that happened on Friday, two fridays ago. That day the survey was
due, so that temporary restraining order was issued, so all the mining companies
were told, you don't have to file today, and then that was made
permanent. Last Friday, we reached a settlement with the EIA. They agreed
to cancel the survey and the survey could come back in the form of a
notice of comment and wool making process so they could do lawful data collection.
So this is not totally over, but this was another example of a political
attack on the cryptocurrency industry, the government, you know, abusing its powers,
and as Americans, you know, as individuals, as users, as
consumers and companies. It is our job as Americans to protect our rights because
nobody else is going to do that for us. That is our duty as
Americans. So when there's government overreach, when the government is not following the
laws that pertain to it, when you have governments that are abusing its powers
or violating the rights of Americans and Americans businesses, we must push back.
That's when the courts get involved. And the courts have been you know such
you know, thank god they're there because this was one example where the court
stepped in and said, hey, you did not you know, you didn't
follow the process. You can't do this. So it's our job, it
is our duty as Americans to push back when our rights are being violated.
And you know, we did that, and we're glad that justice was served
and rule blah was restored. Absolutely. I was about to say the same
thing you were saying, that thank goodness for the judicial branch, right,
and that we have the three branches of government. Uh, you know,
going back to school, I never really cared about it, like, oh,
yeah, we have three branches of government. But now care understand how
you see why why why? Yeah? Yeah, for sure, and uh,
kind of a question for it. This is maybe a bit philosophical,
but why do you think we're seeing all of these issues with Elizabeth Warren and
the SEC and and the things they're doing breaking the law. Is it that
they're desperate and they're trying to move fast and you're dropping the ball in certain
spots, or they're just trying to see if they can push things as far
as they can, even though they again hit in court and for example,
in the debt box situation, right SEC the judge threatening to sanction the SEC
lawyers they lied, And then with the EIA unlawful, sa B unlawful.
What do you think is happening there? It's hard to know, you know,
it's hard to and there's just so many layers. You know, who
ultimately was calling the shots at these agencies, you know who was who actually
knew what was happening. You know, we didn't just say, hey,
let's sue the IA and launch a lawsuit the next day. I mean,
we reached out to the Department of Energy and the AA. We had several
meetings with them ahead of time, just to say can we work this out?
Like, do you guys understand that you didn't follow the process, like
or can we negotiate this? Like are there any other options? We're not
happy. We will sue if we have to, but like, you know,
let's have a conversation before we start getting involved in litigation. And it
was pretty amazing that despite the fact that we had multiple meetings, you know,
half the time you get in the room and that the people you're talking
to agencies have absolutely no idea who you are, what you're talking about.
They just got kind of shoved into a meeting and they didn't have the background,
so it's hard to know what exactly is going on. You know,
governments are not the most efficient. You know, they're not known for being
efficient, so you know, there's a lot of layers of bureaucracy. But
it's you know, that's why I'm stressing. You know, it's it's our
job to you know, protect our rights because they are being attacked and we
don't. You know, if we don't do that, then we have we
have everything to lose. But my best guess it's it's it's political. It's
driven by politically motivated factors, and that's not how it's supposed to be.
Wow, you're absolutely right that we got to fight to maintain these rights because
yeah, I mean I just look at these things and I'm like, what
the hell is going on? Like, even if you're trying to stop something,
you know at least abide by the law man, Like, you know,
that's the most like ironic thing. And it's crazy how many times you
know, I've seen this now where the regulators want to put rules on us,
new rules and regulations on us on industry, but they're not willing to
follow the rules that apply to them. It's like, how hypocritical can you
possibly be? Right? Unbelievable. Well that with that said, we've got
a couple of bills in the House to in the Senate. Patrick McHenry is
trying to push things through. We saw Janet yelling about a month ago,
made the statement in front of the House as well as saying we need to
pass stable coin and cryptoregulations. I think Jerome Palace testifying today and tomorrow he
might talk about stable coins. What is what do you is your outlook?
Do you think we get stable coin regulation at least this year? Or the
election is just too messy right now. So my prediction or my guess before
Janet Yellen's testimony on stable coin bill becoming law was like fifty to fifty.
It's a coin toss. It's you know, it seems that a deal has
been made between Democrats and Republicans on the bill. That's the hardest thing.
So if you can get that, you likely can move it through the legislative
process. But what's complicated for stable coin bill is that stable coins is not
the priority of Congress today. I mean, if you just spend five minutes
looking at the mainstream media, we've got a border crisis, We're involved in
multiple wars. Right, there's like just big the government is not properly funded.
They're finding about much bigger things, and that's taking time on the legislative
calendar. So it's stable coin's got to be a high enough priority that they
can fit it into the calendar to get it done. Fifty to fifty shot.
But after Secretary of Yellen testified just a couple of weeks ago, she
called to get a stablecoin build done, which that to me, I would
say, that's going to help increase that prioritization of a stable coin bill.
So I'm now like a seventy five percent chance of getting it done. There's
no there's no for sure that's going to happen. There's just so many factors
that go into what gets on the legislative calendar every day they're in session.
But it is looking pretty optimistic. And again, the hardest thing is just
to get you know, the politics all aligned House and Senate Democrats, Republicans,
and the White House or the administration, and that stuff appears to be
in line. So can it move? We will know soon. Final question
here for you. Yesterday there's news that the SEC blocked or delayed I should
say, the blackrock Ethereum s BOTYTF. The next deadline is May twenty third.
What do you think we see to eat ETF this year? Well,
we would love to see one. We you know, we it took ten
years to get a bitcoin ETF. I mean, and and just to answer
the question very you know, directly, it's hard to know. I mean,
I don't think anyone really knows, I mean, nobody really knew when
the spot bitcoin ETFs we're going to get approved except Gary Gensler himself. I
really really hope it doesn't get drawn out in the same way that spot bitcoin
ETFs did. But we believe that paved the way for additional cryptocurrency spot ETFs,
but the politics are not on our side for this one, and Chairman
Genzler went down kicking and screaming at the approval of spot bitcoin etf. So
if history is a guide, you know there there there might be more more
of a battle to get it done as opposed to just the normal pgatory process
that ETFs go through. Well, we're going to drag them to court again,
right and uh, the way to want to go, we'll give them
it doesn't take that. Yeah, Perrian, all is a pleasure. I'm
really appreciative of what you and the folks at a chamber are doing. How
can folks support the Chamber of Digital Commerce. Yeah, well thanks for asking.
We're hosting a conference on May fifteenth, the DC Blockchain Summit. We'd
love to invite everybody to join us. You can go to our website at
Digital Chamber dot org or DC Blotchingsummit dot com and then a more tangible way
on how you can support the important education and the advocacy work that we do
every single day. But again, we need the whole community to help us
to really take the community to the next level of adoption. We're hosting Blockchain
Education Day the day after on May sixteenth, and so if you sign up
for Blockchain Education Day, we will take you to Capitol Hill to go meet
with your elected officials so you can tell them directly about why this technology is
important to you and to support spport policies that help grow and foster our community
here in the United States. So come to the DC Bloxching Summit participate in
Boxing Education Day. That's May fifteenth and May sixteen. Awesome, Prian,
thank you so much for joining me. Thanks Tony, good to be here.