Speaker 1: Clarity is nearly out of time, and today we're going
Speaker 1: to take a real hard look at where we go
Speaker 1: from here. We'll have a special guest on it, so
Speaker 1: you guys don't want to miss this one. I do
Speaker 1: want to thank our sponsor today before we do get started,
Speaker 1: and that of course is I Trust Capital. This is
Speaker 1: where you guys can get into your own CRYPTOIRA and
Speaker 1: make your retirement funds work for you.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 1: So what you can do is pretty much get anything
Speaker 1: out there in terms of digital assets for the most part,
Speaker 1: put that into a CRYPTOIRA. You can also use gold
Speaker 1: and silver. All you have to do is go in,
Speaker 1: set up your own account, sign up. It's very easy
Speaker 1: to do if you don't have an IRA. If you
Speaker 1: have one, you can also move it over. Very easy
Speaker 1: to fund this account. You can cash transfer or do
Speaker 1: a rollover, and then of course you can go buy
Speaker 1: and sell twenty four to seven so it's very very flexible.
Speaker 1: You guys of course can use our link down below.
Speaker 1: It's going to give you an additional one hundred dollars
Speaker 1: funding reward just to get started on your own CRYPTOIRA
Speaker 1: over at I Trust. So let's go over first before
Speaker 1: we bring on a Minehart, who is the policy guy
Speaker 1: over at hyper Liquid. I want to start with this
Speaker 1: clip from Cody Carbone talking about where we are today.
Speaker 2: Take a look.
Speaker 3: We won't have enough time for it to go to
Speaker 3: the House. The House is already out of session. I've
Speaker 3: changed my expectations of what success is over the next week.
Speaker 3: We need to start to have some of the procedural votes,
Speaker 3: a motion to proceed vote that needs to happen and
Speaker 3: needs to get on the Senate calendar first. Then there's
Speaker 3: a cloture vote. There's going to be amendments, so you
Speaker 3: need at least like thirty hours of debate before you
Speaker 3: can go to end debate. Can we then tee ourselves
Speaker 3: up where the first week they're back in September, all
Speaker 3: they need is just that one passage vote. Then all
Speaker 3: the House needs is that one passage vote and it
Speaker 3: can move very very quickly to the President's desk. That
Speaker 3: is success. Right now, as I mentioned, the House has
Speaker 3: already gone, so it's not going to pass the House
Speaker 3: anyway until September when they get back. To do that,
Speaker 3: we need to get the ethics deal. You have fifty
Speaker 3: three Republicans. You need sixty votes. That's at least two
Speaker 3: Republicans that are likely to know Mitch McConnell. We don't
Speaker 3: know where he is. That means then you have to
Speaker 3: get ten, at least ten Democrats have to begin voting
Speaker 3: next week on some of these procedural votes, because if
Speaker 3: you do not begin voting next week, you likely lose
Speaker 3: all chance that this bill is going to move forward
Speaker 3: in the fall. Again, if we were talking a week
Speaker 3: from today and we didn't begin that process, I would
Speaker 3: say this bill likely doesn't have a chance to move
Speaker 3: forward this year.
Speaker 1: All right, So what you're hearing there is two different
Speaker 1: angles and strategies that could still possibly play into it.
Speaker 1: So I want to bring on Adam Minhart's chief policy
Speaker 1: officer at hyper Liquid.
Speaker 2: How are you, Adam, Nice to have you.
Speaker 4: Back, Very good, good see again, Paul.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So let's get into a little bit about where
Speaker 1: we are right now, because you obviously heard what Cody
Speaker 1: said there, and his point is it's very light in
Speaker 1: the fact that we would get anything done this week.
Speaker 1: If anything, it's going to be just a handful of
Speaker 1: maintenance votes to try to get in play for September.
Speaker 1: How likely is that for September.
Speaker 4: Yep. I do think we're it's still an open question
Speaker 4: of whether or not we see a vote this week
Speaker 4: on the cloture vote to proceed. I think that would
Speaker 4: be a really really important vote to have pass or foul.
Speaker 4: I think getting something on record now is critical, and
Speaker 4: we saw it with Genius. Genius failed initially on the
Speaker 4: cloture vote for emotion to proceed, and that caused people
Speaker 4: to come back to the table. It's very hard to
Speaker 4: understand what the political ramifications of that vote will be.
Speaker 4: We can game theory game through it right now that
Speaker 4: it's good for THEMS to vote no against the sitting
Speaker 4: president and the cryptoethics issue. We can say it's a
Speaker 4: good vote for them to have going into midterms. We
Speaker 4: won't know until they take the vote, so I think
Speaker 4: that's why it's important to get that vote done. With
Speaker 4: regard to September, we've had a lot of supposed deadlines
Speaker 4: along the way, and I think we've discussed this when
Speaker 4: I was on before. Deadlines are a very important forcing
Speaker 4: mechanism in politics. We have a House, a Senate, and
Speaker 4: an administration. We have a very active media. The deadlines
Speaker 4: force people's attention to get something done. We're at another
Speaker 4: deadline now before the August recess. I believe September. There
Speaker 4: is the potential for there to be floor time in
Speaker 4: September to get this thing moving again. There's obviously a lot,
Speaker 4: a lot of power behind this bill, both on the
Speaker 4: hill and off the hill. So I say we have
Speaker 4: the month of September to do it as well.
Speaker 1: All right, so you're not totally out of the possibility
Speaker 1: of this still making it through. When you look at
Speaker 1: this right now, before I play another clip, that is
Speaker 1: kind of interesting because many people look at this as
Speaker 1: a different strategy.
Speaker 2: But when you look at.
Speaker 1: The whether you look at the Republicans or the Democrats
Speaker 1: right now, where do you think the sticking point?
Speaker 2: Is it still ethics or is this more about.
Speaker 1: The issue of the bank still pushing for stable coinal ethics.
Speaker 4: I mean, my view is that every day we get
Speaker 4: closer closer to that midterm election, it's more about politics
Speaker 4: and less policy. Right I think right now, on the
Speaker 4: precipice of the August recess, we are beginning the heavy,
Speaker 4: heavy political season where everyone is running campaigns, and right
Speaker 4: now I think this has shifted to a political messaging bill.
Speaker 4: This is really about your view about the Trump's families
Speaker 4: activities in crypto. Is it fair? No, there's a lot
Speaker 4: of very very good policy in that bill. I would
Speaker 4: argue there's that this bill is more democratic than Republican
Speaker 4: at this point. So I think on policy it's a
Speaker 4: good bill, but the politics right now have become very
Speaker 4: very muddled. Saw Paul's there, Well.
Speaker 1: I think the you know what we have seen over
Speaker 1: talking to senators on both sides of the aisle for
Speaker 1: quite some time, is that you have the Republicans positioning here.
Speaker 1: You also have the Democrats positioning here, obviously within the
Speaker 1: ethics framework, and this may be just in time to
Speaker 1: use this as the caveat and possibly the carrot to
Speaker 1: push into midterms as a way to beat the Republicans
Speaker 1: with all of what's been going on with the Trump
Speaker 1: administration around this ethic situation. So I agree with you,
Speaker 1: it's become very political.
Speaker 4: And the ad that Peggy Flanagan ran against Angie Craig
Speaker 4: in the Democratic primary for the Minnesota Senate seat to
Speaker 4: replace Amy Klobajar is really important. I don't think it's
Speaker 4: gotten a ton of airtime, but she basically did just
Speaker 4: what you were saying. She is saying a vote for
Speaker 4: this bill by Democrats is a vote to support the
Speaker 4: Trump White House and their crypto ambitions. So they're really
Speaker 4: this is the first time you're really seeing that message
Speaker 4: be tested really on the national stage. I think it's
Speaker 4: something we're all really worried about that it gets hyper political,
Speaker 4: and I think that's where we are. We're like right
Speaker 4: at the edge of that.
Speaker 1: Well, they're definitely going to have to fight this out
Speaker 1: with the ethics side because you have the Trump administration
Speaker 1: in the White House really pushing to try to agree
Speaker 1: with the ethics side.
Speaker 2: So it may be one of.
Speaker 1: Those things where they kind of put their hands up
Speaker 1: and say, hey, the Democrats got what they wanted and
Speaker 1: still didn't vote on this, so it was really just
Speaker 1: take me down individually, which in reality, this is kind
Speaker 1: of what we're facing right now. I want to play
Speaker 1: a clip for you from Christian Carlo, the former CFTC chair,
Speaker 1: and he mentions a very interesting idea here, and I
Speaker 1: don't want to get your opinion on it.
Speaker 2: Take a look.
Speaker 4: I worry that clarity doesn't pass.
Speaker 3: Now. What I'd say to the industry is perhaps it's
Speaker 3: time to stop making such a big deal out of clarity.
Speaker 3: Maybe there's a little bit of an own goal from
Speaker 3: the industry right now in the way that we talk
Speaker 3: about clarity, which you said totally.
Speaker 4: If we're out passed the industry over, say, well, we
Speaker 4: told you all that it had to be passed, and
Speaker 4: now we're still telling you keep investing, keep building.
Speaker 3: We need to back off and just simply say it's
Speaker 3: going to be what it's going to be.
Speaker 2: So what do you think?
Speaker 1: Do you think this is a situation where the industry
Speaker 1: just needs to back down?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 4: I wouldn't say back down. I think there's a lot
Speaker 4: of important things in that bill that are both good
Speaker 4: for industry and good for consumers that it sets up
Speaker 4: a real framework. But I do agree with Chris on
Speaker 4: his broader point that I think we have made this
Speaker 4: bill the be all, end all, and I think the
Speaker 4: industry has operated without a framework since the beginning really
Speaker 4: of crypto globally, and it can continue to operate without clarity.
Speaker 4: And our regulators are very well positioned to deliver on
Speaker 4: a lot of the things within clarity. Would we prefer
Speaker 4: clarity to codify those in US laws? So it makes
Speaker 4: it harder to overturn one hundred percent. But I think
Speaker 4: Chris's point is spot on. I think we've put a
Speaker 4: lot of weight behind this bill so now that if
Speaker 4: it fails, it feels like the industry has failed. So
Speaker 4: there's a lot of ego involved, but there isn't everything.
Speaker 4: We just don't talk about it.
Speaker 1: Well, one thing that you said, I think that is
Speaker 1: very important here, and that is the difference in the
Speaker 1: current environment. When you go back and look at pre Trump,
Speaker 1: the current environment at the SEC was as toxic as
Speaker 1: you could ever imagine for any kind of innovation. So
Speaker 1: where we are right now at the SEC and the
Speaker 1: CFTC for that matter, is a much more understanding regulator
Speaker 1: that is going to get behind this. And it kind
Speaker 1: of reframes the entire situation because you could argue now
Speaker 1: as a Democrat that hey, we're not really in charge
Speaker 1: of trying to get this across the line. We really
Speaker 1: just want to beat up on President Trump. It's the
Speaker 1: SEC and the CFTC that's going to protect consumers by
Speaker 1: getting this in the right regulatory framework. So that may
Speaker 1: be an interesting point right now is looking at this
Speaker 1: tweet right here, Bernstein coming in as saying the Clarity
Speaker 1: Act Fayre will likely trigger a crypto sell off, but
Speaker 1: argues that the SEC and C, to my point, would
Speaker 1: respond by accelerating the rulemaking. I don't know, do you
Speaker 1: think there would be a sell off. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: if this isn't already priced in.
Speaker 4: I have a feeling it's already priced in. I mean,
Speaker 4: people are following the prediction markets on this. It's vacillated
Speaker 4: pretty significantly. So I think there's a lot of hesitation
Speaker 4: to be locked in that this thing's going to pass.
Speaker 4: And I think they're right. I think what we're talking
Speaker 4: about is spot on. These agencies have a lot of
Speaker 4: power under their existing statutory authorities to make a lot
Speaker 4: of changes. They rightfully held off why clarity is being negotiated.
Speaker 4: But if it looks like we're going to hit a
Speaker 4: spot where it's not, I think they're going to go
Speaker 4: all in.
Speaker 1: I want to go a different angle here, because Anthony
Speaker 1: Scaramoci looked at this with maybe a little bit of
Speaker 1: a different lens, and he said it was in reference
Speaker 1: to that the Republicans would be at maybe at blame
Speaker 1: for this if the key here, if they failed to
Speaker 1: put it on the floor. When you look at the
Speaker 1: current situation, because I mean it's kind of a It's
Speaker 1: really been a balanced issue where Republicans have been pushing
Speaker 1: the Democrats have been saying, hey, we're defending for the
Speaker 1: American people and what's right. But now you have the
Speaker 1: Republicans saying or potentially in a position where they don't
Speaker 1: get it on the floor, it be actually fail it.
Speaker 2: So how would you land here?
Speaker 1: Would you look at this at still the Democrats pushing
Speaker 1: back too hard or the Republicans just not going ahead
Speaker 1: and trying to get this underway.
Speaker 4: I'd give you a third one. I think this bank issue.
Speaker 4: I think the bank issue with stable coins is starting
Speaker 4: to give a lot of hesitation to three or four
Speaker 4: Republicans who may be in that note camp. And then
Speaker 4: I think you have Tillis, Cornyn and Cassidy, three Republican
Speaker 4: members that lost their primaries then also are kind of
Speaker 4: in this purgatory. So if you're John Thunan, you're thinking,
Speaker 4: can I really and Tim Scott, who's not only the
Speaker 4: Senate Banking Chair but also the head of the nr
Speaker 4: NRSC the campaign arm for the Senate, how can this
Speaker 4: be a vote against Democrats if you have five six
Speaker 4: or seven Republicans voting no on it. I think that really,
Speaker 4: I think that muddles the message. So to me, that's
Speaker 4: the issue here. If you knew you were just going
Speaker 4: to lose one or two, say Ran Paul and Josh
Speaker 4: Holly and the Democrats are going to take it down, fine,
Speaker 4: But if it's going to be five, six or seven,
Speaker 4: that's a real messaging problem for Republicans to basically put
Speaker 4: this solely on Democrats. So I think Democrats here are
Speaker 4: in a position of strength. They got very lucky that
Speaker 4: that yield issue with the banks took up so much
Speaker 4: time on the clock. You probably had four months there
Speaker 4: where Democrats could not be blamed. It was a it
Speaker 4: was a disagreement over a policy where it really wasn't political.
Speaker 4: It was industry versus industry. So I think DEM's really
Speaker 4: got lucky here.
Speaker 1: And you look at Cynthia Lamas, I mean, she's kind
Speaker 1: of at a frustration level right here. She says, hey,
Speaker 1: it's here, we are here, But Republicans are doing everything
Speaker 1: we can to get the bill on the floor and pass.
Speaker 2: I do agree this bill is fully.
Speaker 1: Baked, very reflective of a bipartisan negotiation, and we're ready
Speaker 1: and willing to get this cross the line if if
Speaker 1: we're only needing, because it sounds to me like most
Speaker 1: of the ethics concerns have been presented or at least
Speaker 1: ear marked. What would hold Thoon from being able to
Speaker 1: go ahead and put this up for a vote.
Speaker 4: I think if it fails, and it fails with those
Speaker 4: five six, seven Republicans voting though, I believe it's that issue.
Speaker 4: But if I was him, I would still put it
Speaker 4: up for a vote. I think there's more value to
Speaker 4: the Republican Party of having Dems have to take this vote,
Speaker 4: regardless if you lose three, four or five six Republicans.
Speaker 4: The value to me, even if it goes down, is
Speaker 4: really that this could be the forcing mechanism to get
Speaker 4: an agreement in September. You know, we've you've been following
Speaker 4: this so close, and you know the ups and downs
Speaker 4: with this process. But a no vote puts you into
Speaker 4: a defensive posture. It's it's just not quite clear that
Speaker 4: this couldn't splash back up on Dems.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you believe that the reason he wouldn't potentially
Speaker 1: could even be that the replay he doesn't have enough
Speaker 1: Republicans and yeah to support to get to fifty three,
Speaker 1: which is kind of a critical point that would look
Speaker 1: bad on the Republicans themselves, potentially muddying the water in
Speaker 1: the midterms.
Speaker 2: Or what is the payday here?
Speaker 4: Well, I think the payday there for Democrats would be
Speaker 4: you had bipartisan opposition to the bill. This wasn't a
Speaker 4: Democratic issue this, so I think to me, that's a
Speaker 4: political win for Democrats to go out. Yeah, we voted
Speaker 4: against it, but so did a bunch of Republicans.
Speaker 1: Yeah, listen, if clarity failure happens, what does that mean
Speaker 1: for hyper liquid in general?
Speaker 4: Yep, the bill itself is a spot market bill. What
Speaker 4: it's traded on hyper liquid are mainly derivatives. There are
Speaker 4: perpetual futures, So the bill in terms of having a
Speaker 4: tangible nexus to it, it's not as significant as it
Speaker 4: would be if hyper liquid was primarily engaged in spot
Speaker 4: market activity. So that said, crypto native, I mean there
Speaker 4: is a hype token. I think the bill would provide
Speaker 4: a sort of robust framework for consumers to invest in
Speaker 4: all sorts of crypto assets. So that said, I'd say
Speaker 4: a rising tide raises all boats. So I think kind
Speaker 4: of big picture, yes, good for everyone crypto related for sure,
Speaker 4: but for hyper liquid specific just given the bills spot
Speaker 4: and not derivative, nothing overtly specific there.
Speaker 1: I want to go to the lightning round here because
Speaker 1: this is going to get into more more detail on
Speaker 1: some of these and we do these from you know,
Speaker 1: quite a bit, guys.
Speaker 2: I know you guys love them in the comments.
Speaker 1: But I want to lead off with this one right here,
Speaker 1: Adam and is crypto industry would have gotten exactly the
Speaker 1: same thing they had had they not donated to the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign.
Speaker 2: We'd be right.
Speaker 4: I think that probably a no. I think the I
Speaker 4: think a lot of you know, influence works in non
Speaker 4: linear and often organic ways, and the access that is
Speaker 4: provided on the political side often translates to discussions on
Speaker 4: the policy side.
Speaker 2: So I'd say no, Okay, I'm going to go with no.
Speaker 1: But for a different reason, I'm going to say, had
Speaker 1: we not voted or put money into the Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: it might have actually spun this in a completely different
Speaker 1: frame all together, you know, away from any of the
Speaker 1: bad doing, you know, those kind of things, and you know,
Speaker 1: supporting the Democrats maybe even in their efforts to reduce
Speaker 1: bad behavior in crypto because listen.
Speaker 2: That's that's one.
Speaker 1: I think everybody out there's watching our show once. If
Speaker 1: Lummis adds four hundred more pages to Clarity, then most
Speaker 1: likely the status quo is better.
Speaker 2: If we get another four hundred.
Speaker 1: I mean we have a thousand page the thing. Now,
Speaker 1: who God knows what would be in that thing at
Speaker 1: that point.
Speaker 4: Regrettably, I got to agree. I think when bills start
Speaker 4: to become either Christmas trees to buy off specific constituencies,
Speaker 4: it's it's usually a bad sign worthless, I think it.
Speaker 4: I think it's a hefty bill as it is in
Speaker 4: a lot of different sections, So I think I think
Speaker 4: the current length it's probably as much as we want
Speaker 4: to go here. It's very complicated. This is going to
Speaker 4: take years of rolemaks.
Speaker 1: These bureausts are going to have, and God knows what
Speaker 1: they're going to decipher out of this is what to
Speaker 1: understand what Congress really exactly?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: With so I totally agree what sticking point negatively affected
Speaker 1: Clarity odds more, do you think it was the rollover
Speaker 1: on the stable coin issue with the banks from Genius
Speaker 1: or was it the ethics theater?
Speaker 4: Both pretty critical. I'm gonna i mean, the ethics sounds
Speaker 4: like the obvious answer here. I'm going to go with
Speaker 4: the stable coin fight for the fun for the following reason.
Speaker 4: It ran almost six months off the clock, Like it's
Speaker 4: like too long, like this thing, like you said, your
Speaker 4: point about the banks was spot on like this, this
Speaker 4: basically delayed, delayed, delayed, And now we're in We're in August,
Speaker 4: right before the midterms, where it's the political season and
Speaker 4: we're kind of, you know, out of a out of
Speaker 4: space here.
Speaker 1: So yeah, if Republicans could get six Dems to vote
Speaker 1: for the nda A, then why couldn't we get easily
Speaker 1: ten Dems for Clarity? I mean because that that, to me,
Speaker 1: was a much harder thing to do than what this
Speaker 1: might be.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's it's a great question. I have to
Speaker 4: come back to the fact that we're just so close
Speaker 4: to the midterms right now, and the ethics issue is
Speaker 4: just heating up. So you know, I'm gonna I'm gonna go, uh,
Speaker 4: I'm gonna go.
Speaker 1: With disagree, all right, I got you with that one
Speaker 1: as well. Okay, in the same camp on that.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: If Thune fails to put Clarity up for a vote,
Speaker 1: it is because he is independently decided to do so.
Speaker 2: Back to your point, he may.
Speaker 1: Decide to do that because he doesn't feel like he's
Speaker 1: got the horses.
Speaker 2: In the Republican camp.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna say yes. I think it is a combination
Speaker 4: of floor time. I mean, they have Todd Blanche Namu,
Speaker 4: they have the CR, they may have another NOMS package,
Speaker 4: they may have Iran sanctions this week. It's only Monday,
Speaker 4: and that's all to do this week, and plus you're
Speaker 4: gonna lose six or seven Republicans. Yeah, I think he
Speaker 4: could independently, independently do the math.
Speaker 1: All right, So let's play this out for a second.
Speaker 1: Thune is the guy here that's kind of in charge
Speaker 1: of getting this done right. But yet you've had all
Speaker 1: of this pressure from one industry being the banks that
Speaker 1: have done all this pre damage work overall. So wouldn't
Speaker 1: he be able to easily push back into the banks
Speaker 1: as the bad guys here instead of the report wilays
Speaker 1: I don't have enough here.
Speaker 2: It kind of makes me rethink this.
Speaker 1: I think maybe he would be falling if it wouldn't
Speaker 1: be him, it would be the banks, you know.
Speaker 4: I think it's a it's a very good question to
Speaker 4: me the politics of the banking industry, and I did
Speaker 4: used to work at City City Group when I came
Speaker 4: off the hill. It is not just the jesibs. These
Speaker 4: community banks have a lot of power and a lot
Speaker 4: of visibility in states like South Dakota, where he is from,
Speaker 4: members of Congress are more likely to know personally people
Speaker 4: in the community bank world. So we often think JP
Speaker 4: Morgan Goldman sacks for sure important. But when you go
Speaker 4: back home to these states that don't have the jesibs,
Speaker 4: these community banks carry a lot of weight. But it's
Speaker 4: a lot of weight and they're actually there's actually hundreds
Speaker 4: of people working, probably in the town they live in, in
Speaker 4: the banking industry who view this as a threat. So
Speaker 4: I think it's I think it's a little different calculus
Speaker 4: for them here. I think going back against the banks
Speaker 4: is a risky proposition for any member, would be my view.
Speaker 1: Do you think the industry needs to release kind of
Speaker 1: an autopsy on this whole situation and examine what really
Speaker 1: I think everybody knows what went wrong and why?
Speaker 4: What do you think I think they do. I don't
Speaker 4: know if the industry can do it. I don't know
Speaker 4: if we can do it ourselves, and I expect there
Speaker 4: to be many post mortems on this from a lot
Speaker 4: of smart people. It really will be an assessment of
Speaker 4: how the industry chose to play politics in Washington, d C.
Speaker 4: In a time of Trump. It's it is a challenging
Speaker 4: landscape to to be a political operator in this city.
Speaker 4: It seems very clear how do you get from point
Speaker 4: A to B? But it's not so. Yeah, I look,
Speaker 4: I look forward to a post mortem one way or
Speaker 4: the other.
Speaker 1: Year crypto industry should pause all pull outical funding for
Speaker 1: mid terms and publicly make it a big deal.
Speaker 2: Overall. What do you think?
Speaker 4: You know? As much as I'd like to agree, I
Speaker 4: think the reality is if you don't have money on
Speaker 4: the table, you don't have you don't have high level access.
Speaker 4: So I would say disagree to take the take your
Speaker 4: ball and go home mentality, as as appealing as it
Speaker 4: may be, typically doesn't work in the city where most
Speaker 4: of the real business gets done after hours at dinners,
Speaker 4: and those dinners are usually political events. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Uh so you had the Bernie interview. I'm sure you
Speaker 1: saw this one. It's proof that crypto and I think
Speaker 1: when you you look at how Crypto's framework has been
Speaker 1: painted to some congress people out there. Yeah, Crypto never
Speaker 1: spoke or made any compelling arguments to the progressives.
Speaker 2: Do you think that's the case?
Speaker 4: I think it's mostly right. You know, I worked for
Speaker 4: a progressive Democrat for seventeen years who was a member
Speaker 4: of the Congression, the Congressional Progressive Caucus. I think for
Speaker 4: the most part, the industry has ignored progressives and not
Speaker 4: wanted to go in to see them, or maybe some
Speaker 4: of them wouldn't have wanted to speak to industry. There
Speaker 4: is a very compelling argument for progressives on crypto, and
Speaker 4: that really was, you know, on the Occupy Wall Street
Speaker 4: movement after the financial crisis in seven and eight. Blockchain
Speaker 4: based systems were seen as a way to give power
Speaker 4: back to the people turn in the form of peer
Speaker 4: to peer transactions that don't go through kind of these
Speaker 4: monopolistic you know, middleman players who can also block access.
Speaker 4: So I think there is a very good progressive argument
Speaker 4: to be made, But I think for the most part,
Speaker 4: the cake seem baked pretty early on FTX, Facebook, all
Speaker 4: of that, you know, got us to the point we
Speaker 4: are today.
Speaker 1: Do industry Calci and Calshi have successfully found a way
Speaker 1: to be as nearly as toxic as a pack.
Speaker 4: You put me on the spot here, Paul, A pack
Speaker 4: is A pack is obviously, as you know, extremely toxic
Speaker 4: within uh, you know, progressive democratic circles. I would i
Speaker 4: would say it's not. I would say it's it's it
Speaker 4: is not as toxic as a pack. I'd say a
Speaker 4: pack is up here. And you know, with the with
Speaker 4: the Peggy flannagan ad coming out, I'd say that's the
Speaker 4: first I've really seen it at the national stage. You
Speaker 4: saw some talk about it in the Brad Sherman race
Speaker 4: out in California. But it's more the exception rather than
Speaker 4: the rule, where I think a pack is the rule. Now,
Speaker 4: so i'd say, i'd say false.
Speaker 2: I'm going to put you on on.
Speaker 1: A light, Okay, a light false, Because I think we
Speaker 1: found a way to be very toxic. Crypto industry should
Speaker 1: position in itself as a soft solution against evil, and
Speaker 1: that would look at government surveillance, data centers. I mean,
Speaker 1: these seem to be the two areas that have I
Speaker 1: don't know if you saw that recent poll, it was
Speaker 1: data centers, governance, surveillance, and crypto in terms of bad sentiments.
Speaker 1: So you know, what do you think versus maybe spin
Speaker 1: away from the banks?
Speaker 4: Spin away from the banks. I think a government surveillance
Speaker 4: is an interesting one because there are privacy, privacy enhancing
Speaker 4: solutions that are blockchain based that I think could resonate.
Speaker 4: It requires a lot of work, and it really takes
Speaker 4: you away from crypto and pushes you into blockchain technology
Speaker 4: where you don't have them as many of the money
Speaker 4: political interest exactly, there's you know, so I think so
Speaker 4: I think, yeah, I have to.
Speaker 2: Go to the crypto route.
Speaker 1: Okay, you have to go the crypto route to be
Speaker 1: able to fund the blockchain ffforts that really kind of
Speaker 1: protect for the surveillance issue. Okay, exactly, I would agree
Speaker 1: with that we should stop talking about clarity starting today.
Speaker 1: It's over stopped popping or no, you think it's still
Speaker 1: a chance.
Speaker 4: I still think there's a chance, but I mean to
Speaker 4: their to your earlier point, and I think what Chris
Speaker 4: Young Carlo said, Yeah, I think we have put so
Speaker 4: much into this as the industry, as an industry that
Speaker 4: if it fails, it feels like we lost, when that
Speaker 4: may not be the case. Yes we may have lost
Speaker 4: this battle, but the current status quo. Given the Trump
Speaker 4: administration and the agencies and what they can do. It's
Speaker 4: not black and white. I think it's there's a lot
Speaker 4: of gray in there, So I'll go with no. I
Speaker 4: still think there's a chance it's getting smaller day by day.
Speaker 2: Here, Yeah, I am.
Speaker 1: I am now finally on the other side that if
Speaker 1: this were this is, it may be too valuable as
Speaker 1: a mid term tool, yeah, for it to be used
Speaker 1: or actually get through, just used as a midterm tool
Speaker 1: of not making it to the floor or going to
Speaker 1: the floor and failing, or the pushback alone of the
Speaker 1: stall in itself, all giving many of the politicians because
Speaker 1: as we mentioned earlier, this has become extremely political. If
Speaker 1: clarity failing is already priced in, then why should we
Speaker 1: then why should we stop talking about it if it's
Speaker 1: already priced in?
Speaker 4: I mean, I mean there's a lot of fatigue all
Speaker 4: around here to the point of the previous question. You know,
Speaker 4: right now, I think we're talking about it because we're
Speaker 4: really at that penultimate moment here of this isn't going
Speaker 4: to happen or not. I think it would be good
Speaker 4: for everyone if we did stop talking about it a
Speaker 4: little bit, or at least brought down the hype on
Speaker 4: it and maybe started talking about, you know, a path
Speaker 4: forward without it. Maybe we're not there yet just because
Speaker 4: we are such in the moment, but next week, the
Speaker 4: week after, I think we have to move there pretty quickly.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, well that's the key.
Speaker 1: Next week, guys be watching some videos because we're going
Speaker 1: to be talking about tokens that it should be winning
Speaker 1: post clarity YEP of non of non passage vote out.
Speaker 1: Any politician who championed banning stable coin yields, even if
Speaker 1: they voted in favor of the crypto bills, what do
Speaker 1: you think.
Speaker 4: I mean, I would disagree. I mean the you know,
Speaker 4: I would not want to I would not want to
Speaker 4: say any one member should be solely judged by one
Speaker 4: vote here. I think there's a larger body of work.
Speaker 4: Certainly as someone in the industry, I would I would
Speaker 4: tend to tend to agree there. But you know, you
Speaker 4: could argue there's you know, quote unquote corruption on both
Speaker 4: sides here. I don't think that's the case, but there's
Speaker 4: definitely vested interests, and when it comes down to it,
Speaker 4: politicians want to win their next re election. Yeah, and
Speaker 4: those that have a strong bank nexus you know that's it.
Speaker 1: Yep, it is it is that I will be the
Speaker 1: political incorrect one here and I will definitely vote out
Speaker 1: any of my congressmen or or you know, lawmakers that
Speaker 1: voted against the American people when it comes to yields,
Speaker 1: because that, to me was the easy slam dunk to
Speaker 1: just help any any American in any walk of life.
Speaker 2: You that was an easy.
Speaker 1: Win for our lawmakers. I just felt it was such
Speaker 1: an easy thing to do. If clarity fails, Trump will
Speaker 1: inevitably blame Democrats instead of banks and hurt the future
Speaker 1: chances of passage the banks.
Speaker 4: Oh, I think we'll go after the dams. Clearly. I
Speaker 4: think that's that's really the game here. I think again,
Speaker 4: we're in the political season, so I think we I
Speaker 4: think he definitely will. Yeah, anytime you dig in further
Speaker 4: politically on you know, the blame game here, it does
Speaker 4: make it harder for that side to come back and
Speaker 4: be supportive. So yeah, I agree.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know that can serves me too, because
Speaker 1: to your point, it makes it harder for that side
Speaker 1: to eventually come back.
Speaker 4: Yep.
Speaker 1: And if that never happens, then you would see clarity
Speaker 1: never If it doesn't go through this this fall, it
Speaker 1: would possibly not make it until the next presidency is in,
Speaker 1: and even then it may be a situation of so
Speaker 1: much turmoil in flux because of all the changes that
Speaker 1: have happened over this past four years. So who knows
Speaker 1: Hyperlica is gonna liquid is gonna benefit for more AI
Speaker 1: I p O season without clarity passing.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna I'm gonna go with like, I don't think
Speaker 4: I I I don't think we have direct interests tied
Speaker 4: to clarity. I think it is that rising tide raises
Speaker 4: all boats in the crypt in the kind of crypto
Speaker 4: neexus hyper liquid you know currently is not on shore
Speaker 4: in the US. So I think it's a bit a
Speaker 4: little bit of.
Speaker 1: A an a Okay, yeah, not answerable, Okay. If clarity fails,
Speaker 1: Binance breathes a sigh of really, uh, you.
Speaker 4: Know, one could make the case that they could benefit
Speaker 4: from some of the provisions in clarity regarding exchange regulation,
Speaker 4: but i'd probably I'd probably say more truth than false there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I said passes.
Speaker 1: I meant if clarity fails for our audio listeners. If
Speaker 1: Clarity fails, Binance would breathe a sigh of relief, and
Speaker 1: I would say, yes, all right, for Crypto's sake, Elon
Speaker 1: should never mention or touch Crypto again.
Speaker 4: You know, he's done a lot.
Speaker 2: I'd always be but come.
Speaker 4: On, yeah, I would tend to agree on this, but
Speaker 4: he has brought it in a way to a much
Speaker 4: broader retail audience then probably would have been possible. Now
Speaker 4: you can make the case that that's not the right
Speaker 4: way to do it, but I'll tend to go with
Speaker 4: you here. I agree.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a little little edgy, you know. And you know,
Speaker 1: just the if he had never gotten into Doze the department,
Speaker 1: it might have been a different world altogether. You know
Speaker 1: that in itself may have if he had been pro Crypto,
Speaker 1: he may have been the one, you know, true champion
Speaker 1: of the industry instead of becoming the villain. So plot twist,
Speaker 1: Crypto skyrockets after Clarity fails, just like Netflix. Netflix did
Speaker 1: after it lost the Warner Brothers bid.
Speaker 2: Because think about that.
Speaker 4: Everybody's just like me.
Speaker 2: They don't know which.
Speaker 4: Way to go.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's going on about it, if
Speaker 1: I should put money in you know.
Speaker 4: What do you mean? It's it's a good point. I mean,
Speaker 4: if if we had some form of resolution, there will
Speaker 4: be clarity here, like good or bad, and clarity generally
Speaker 4: is helpful, and then we would know it would be
Speaker 4: an agency driven rulemaking process. I think it's possible.
Speaker 1: I think we should just do a video that simply says,
Speaker 1: if we fail, we have clarity.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we have clarity.
Speaker 1: Now we know what the situation is the rest of
Speaker 1: the industry can.
Speaker 2: Deal with it.
Speaker 1: And now we are going to wait for what's going
Speaker 1: to come out of the rule making out of the
Speaker 1: SEC and the CFTC and begin the businesses accordingly with
Speaker 1: those rules that are set forth by our government bureaucrats.
Speaker 4: Yep, yep, love it, love it to congress.
Speaker 1: So anyway, Adam einhard coming in from hyper Liquid. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, Adam. It's always fun doing a banter
Speaker 1: with you. We appreciate it.
Speaker 4: Love it. Paul, thanks so much for having me on.
Speaker 1: If you like this video, like and subscribe, drop a
Speaker 1: comment down below, and also join our free private member group.
Speaker 2: The link is in the description.