Speaker 1: That crypto is you know, someone tweeting this one ninety
Speaker 1: percent Republicans like, that's just false, It's not true. Actually,
Speaker 1: if you look at who's holding crypto, it is pretty
Speaker 1: evenly split across all independence, Democrats and Republicans.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: I think there are no my this is a hypothesis,
Speaker 1: but I believe it because it seems very true there
Speaker 1: are going to be more independent crypto voters than either side.
Speaker 1: I actually think.
Speaker 2: This content is brought to you by Uphold, which is
Speaker 2: one of the top crypto platforms out there, which allows
Speaker 2: you to easily buy and sell trade bitcoin and the
Speaker 2: top all coins in the market. Uphold lists two hundred
Speaker 2: and sixty plus cryptocurrencies. They also allow you to trade
Speaker 2: precious metals such as gold, silver, palladium, and platinum. I've
Speaker 2: been a user of Uphold since twenty eighteen, so I
Speaker 2: can vouch it this platform. They have full transparency reports
Speaker 2: and they don't com mingle or lend out your funds.
Speaker 2: They also have a great product called Vault, which is
Speaker 2: an assisted self custody product. A vault allows you to
Speaker 2: maintain custody of your funds and the keys are split,
Speaker 2: so Uphold holds one and you hold two and if
Speaker 2: there's any issues, if you lose one of your keys,
Speaker 2: Uphold will help restore these keys and you can maintain
Speaker 2: access to your funds. It's twenty four to seven instant trading,
Speaker 2: it's trustless. So this is a great feature that can
Speaker 2: give you peace of mind where you don't have to
Speaker 2: worry about if you lose your private keys and much
Speaker 2: more so. If you'd like to learn more about Uphold,
Speaker 2: please visit the link in the description. Welcome into the
Speaker 2: Thinking Crypto podcast. I'm your host, Tony Edward, and with
Speaker 2: me today's Sheila Warren, who's the CEO of the Crypto
Speaker 2: Council for Innovation. Sheila.
Speaker 1: Great to see you, hey, Tony, so good to be back.
Speaker 1: Good to see you.
Speaker 2: Too, Sheila. I have so many questions for you because
Speaker 2: there's been an influx of updates around crypto and politics.
Speaker 2: It's exciting, it's a bit frustrating. I have multiple feelings,
Speaker 2: mixed feelings about this. Let's start the way, let's set
Speaker 2: the table. What are your thoughts on how crypto has
Speaker 2: been impacting politics and you have Republicans making moves, Democrats
Speaker 2: and so forth.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think there's any question that seemingly out
Speaker 1: of nowhere, crypto and the crypto industry have become crucially
Speaker 1: important in this election, particularly at the presidential and the
Speaker 1: presidential ticket, but even down ballot with Senate races and
Speaker 1: House races, and so, you know, I think that that
Speaker 1: reflects the breadth and depth of crypto engagement across the
Speaker 1: American population. One in five Americans, one in five voting
Speaker 1: Americans who more specifically actually do hold crypto, So on
Speaker 1: some levels not surprising, but I do think the sort
Speaker 1: of rapid ascension of the topic is very surprising to
Speaker 1: a lot of people, for sure.
Speaker 2: Do you think that? And I've been thinking a lot
Speaker 2: about this. By the way, you know, the crypto industry
Speaker 2: raised over two hundred million dollars via fair Shake the
Speaker 2: super pack, and data came out yesterday that it's almost
Speaker 2: half of the spend that's taking place in the election
Speaker 2: this election cycle so far. But then I think, would
Speaker 2: the industry have done this if there wasn't they count
Speaker 2: on the other side of the spectrum, Elizabeth Warren and
Speaker 2: the anti crypto army coming against the industry so strongly
Speaker 2: and unlawfully in certain ways that we almost had to
Speaker 2: do this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, so, first of all, correct me on this
Speaker 1: if I'm wrong, but I think the two hundred millions
Speaker 1: spread across a number of different entities. But regardless, I
Speaker 1: think it's a massive amount of money, and I think
Speaker 1: it's a chicken and egg question, right, I mean, like,
Speaker 1: was Crypto get engaged at this level before they really
Speaker 1: were vilified by a small portion of Congress? You know,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe not. I mean, but there's no question that
Speaker 1: that was a catalyst for this engagement and the sense
Speaker 1: that a lot lives and dies on who is in
Speaker 1: these offices. It does matter. It matters to not just business,
Speaker 1: I would argue even more importantly, it matters to consumers.
Speaker 1: It matters to those who seek to use products and services.
Speaker 1: And to me, look, I think we should frame this
Speaker 1: up in the following way, and this is how I
Speaker 1: talk about it, which is Crypto's not going anywhere. There
Speaker 1: was a moment I think in twenty two which understandably
Speaker 1: the United States, there was this sense, you know, Tara
Speaker 1: Luna FTX like drama after drama, right, there was this sense, oh,
Speaker 1: if we ignore that, it will go away. And all
Speaker 1: those of us in industry knew that was ridiculous. But
Speaker 1: if you were looking at this as a third party,
Speaker 1: that's a we have to acknowledge there's some credibility to that.
Speaker 2: We weren't.
Speaker 1: It wasn't the best look. Okay, in twenty two that's
Speaker 1: all gone. Nobody in their right mind is saying that
Speaker 1: right now, and if they do, say that's very easy
Speaker 1: to dismiss. Crypto has won in that sense. The question
Speaker 1: on the table, in my opinion, is simply where where
Speaker 1: is it going to be hq't and built? Is it
Speaker 1: in the United States or is it not United States?
Speaker 1: Everywhere else is running. We know this, right, You've had
Speaker 1: rules and regulations that specify and have clarity everywhere else
Speaker 1: in the world for a long time now, but not
Speaker 1: here in that state. So that's the question where is
Speaker 1: it going to thrive, not whether it's going to thrive,
Speaker 1: And that to me is in part of political question.
Speaker 2: And I'll use some anecdotal evidence. I have family members
Speaker 2: and friends, some are Democrats, some are Republicans. When it
Speaker 2: comes to Crypto, they don't think about it politically. They
Speaker 2: don't think about it as oh, I like big ones,
Speaker 2: and that means I'm supporting Republicans or Democrats or whatever
Speaker 2: it is they just sevewed as a NASA class, some
Speaker 2: of them traded, some of them using that's right. But
Speaker 2: unfortunately here in the United States, it's become this political
Speaker 2: issue and we're almost like forced to take sides. But
Speaker 2: you know, given the different events that have been taking place,
Speaker 2: Rocanna's roundtable, the Crypto for Harris town hall last week,
Speaker 2: do you see us making progress from your point of
Speaker 2: view that this can be a non partisan issue.
Speaker 1: I think there's definite progress being made for sure. I mean,
Speaker 1: is one party name of the Republicans ahead of the Democrats,
Speaker 1: And if you want to speak really broadly, yes, as
Speaker 1: if you look at that as if you look at
Speaker 1: them as monolithic entities. Yes, on an individual basis, I
Speaker 1: will tell you there have been This is not new.
Speaker 1: There have been plenty of Democrats who are just as
Speaker 1: on side as Republicans, and that's been the case for
Speaker 1: a couple of years now. So the idea that there's
Speaker 1: I think we be very careful and I think there's
Speaker 1: this tendency, especially in social media places like that, that
Speaker 1: allowed Nuance to talk about this as if it's a
Speaker 1: party level issue.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: To be fair, Republican party platform talks about this which
Speaker 1: implies that if you vote the party platform, you'll be
Speaker 1: on side with that. That is not true Democratic party platform.
Speaker 1: I suppose you could make that argument. But at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, we have a purple Congress, whether
Speaker 1: people like it or not. We have a purple country,
Speaker 1: whither people like.
Speaker 2: It or not.
Speaker 1: And so my view is we should have purple crypto.
Speaker 1: And if you look at kind of the polling numbers,
Speaker 1: there's this sense, I think, especially in places like x
Speaker 1: or wherever that crypto is. You know, as someone tweeted
Speaker 1: this point, ninety percent Republicans like, that's just false, it's
Speaker 1: not true. Actually, if you look at who's holding crypto,
Speaker 1: it is pretty evenly split across all independence, Democrats and Republicans, right,
Speaker 1: I think there are not my this is a hypothesis,
Speaker 1: but I believe it because it seems very true. There
Speaker 1: are going to be more independent crypto voters than either side,
Speaker 1: I actually think, because that's vary in line with the
Speaker 1: philosophy that underlies crypto. It is a general matter, right,
Speaker 1: and those independents are obviously disproportionately going to be swing
Speaker 1: voters to a large extent. Right, So the question becomes
Speaker 1: there's an outsized power that the crypto voting block, if
Speaker 1: you want to call it, that, the sort of single
Speaker 1: issue crypto kind of person is going to have an election.
Speaker 1: That's this razor thin than in other kinds of text.
Speaker 1: But the idea that this is strictly for Republicans, that
Speaker 1: there are no that's just all complete nonsense. Now you
Speaker 1: make a really good point, which is we are in
Speaker 1: a very partisan moment. How we got here? You asked
Speaker 1: some good questions. I don't know. It's chicken and egg, right,
Speaker 1: who knows. But the point is we are in a
Speaker 1: hyper political moment where a neutral, non partisan technology, let's
Speaker 1: be real, it's a technology. Okay, it's not there's a
Speaker 1: political bias built into this thing. It's a neutral technology
Speaker 1: has become hyper politicized. And my goal, and I think
Speaker 1: this should be the goal of everybody who cares about
Speaker 1: the industry, is to take that off the table, to
Speaker 1: make being against crypto as silly as being against you know,
Speaker 1: microwaves or whatever. It just makes no sense. So we
Speaker 1: have to get to that place. Otherwise we're subject to
Speaker 1: the vagaries of every election cycle every two years. Congress
Speaker 1: can turn over every two years. So what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: We're going to make progress, We're going to beat it back,
Speaker 1: We're never going to get there. It has to be
Speaker 1: the case that we're almost politically agnostic. No matter who
Speaker 1: wins in an election, Crypto is going to be fine.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Again, as I noted, I want to start with saying
Speaker 1: that is unequivocally true because of it's not just America.
Speaker 1: It's a whole, big, giant world out there. Whether it
Speaker 1: is fine in the United States is the question on
Speaker 1: the table. And I do think some people lose sight
Speaker 1: of that and they get so emotional about the United States,
Speaker 1: as if we're going to determine the trajectory of this
Speaker 1: entire industry and technology. I am a global person. I've
Speaker 1: lived all over the world. To me, that's a ridiculously
Speaker 1: short sighted view. But that's where the fight is located
Speaker 1: right now, because it is not obvious what's going to
Speaker 1: happen here in the United States.
Speaker 2: Those are some great points that I've been echoing, the
Speaker 2: same thing, that this is not a United States base
Speaker 2: industry or asset class. It's global, and that we should
Speaker 2: take get crypto off the table from the election. It
Speaker 2: shouldn't be there. There's other issues we can argue about
Speaker 2: and you know, vote about it, but it should not
Speaker 2: be crypto. Come on, this is crazy.
Speaker 1: And look, I want to also add in, I have
Speaker 1: a lot of empathy for people that have really, I
Speaker 1: mean you said this early, have been vilified, right. They've
Speaker 1: been vilified by Gary Gensler, by Elizabeth Warren. They've been
Speaker 1: vilified by these people and they're mad about it. And
Speaker 1: I really understand that. But unfortunately, politics cannot be a
Speaker 1: revenge game. It cannot be a revenge game, not if
Speaker 1: you want to win. If you want to win, you
Speaker 1: have to be really strategic and thinking the longer term.
Speaker 1: When you look at you look at the banks, you
Speaker 1: look at big tech, you look at pharma, you look
Speaker 1: at agriculture, you look at unions, you look at everybody.
Speaker 1: They are very thoughtful about what levers they pull, where
Speaker 1: they put their alliances, where they put their funding, you know,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And it's not a good look for the
Speaker 1: industry to be over aligned with one party over another.
Speaker 1: You have to be in a place where you're giving
Speaker 1: credit where credit's due. You're you're a truth teller, right,
Speaker 1: You're saying, these are folks who've been on side these
Speaker 1: are ones you haven't. But the work, the hard work,
Speaker 1: is to get to a place where everyone's educated, everyone understands,
Speaker 1: everyone is you know, is on side, and everyone gets
Speaker 1: why this is a critical issue for American economic and
Speaker 1: national security and for American consumers. And you can't do
Speaker 1: that if you're thinking about this as a revenge move.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely. Now, we saw some great initiatives some Democrats
Speaker 2: in trying to help folks who on their side of
Speaker 2: the isle to better understand its technology. And we definitely
Speaker 2: saw a bunch of them side with Republicans to pass
Speaker 2: the FIT twenty one bill out of the House to
Speaker 2: repeal saw one to one in the House and Senate
Speaker 2: and Chuck Schumer on the crypto for Harris town hall
Speaker 2: live stream last week that he's committed to getting crypto
Speaker 2: regulations through. Now, you were on that live stream. Tell
Speaker 2: us about your take on that movement and what were
Speaker 2: some of the takeaways.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, I was a speaker at that movement.
Speaker 1: I think you could argue a had a bit of
Speaker 1: a segment where, you know, Chuck Schumer, Senator Schumer was
Speaker 1: gracious enough to acknowledge the engagement there with me and
Speaker 1: then Senator stabanaw came on, Wiley Nickel, Congressman Nicol came on,
Speaker 1: Senator Jillibrand came on, these are people who really do
Speaker 1: understand this technology and have since twenty two and have
Speaker 1: put a lot of effort into understanding it and understanding
Speaker 1: challenges and problems and opportunities and all of that thing.
Speaker 1: But they take it seriously. And I think that was
Speaker 1: I think the message. And so for me, you know,
Speaker 1: I felt, I felt I agreed to speak at it
Speaker 1: early on because frankly, I was a bit tired of
Speaker 1: the rhetorical postures some of the industry as somebody who
Speaker 1: is who thinks purple, who funds purple, who does a
Speaker 1: lot of purple things. It was very important to me
Speaker 1: to kind of calibrate that. And I also, frankly wanted
Speaker 1: to give some credit to some of the unsung of
Speaker 1: folks who had taken the time to really understand this technology,
Speaker 1: who are democrats who have new Democrats. So I think
Speaker 1: that look coming off of Trump at Bitcoin Nashville, whereas
Speaker 1: I've said in many places, that was like an unbelievably
Speaker 1: it was a phenomenal wish list of everything we want right.
Speaker 1: It was like boom boom boom boom, boom boom. That's amazing,
Speaker 1: and the goal should be to get the other presidential
Speaker 1: candidate to be similarly like minded, maybe slightly different nuanced,
Speaker 1: because the language you use as a Republican are Democratic
Speaker 1: a little different, but the concepts really should be the same.
Speaker 1: And I think that for me, the Crypto for Harris
Speaker 1: town hall event was a smashing success from the standpoint
Speaker 1: of demonstrating that up and down the ticket on the
Speaker 1: Democratic side, there is support for crypto. There's no bucking
Speaker 1: the party trend or none of that. Like I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't think it gets stronger than the majority leader
Speaker 1: at current order of the Senate, Chuck Schumer's in office
Speaker 1: for a really long time, extraordinarily thoughtful and powerful person
Speaker 1: in Congress, coming out as on fire as he did
Speaker 1: talking about how crucial this is, so in my mind,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know what the goals of the
Speaker 1: organizers were. I can't really speak to that, Like that's
Speaker 1: a different question. But for me, that was the point
Speaker 1: to say, this already has purplish tone, and the job
Speaker 1: really needs to be to drive into that so that
Speaker 1: no matter what the outcome of the congressional elections are
Speaker 1: or the presidential we are well situated as an industry,
Speaker 1: we're well situated as a consumer base, you know, as innovators,
Speaker 1: so that we don't have to immediately assume that if
Speaker 1: one side wins, we all have to leave the country, right,
Speaker 1: That is not and that's the work. And look, I
Speaker 1: get a lot of crap for that, and that's okay.
Speaker 1: People to understand the job. They just don't get it.
Speaker 1: And it's not my problem, but they're wrong, you know,
Speaker 1: because this has to be the work.
Speaker 2: It has to be right.
Speaker 1: It's hard work. It's hard work.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I know, like you mentioned earlier, like in
Speaker 2: a very hyper politicized UH era, right.
Speaker 1: Where it's not as crypto.
Speaker 2: Let's be there, Yeah, talk about the what the other
Speaker 2: person is doing. You get attacked, like even if you're
Speaker 2: not endorsing or are you're just talking, Why are you
Speaker 2: talking about them?
Speaker 1: That's right? Why are you giving them any airtime?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: Why are you where are you helping?
Speaker 2: Why are you doing that?
Speaker 1: It's like that's not as you know, as I've said,
Speaker 1: as I've talked to you about, like I have no
Speaker 1: problem giving Trump credit for all those strides and that
Speaker 1: was a dramatic from where he was during his presidency,
Speaker 1: which was pretty anti crypto and this is the anti
Speaker 1: bitcoin to being on stage at Bitcoin Nashville. That's amazing,
Speaker 1: that's a huge success. Why wouldn't we want that success everywhere?
Speaker 1: You know? So? And frankly, because Trump is so onside
Speaker 1: from this onside, that's not the hard work, that's the
Speaker 1: easier work. This is the hard right, I'm saying.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 1: But again, some people I think still think in this
Speaker 1: revenge mode. And you know that I don't have that luxury.
Speaker 1: I don't get to do that's not the job, and
Speaker 1: that's not I don't think it's productive. And I again,
Speaker 1: I have a lot of empathy for it. You know,
Speaker 1: I personally affected by that. But nevertheless, you got to
Speaker 1: keep on pushing because at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: as much as this money is going where it's going,
Speaker 1: like American voters to side elections, they just do. And
Speaker 1: I go back all the time at this moment in
Speaker 1: twenty two October ish, we were sitting in a room's
Speaker 1: like forty or fifty crypto policy people and someone said, well,
Speaker 1: you know, when when the Congress goes completely red, then blah,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. And I put my hand up and
Speaker 1: I was like, well, why do we assume Congress is
Speaker 1: going to go both houses are going to go red?
Speaker 1: Whatever I mean, people like the pitying looks I got, like, oh,
Speaker 1: you poor child. Like of course, I was like, I
Speaker 1: don't assume anything until it's done. I don't assume anything
Speaker 1: until it's done. I was right, Thank goodness, we'd been
Speaker 1: putting in that effort with Democrats because you had a
Speaker 1: democratically led Senate, right, like, thank goodness, we've been kind
Speaker 1: of like trying to get there so we could we
Speaker 1: could at least get some constructive conversations moving and going
Speaker 1: during that time. So, like I say, I think American
Speaker 1: voter side elections, we know it's going to be razor
Speaker 1: thin margins in many crucial races, including the presidential I
Speaker 1: would not have said that under Biden, quite frankly, but
Speaker 1: with a Harris Trump matchup, it's going to be razor
Speaker 1: thin and we don't know. So assuming or crossing fingers
Speaker 1: or blithely wishing into existence one outcome and not doing
Speaker 1: anything to prepare for the other outcome is silly, and
Speaker 1: it is short sighted, and it is also not my job.
Speaker 1: So here we are now.
Speaker 2: There was another initiative I believe was Roan Congressman Rokana
Speaker 2: led a round table for I was thinking, you were there,
Speaker 2: Mark Cuban, folks in the industry and so forth, tell
Speaker 2: us about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so there were when there were two round tables
Speaker 1: when it was in person. This was with a woman
Speaker 1: named Anita Dunn who was a senior Biden advisor. And this,
Speaker 1: to be clear, it was still I think, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: I'm blinking on I think that was still when Biden
Speaker 1: was the candidate. I believe that is correct.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I.
Speaker 1: Think it's moving so fast, like I'm pretty sure that's
Speaker 1: the case. I recall going into it that was the discussion, right,
Speaker 1: and it really was. I thought it was a phenomenal session.
Speaker 1: I was privileged to be in the room. It's gotten
Speaker 1: a lot of I'm not saying a thing that has
Speaker 1: ever been reported, but it really was an opportunity for
Speaker 1: a lot of builders to talk to and needed done directly.
Speaker 1: One of the most senior advisors to the Biden White
Speaker 1: House in the Biden White House about how Crypto has
Speaker 1: been treated and under that administration. At the end of
Speaker 1: the day. You've got to put the responsibility where it lies. Right,
Speaker 1: we can all look at Gary Gensler as the architect
Speaker 1: of it. At the end of the day, that Biden's boss, right,
Speaker 1: So that's kind of how that works, and so I think,
Speaker 1: what kind of his boss? It's more nuanced, but he
Speaker 1: got he's the reason he's in the role, right, So
Speaker 1: I think you look at it that way, and I
Speaker 1: think it was eye opening. I really think that hearing
Speaker 1: that those personal narratives from people who have really tried
Speaker 1: to and these are everybody in that room with somebody
Speaker 1: you know, who tried to be compliant, who wanted to
Speaker 1: build in America, who wanted to build, who wants to
Speaker 1: be regulated, who wants to be legitimate, all of those things, right.
Speaker 1: There was not a single exception to that in that room.
Speaker 1: It's a very earnest group. And hearing the frustration firsthand,
Speaker 1: I think was really powerful. And so tons of credit
Speaker 1: to Congressman Rocanna, you know, his team, for pulling that together,
Speaker 1: to Anita Done, for listening, for really engaging I think
Speaker 1: with that group. Now, of course, then you had the
Speaker 1: flip right where now you've got a new campaign, a
Speaker 1: new candidate, and.
Speaker 2: All of that.
Speaker 1: So there was another round table that happened that was
Speaker 1: a zoom call, wasn't in person, that was really with
Speaker 1: different people, not with any ita done, but was still
Speaker 1: at people in the Biden administration, actually not with Harris
Speaker 1: campaign people because there weren't really anyet I suppose, but
Speaker 1: people there who are not necessarily going to be part
Speaker 1: of the Harris campaign. And there I think it was
Speaker 1: a bit of a different tone and it's got reported
Speaker 1: as well, and just this question about you know, what
Speaker 1: have you done? What is there to show for all
Speaker 1: of this? Like we've been coming in for so long,
Speaker 1: We've said all these things, where's the outcome?
Speaker 2: Where is it?
Speaker 1: So, like I say, I think all of that again
Speaker 1: is really more about Biden than about Harris. And it's
Speaker 1: such an unpreceded moment that we're in because we haven't
Speaker 1: had a switch charu like this certainly in my lifetime.
Speaker 1: And so I think people are trying to wrestle with
Speaker 1: what does it mean that it's Harris not Biden? And
Speaker 1: to me, there's an opportunity to push there with Biden.
Speaker 1: I would have agreed to people that are like, oh,
Speaker 1: engaging there. Maybe it's a waste of time. You still
Speaker 1: do the work, but I don't know that you have
Speaker 1: the same optimism for an outcome or hope. But with
Speaker 1: this campaign, it's a different candidate, and every candidate shapes
Speaker 1: their own campaign, They shape their own policy, shape their
Speaker 1: own advisors. There is every reason to believe that there
Speaker 1: is a possibility of a change or a shakeup if
Speaker 1: that administration is the administration that winds up being in office.
Speaker 1: And the work again is until the very last minute
Speaker 1: to push as hard as we can to make sure
Speaker 1: that if she wins, the outcome there is as good
Speaker 1: for us as it can possibly be, even if that
Speaker 1: outcome is not as good as the outcome for industry
Speaker 1: under Trump. That's not the comparison point. The point is
Speaker 1: you have to get it to be as good as
Speaker 1: it can be. And if you just give up and
Speaker 1: write off one party, what are you doing that is
Speaker 1: you're basically seating everything to the enemies of crypto. You're
Speaker 1: just saying, you know what, we're not even going to
Speaker 1: try go ahead, Like that's crazy. So, like I say,
Speaker 1: even though my expectation is not you're going to get
Speaker 1: a mash up, You're not going to get like an
Speaker 1: absolute match in terms of what the Harris campaign, whether
Speaker 1: a Harris administration would do, and a trumpetration would do.
Speaker 1: But that's not the work. The work is to move
Speaker 1: the needle as much as you can because we have
Speaker 1: the candidates we have, and we have to do the
Speaker 1: work to bring them along on the learning curve. Because again,
Speaker 1: I mean, you and I agree on thisas before. I
Speaker 1: firmly believe that anybody, we've all witnessed so many of
Speaker 1: those eye opening moments when someone really clicks into why
Speaker 1: this matters, and you don't go backwards, you never go
Speaker 1: the other way. So it may take more work with
Speaker 1: some than others. That just means you have to work harder.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, put and we've been seeing a lot of
Speaker 2: progress on Kamala Harris's side where I think just yesterday
Speaker 2: Bloomberg reported that her top campaign advisor, I believe that
Speaker 2: the NC was saying that she's ready to support policies
Speaker 2: that would boost crypto adoption and innovation in the United States. Now,
Speaker 2: a lot of people want to hear that from her,
Speaker 2: and they want to see an actual policy write up,
Speaker 2: even if it's like a few paragraphs. Hard question for you,
Speaker 2: do you think we see that by September or so.
Speaker 1: I don't know about the timing. I mean, I think again,
Speaker 1: you got to look at the timing of this campaign.
Speaker 1: She's been the candidate for how long. We're in the
Speaker 1: middle of the convention. She finally formally got the nomination.
Speaker 1: She had to lock that up. You know, she had
Speaker 1: a pick a vice president. Frankly, I'll tell you what
Speaker 1: I think the real timing is, and I'm just going
Speaker 1: to be very blunt about it. I don't think you
Speaker 1: see anything about crypto that's specific until she's dealt with
Speaker 1: Gaza and Israel. I think that is a much more
Speaker 1: pressing issue for this campaign for a billion different reasons.
Speaker 1: She was a foreign policy vice president. I do think
Speaker 1: that's more sticky to her than Frankly, any economic policy.
Speaker 1: She was not an economic policy vice president. Allegations that
Speaker 1: everything Biden did is her just silly. But on foreign policy,
Speaker 1: you know, she was. She did a lot of foreign policy,
Speaker 1: and so I do think that's a very pressing issue
Speaker 1: for this campaign. So I think that's the timing. When
Speaker 1: is she going to do that, I don't really know,
Speaker 1: but I would be very surprised to see language that's
Speaker 1: more specific than something like what Brian said, which actually
Speaker 1: that happened a lot faster than I thought it would.
Speaker 1: I knew they were going to get there, I just
Speaker 1: didn't know. I didn't think it be that fast. I
Speaker 1: was kind of angling that it would be post convention,
Speaker 1: probably Labor Day ASH was the earliest. So this is
Speaker 1: a huge acceleration and what I even I thought would
Speaker 1: happen here. I think it's a testament to how many
Speaker 1: how much time they put in meetings they've had, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But like I say, that is a crucial pressing issue
Speaker 1: for her campaign for the party, you know, for a
Speaker 1: million different reasons. I don't have to articulate because we
Speaker 1: all know, and until that is sort of I don't
Speaker 1: want to say wrangle that sounds terrible, but until until
Speaker 1: there's something clearer I think there, I don't know that
Speaker 1: this is frankly where her head should be, to be
Speaker 1: blunt right, Like I think we'd want the president, any
Speaker 1: future president United States, I would think would be having
Speaker 1: to think about our foreign policy positioning at at this
Speaker 1: crucial time when you've got you know, leaving us. We
Speaker 1: all know it. When it comes to blockchain technology and
Speaker 1: crypto China, Russia, and arts create all of this is
Speaker 1: happening in the world. That is really, really, really important
Speaker 1: stuff because only the president can do that, whereas you
Speaker 1: can have cabinet secretaries and others that set policy for
Speaker 1: other kinds of things that are domestic. That to me
Speaker 1: is a really important question. So, like I say, I
Speaker 1: don't know when any of that happens, but the sequencing
Speaker 1: there is what I am sort of expecting, and I'd
Speaker 1: be surprised to see it be any different personally.
Speaker 2: Now, in regards to the legislation and Chuck Tchumor's statements
Speaker 2: on the town hall last week, we are you hearing
Speaker 2: anything about when the FIT twenty one bill may go
Speaker 2: to the Senate maybe merged with the Lumbus Jilibrand version
Speaker 2: of what may happen there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a great question. So there was a lot
Speaker 1: of work, a lot of work in July trying to
Speaker 1: get what's called the DCA out of committee and a
Speaker 1: lot of progress made on that language. To be very clear,
Speaker 1: FIT twenty one is not coming over to the Senate.
Speaker 1: That's not I think what happened is another bill would
Speaker 1: come through the Senate and you do it's called I mean,
Speaker 1: who knows. It could be that somebody picks up at
Speaker 1: twenty one and takes the four corners into the Senate.
Speaker 1: I think that's unlikely, but it's more likely as you
Speaker 1: get a bill in the Senate and then you have
Speaker 1: to do it's called reconciliation where you look at the
Speaker 1: two of them and all. That the biggest challenge here,
Speaker 1: and I will tell you bluntly, in my opinion, we
Speaker 1: have the language. It's mashed up in different places. You know,
Speaker 1: it's not all in one tidy package. But in these
Speaker 1: various places, we do have the language, and we have
Speaker 1: to kind of frankenstein it a bit together. It's just
Speaker 1: kind of how this works, sausage making. It's not pretty.
Speaker 1: The question is calendar and time. Do we have the
Speaker 1: time on the calendar? Do we have the floor days
Speaker 1: to go through the process is required to turn a
Speaker 1: bill into a law? Open question. I don't know. I
Speaker 1: know that we were very close in July to getting
Speaker 1: that bill into committee and out of committee, and a
Speaker 1: lot of us wanted to see that, even though I
Speaker 1: think there were things we wanted to tweak along the
Speaker 1: way to see progress like that being made there, I
Speaker 1: believe three weeks in September where that can happen, and
Speaker 1: then you're closed to gangs. It's campaign season. Then you're
Speaker 1: in lame duck. So is it going to happen? I
Speaker 1: have no idea. The September weeks are going to be
Speaker 1: crucial if the Senate can get something together. I think
Speaker 1: there is a very good reason to believe that a
Speaker 1: lame duck you'd get something through. If the Senate can't,
Speaker 1: then I don't know where we're going to be. So again,
Speaker 1: this is hyper politicized now, which is unfortunate because I
Speaker 1: do think if you think about this writ large, there
Speaker 1: is a danger that we make politics the enemy of policy.
Speaker 1: And we have a champion in the House and Patrick
Speaker 1: McHenry that we have just we're so lucky to have
Speaker 1: someone that understands this that well and is such an
Speaker 1: astute politician at the time. We're very lucky and he
Speaker 1: deserves a ton of credit, as is his team and Gt.
Speaker 1: Thompson and the AG side in the House. You've got
Speaker 1: again these like very strong leaders who are committed. So
Speaker 1: the House is ready to go. And Patrick McHenry after
Speaker 1: Chuck's Chuck Schumer's statements, I think he tweeted I found
Speaker 1: out from his office as well, you know, just that
Speaker 1: he's ready to have a conversation he'd love to talk
Speaker 1: to the Senate about about this getting this done. So
Speaker 1: you have a Republican leader who's publicly saying he wants
Speaker 1: to get it done, but you have a Republican party
Speaker 1: that is kind of like, well, we'd almost rather kick
Speaker 1: the can until after the elections. So it's not unusual
Speaker 1: for policy and politics to clash sometimes, but we are
Speaker 1: right in the middle of that, and in my view,
Speaker 1: that is not a good place for us to be
Speaker 1: because we're not looking for tweaks. We're not looking for
Speaker 1: minor things. We're looking for big things that land the
Speaker 1: plane so that builders can build the United States. And
Speaker 1: that is critically important. It's critically critically important for so
Speaker 1: many reasons. Right, So if we miss it, here's the thing,
Speaker 1: how long a people going to wait? How long are
Speaker 1: they gonna wait?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: So, yes, you might build the United States with more
Speaker 1: security if republic if it's a Republican sweep, but like,
Speaker 1: what does that mean? There's always going to be details,
Speaker 1: and so are you going to stick around for something
Speaker 1: to manifest or are you just going to go and
Speaker 1: to me again, what I don't want to see the
Speaker 1: worst outcome here, and I think this is really the word.
Speaker 1: I want to be very clear. This is the worst
Speaker 1: outcome is that builders leave the US. It's not that
Speaker 1: the industry goes there's that's not a thing. We're thriving regardless.
Speaker 1: The question again is where. And I don't want to
Speaker 1: see the United States missed out on yet another technological
Speaker 1: innovation because we can't land the basics of a regulatory
Speaker 1: scheme that is ludicrous and we have got to fix it.
Speaker 1: The future of the country, in my opinion, is at stick.
Speaker 1: I don't over traumatize this, but if crypto leaves, if
Speaker 1: blockchain technology starts to leave and get bill elsewhere, I
Speaker 1: think that is potentially a massive national security issue. I'm
Speaker 1: speaking very bluntly. I think it is an economic security issue.
Speaker 1: I think it is a dollar dominance issue. I think
Speaker 1: all of these things are very, very very real, and
Speaker 1: that's what's at stake. So it's not it can't again
Speaker 1: going back to the Purple whatever it is, it has
Speaker 1: to be the case that we are we have some
Speaker 1: buffer against the vagaries of the political system in the
Speaker 1: election process and that no matter what, we're okay. And
Speaker 1: I will tell you I feel very comforted that you
Speaker 1: had someone like Chuck Schumer come out and say what
Speaker 1: he said, and that you had someone like Brian Nelson
Speaker 1: come out and say that, because I feel like, Okay, now,
Speaker 1: if Harris wins, I don't have to be concerned that
Speaker 1: we're going to fight another four years of what we did.
Speaker 1: I have a lot less concern there than I did
Speaker 1: a week ago. And to me, that's progress. I don't
Speaker 1: know why people can't see that. Some people can't see that.
Speaker 1: Seems really obvious to me that this is a good thing.
Speaker 1: But again I think people, you know, read into things
Speaker 1: whatever they want to, and that's their progative.
Speaker 2: Ice POSTA, Yeah, no, really, well put, and you touch
Speaker 2: on so many different aspects of this, because I look
Speaker 2: at the EU and the UK passing regulations. There's more
Speaker 2: clarity there, and I don't want to see those jobs
Speaker 2: leave the United States or orly, you know, and we
Speaker 2: lose some of the wealth creation and so forth, and
Speaker 2: hopefully we can get it right.
Speaker 1: And we can. We just have to have the will
Speaker 1: to do it, you know. So I hope that people
Speaker 1: understand this and understand what's at stake, and understand that
Speaker 1: all of us in this work are We're moving in
Speaker 1: the same direction. We just have different approaches of how
Speaker 1: to get there. Some people are fighting the political fights
Speaker 1: and people are fighting the policy fight. They again, they
Speaker 1: are distinct, but they're sometimes really tightly wound, and during
Speaker 1: a presidential election season is the moment they're tightly wound,
Speaker 1: but they unwind pretty quickly. And it's important to kind
Speaker 1: of know that there are people watching all of those
Speaker 1: different but also the legal side, by the way different.
Speaker 1: I didn't even mention that, like all these court cases
Speaker 1: that are being found crucially important work. So all of
Speaker 1: this is marching in the same direction. And if all
Speaker 1: we're quibbling about is the tactics, I think we're doing okay.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Sheila, great insights and a great point of view
Speaker 2: as well. And I appreciate the information of the you know,
Speaker 2: the meetings and the roundtables and so forth that you attended.
Speaker 2: But thank you so much for joining me.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Tony and Castilla