Crypto's Future of Policy, Politics, and the Fight for a Pro-Crypto Government

Speaker A: I'm excited to share with you that our Biggest fight, Reclaiming Liberty, Humanity and Dignity in the Digital Age, a book I co authored with Project Liberty founder Frank McCourt, is now available. Our Biggest Fight is a manifesto on the need to fix a severely broken Internet with a set of workable solutions for all of us to follow. It's a hopeful book exploring the big opportunities for innovation and prosperity that technology can bring if it's designed with humans in mind. But it's also an urgent call to action. We must get this right for society now, before it's too late. Find the link to the book in the show notes.

Speaker B: Justin M. Slaughter and I read an op ed where we said being against crypto should be like being against a toaster oven or a microwave. It should be like a ridiculous stance to take. You can't be against a technology. It doesn't make any sense. You're listening to CoinDesk's Money Reimagined with Michael Casey and Sheila Warren.

Speaker A: Hello, and welcome to another edition of Money Reimagined. Uh, I am coming to you from London, where I'm attending in a conference. Sheila is on the West Coast, I believe, as usual. And I think we have our guest here, someone that really, uh, does not need an introduction. Ryan Selkis, no doubt. Somewhere in the New York area, I would believe. Is that correct, Ryan?

Speaker C: Undisclosed location.

Speaker A: Undisclosed location.

Speaker B: Bunker. The undisclosed bunker.

Speaker A: I'm already trying to fish from you some sort of way to, uh, get at, you know, he's safe, everybody. Ryan's safe. Listen, yeah, we thought we'd just jump straight into this because Ryan, as I said, needs no introduction. We're fresh off consensus from a few weeks back where Ryan and Marvin Amory from Uniswap, uh, had a really lively and I thought extremely valuable debate. I was actually very pleased with the way it rolled out about the political strategy for this industry as we go into the election year. And they both carved out their positions, and we're here to talk a little bit about that, but also a little bit about Ryan's journey, really through crypto and where he is. Ryan, I would say you've landed yourself in a high profile position, particularly this year. So why don't we just. Before we go into what that's all about, why don't we just go back? And it so happens that you and I, I think, more or less started our journey here around the same time. I do remember meeting you at what was an extremely formative event for me, the North American bitcoin conference. Of January 2014. And I m felt like the two of us probably about at that point the same space of understanding, like what the hell is this? This is interesting what was going on with you then because you were also carving out a kind of journalist role for yourself. And then some interesting stuff happened after that. Tell us about that. Those early days.

Speaker C: So my, my initial introduction to Bitcoin was actually summer of 2011 during the debt.

Speaker A: Sometime back earlier then.

Speaker C: Yeah, if you, well if you remember the debt sequester when the S and P downgraded the US Debt, um, and Congress got together and said, you know, if we don't agree on some solution by this deadline we're going to do 22% across the board cuts. Of course the deadline came in wet and they kicked the can like they do and S and P downgraded the debt. And at the time, uh, I had three options, uh, to invest in that trend that Congress would continue to be dysfunctional. One was to short the US treasury, one was to buy gold, and one was to buy Bitcoin. And Bitcoin at the time and especially mid 2011 was there weren't really tools to acquire it. You would have had to go through DWALA and then mount gox and own your own hardware, wallet or whatever, go to a sketchy ATM. And so I think I nailed the thesis in mid 2011, but I played it in the only way that could have, uh, lost money, which was to buy gold, short the treasury and ignore Bitcoin. And of course Treasuries went vertical the next week because, uh, counterintuitively, it was like a flight to safety.

Speaker A: Remember it well.

Speaker C: So lessons learned. But I fortunately came back to Bitcoin two years later. And I've always had, um, I'd say the Ron Paul college libertarian, um, kind of ethos that I think was part of the early ethos of much of the early bitcoin community. Um, I had started a company after Stinton, uh, and venture capital, uh, focused on, uh, charitable giving. And long story short, the IRS took two years to get the exempt status squared away for this critical vehicle that we had created. And by the time they finally did, I think was the week or so that I had signed with Digital Currency Group. So that's about how long it took to actually get uh, any positive momentum there. So, um, in some ways it was the debt situation, um, that kind of got me into Bitcoin and then it was the startup situation that re radicalized me against the US Government and its general competence. Um, and I Think you combine those two things and there's DNA in there that I think today's conversation. But I started full time in the industry pretty much the week after the Fed shut down Silk Road, because then it felt like it was safe. You had Fred, uh, Wilson investing in Coinbase earlier that summer. The Winklevoss twins started starting their etf, Barry starting the Bitcoin Investment Trust that fall. And then the Fed shut down Silk Road. And it felt like a safe space to play in, at least for the year that I was between a startup and business school. So I was like, you know what, I'll just give this a good run. If it ends up being a flash in the pan, I'll go to business school and basically start over. Um, and if it's something, then I'll stick with it. And obviously stuck with it.

Speaker A: I sort of see also that moment, though, the kind of the birth of the two bit idiot. There was a. You know, the Twitter feed, I think you had a blog, right? There was a. There was a bit. There was a package that kind of emerged.

Speaker C: Tumblr, mailchimp, and Twitter. And ironically it came from. Because back then the whole conversation wasn't on Twitter. It was on, um, it was mostly on Reddit. Right, right. And, um, and so I actually created the pseudonym as a throwaway name based on the assumption that it was going to be dangerous to publicly participate and be seen as like, oh, this is like one of those crazy bitcoin. And that's all true. Like, yes, I was one of the crazy bitcoin guys, but you didn't want to professionally necessarily put your name to it. Um, so for the first couple of months, uh, I have some pretty interesting DMs that I've saved on Reddit. Between this anonymous troll account with the south park avatar and folks like Brian Armstrong and Jesse Powell, uh, that were like, who exactly are you? You seem like you have some inside baseball fun, point of action.

Speaker A: And Sheila, I want to bring you in a moment. I just want to just take us to the end game on this early start here, because then we communicated quite a bit in those early days. And I was sort of down my journey at the Wall Street Journal, getting my head around this stuff. Uh, and then this big thing happened, uh, Mount Goggles. And it was wild because all of a sudden there was, um, a big story that looked like the whole thing was falling apart. And you, um, broke a story. You came out and you had some sort of alarming news. And I remember talking to you and you were concerned the, you know, the guy who was sort of calling out what was wrong but you knew you had to do it and you did. And uh, and ultimately, yeah, you, you sort of like helped them in some respects. You know, we coindes won this big story with FTX a couple of years ago. This was, this was. I always think of it as your big moment. So first we know what that was like. Yeah, breaking that, getting, getting the news out about the, the balance sheet at Mount Gox at that time.

Speaker C: Uh, I mean it was pretty surreal. Uh, you know I wouldn't exactly say that it was like shoe leather journalism and me pounding the pavement. It's just that I had made enough connections and the industry was small enough and the folks that knew me knew that I was brazen enough to actually run with the story and post the documents as they were trying to cover it up. Um, um, it was a wild couple of weeks and uh, uh, as is my M.O. made a few mistakes tactically along the way, but generally was over the target and lived to tell the tale. So I will say I've been on the right side I think of the three largest frauds in the industry. You know I, I won't go into details on the others but I think everybody knows what I'm talking about. So um, uh, that's, that's I would think would put me in a league that is um, significantly uh, above Gary Gensler and this SEC in terms of aptitude for spotting and actually highlighting uh, where potential fraud is, is happening.

Speaker A: You know, I think one thing that's been clear Ryan, is you sort of develop this personality right? There is, there's just like you are a. Not you are, you know, you're not the only person. There's a lot of people who are personalities in the, in the crypto space. And you know, it seems to me now that personality, whether it's Ryan Selkos or 2bitidiot or the 2 CEO of Messari, a variety of things. You know, you're now sort of leveraging that in a way that is, is, is quite deliberate and quite targeted. Why don't you talk through your strategy in terms of politics here? You've come out and you basically are arguing that voting for Trump is the way to get what crypto needs. It's this single issue vote. He is going to deliver us to the industry. That is what it needs. And that's I would argue a controversial position. So uh, why don't you talk through what you're thinking and what your rationale is there.

Speaker C: Well, I Mean, I guess the context and backdrop is pretty much every good thing that's happened to me in my life has been an accident and it's happened in the most entertaining way possible. And I think the, uh, Mar a Lago event a month ago is no different. Actually, I'm not sure if I've told this story publicly, but I had gone down to the events as the plus one for another entrepreneur who had purchased a bunch of the NFTs and said, I can't make it, there's a conflict. I insist that you go just in the off chance that you meet someone from the campaign or with President Trump himself. And, um, I thought about it and said, okay, um, had a meeting with my leadership team at Musari, gave the board the heads, uh, up, hey, I'm going to this thing, but don't worry, I'm going to be under the radar. Well, yeah, so another entrepreneur found out that I was going and then put me in a shared chat with Danny Nelson from Coindesk. And I'm like, you gotta be kidding me. I'm supposed to be down there incognito. So I had literally horse traded with Danny. Hey, I'll sit next to you at dinner, I'll give you some off the record or kind of background chat about how I'm thinking about things, what's actually going on. Um, just don't dox me and tell. Just I'm not ready to talk publicly yet because there needs to be a little bit more of a con strategy around that. And sure enough, Trump cold calls me and one other entrepreneur on stage. And I was literally in the middle of eating my salad at this 700, 800 person dinner. Uh, and Danny just looks at me and he goes, so much for off the record, huh, huh, Walking up to the podium. So, yeah, like, yeah, this is probably not going to be off the record anymore. And then, you know, one step further, I thought maybe he was just going to recognize us, shake our hands, and they said, you know, why won't you guys say a few words, Step up to the mic. So we had that, um, viral 60 seconds and um, at that point I think the options were to retreat, um, and quiet down and, you know, try to backtrack or to lean into it. And everybody knows which direction I'm oriented. So, um, we've, we've kind of used that, I think in the last month to great effect. And I'm hoping that even for my, uh, friends like Sheila, who are on the progressive side, moving the Overton window to the right, uh, over the last 30 days is going to be net helpful for the entire group of folks that are working on policy going forward because it just draws a sharper contrast and hopefully gives more leverage, uh, to all parties to say, let's please make this a nonpartisan issue, because if it does become a partisan issue, the Democrats will lose, um, a pretty large contingent of voters.

Speaker B: Let's go back a little though, right? So at some point in the, in your journey, you became convinced, like I became convinced, although separately, that the policy liver like policy and regulatory outcomes were, I would argue, the most important thing facing the industry at the moment. And I know why I got there. My background. Everyone knows I'm a lawyer, this and that, right? So for me, when I was looking around to leave the, uh, World Government Forum, I was approached by a number of different places you go be a COO at this, you know, token foundation or this or that. But I was 100% convinced that the policy conversation was the most important thing. And so for some period of time, decided I was going to dedicate my time to the relentless and exhausting journey that, that we're all on. But you came to that decision separately. And so I'm curious at what point, you know, you. And we've heard a little bit about your origin story about government and all that kind of thing, but crypto policies, you could be spending your time on a lot of things. So why is crypto policy, why is the politics here, the thing that you are spending what appears to be an outsized amount of time on, given you have a day job that is not a policy job?

Speaker C: It's a great question. It's one that I've had to communicate a lot, uh, around kind of both internally and with our investors and externally as well. So I think about total addressable market number one. I, um, think a pro crypto us uh, means that the market will be at least twice as large as if the US is hostile to the industry and has kind of a regulatory structure that, uh, is constraining and limiting for innovation. Um, so right there you're talking about a 2x, uh, other things equal to every company that's going to participate in here. Um, and, um, when it comes to Musari in particular, some people are curious, well, how did you get into this? Partly, I kind of fell into it based on the timing of the, uh, first mainnet conference that we did in 2021. Um, Sheila, this is before I think you even joined, you know, cci. It was, you know, we had had kind of the event at the event at mainnet in New York in September was this policy roundtable. And then the next year we had a, we had a policy dinner that's somewhat famous within like our, our circles, um, which was, I would say, the catalyst that started to blow open the FTX conversation and what Sam was doing behind the scenes in dc. Um, and um, and so part of that is calendar specific. I think one of the reasons that I've been a little bit more active and vocal is because we are uniquely situated as a company where we don't have a token. We're not a financial services business, we're a data and research company. Um, and you know, for at least a little while longer, um, we have first. First Amendment protection countries in this right that I think, you know, supersede some of the regulatory concerns. And um, I can advocate on behalf of our customers, investors and partners in ways that they can't necessarily do for themselves based on that limiting factor.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker C: Um, I don't think anyone wants to sue their regulator. I don't think anyone wants to criticize their congressional representatives if they are going to be under a regulatory and legal microscope as most of our friends in the industry are. And um, so, you know, it's a little bit of a tragedy, the commons problem, but it's also just, you know, who is willing and able to step up and how are people willing to play their different roles. And um, as, as Sheila knows, um, I've always kind of thought about uh, uh, kind of the group effort and, and the um, the war effort, you know, to the extent you, you can make the Braveheart comparison, um, I'm, I'm Stephen the Irishman. The uh, crazy Irishman that, you know, basically just just wants to go after the English. So um, that doesn't make me Braveheart. That makes me, uh, um, you know, one of the more colorful characters, but hopefully, uh, it's a valuable role nonetheless.

Speaker B: So I think we all agree, I think Michael as well, over the course of our conversation, we're now going on four years of ah, this pod, I think. Right. So, uh, we've had a lot of policy conversations and I would argue probably when we started we did not imagine we'd spend as much time on policy and regulation as we wound up doing globally, of course. Um, so I think, you know, we all agree on the importance of that and I also think it's important to spotlight the importance of the a US that is not, doesn't have a hostile stance toward this industry, um, but also is just balancing and striking that balance between innovation and consumer protection, which is something we talk about a lot. So agree on all that. I do think there's just differences in the tactics, um, and some of the tactics are going to differ based on role. You know, the role I'm in. Um, I am, despite being a lifelong Democrat, um, in and out of progressiveism, depending on the fat of the moment. But generally consider myself along the lines of that specific spectrum. Um, I think I operate in a bipartisan fashion. So it's super important, you know, to me that we take our allies or we take. And when I say allies, I think it's important to note that there are some people in Congress on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of uh, both the House and the Senate, who've taken a lot of time to educate themselves about this technology. And really, I would say to, uh, the extent that this is also not their day job, are. I think some people would find them very surprisingly informed about the technology, about what it does, about the trajectory of where it's going, going about why it matters, about global importance, all those things. And there's a big fat middle, I think, that know nothing about this technology pretty much are, Are aware of its existence because they are humans operating in the world. And the media, you know, says there's a crypto ticker. They've heard the words but don't know a lot. And then there's, I think, a, ah, similarly, I would say small group of folks who um, have made decisions based on whatever the decisions are, I would argue based on a misunderstanding or a lack of engagement with the actual facts around the. But are very overtly anti crypto and explicitly anti crypto, which I would argue is a very odd posture to have, uh, in an election season. But as a general matter. But, um, my view is that we engage with all of everybody, um, apart from the very, very few who are not, who have expressed themselves as being, um, having a platform that is very anti crypto deliberately. But everybody else. I see my role, um, and I see effective policy as being engaging with everybody else. And considering those that have not expressed a view, uh, outwardly as being people that could potentially come on board and are educatable. Is that a word? Are able to be informed. Right. And presumably convinced about the importance of this. Uh, and I think that goes back to sort of my having done a lot of this nudging and influencing and whatnot, um, in a lot of places where crypto was like nobody cared about it whatsoever and getting it to be something that they took seriously or at least realized was inevitable. And sticky is kind of what I've spent a lot of my time doing with I think some great success. I just, I want to get a little bit into the sort of partisan, you know, being partisan versus being bipartisan. And what does that mean? And uh, so you did say just now that you think bipartisanship is really important. So maybe you can talk about that because it contrasts a little bit what I think some of the public stances that you've taken, well, I'd say a lot actually. Some of the public stances that you've taken, uh, where I do think you've cast one party as being anti crypto and the other party as being, well, pro crypto, I suppose, with the leadership there being represented by former President Trump. So maybe you can say, talk about that.

Speaker C: There's a couple things there. So one, um, I think you need to timestamp people's positions at this point. And we have a, uh, uh, I think the month of May you can almost think about as a political timestamp for, for uh, folks in Congress, whether they're on the right or on the left, based on the votes that have come through, based on President Biden's um, veto of SAP121, based on kind of the public commentary around those votes and how that had shifted, um, over the course of the six to nine months that we actually had an entity in Fair Shake that's a bazooka aimed at folks that are on the wrong side of the crypto issue. And I think that gives you a lot of uh, information about where people's um, general sentiment is on the crypto issue in general. Um, I do agree with you shill that most people are uh, impressionable in Congress just for the sole fact that, you know, this is not a top 10 issue for 90 plus percent.

Speaker B: Correct.

Speaker C: Congress by design. Right. People are on different committees and so they're going to have, they're going to take their cues from different folks in leadership. But that is why this has to be partisan this year because the leadership in the Democratic Party is awful on this issue, um, across the board. Um, and I think, um, that was reflected in the votes. I think, um, the lone exception was Senator Schumer, um, crossing the aisle and um, voting for the SAB 121 veto. But my sense is he did that because he knew that it would get overridden anyway and he's trying to protect John Tester and uh, Sherrod Brown and Jackie Rosen and some of the Other folks whose seats are in question, and they'll go back to the same general tricks of the trade, um, as soon as they've actually held onto power in that chamber. So, um, I don't think that they're is much of an argument as to whether, um, President Trump would be better than President Biden for crypto. I think the answer is somewhat of, somewhat obvious. Happy, um, to go into the details if we want to unpack that. I think, um, there's no real question in my mind that a Republican Senate will be more favorable to the industry than a Democratic Senate that is essentially working, um, for Elizabeth Warren, uh, on the Senate Banking Committee at this point, and Jared Brown, who, who votes in lockstep with her on that committee. And then I also don't think that there's much of a contest between folks, uh, like French Hill, um, and Patrick, uh, McHenry on um, where they would take the party and where they would take the House positions, uh, on crypto versus someone like Maxine Waters. So it's kind of over three at this point. And until there's leadership change and generation change, um, I think it's going to be tough to get over that. And the issue with the Democrats is, um, it is very much, um, an aristocracy in terms of how they manage leadership. And um, you will not have younger leaders come in until they lose their seats or they lose their political power. So that only happens either through incapacitation. Um, uh, I mean, in some cases, uh, that doesn't even stop them. Um, uh, it'll only happen through their incapacitation or losing at the ballot box. Um, my hope that there's a strong enough message sent this year that it sends a permanent message to all of Washington and that it is such a strong statement of how crypto helps swing these elections that um, in the future years, folks that are on the right, that are also on the wrong side of this issue, of which I'd put Roger Marshall and Lindsey Graham in that bucket, uh, maybe the neocon wing, if you will, that the rebuke is so significant on the left this year, that it does send a message not just to the left in perpetuity, but also to that wing of the right, that if you would like to retain these votes and retain the interest of this voter block and this donor base, um, then you'll treat us fairly and you'll operate in good faith and try to come up with some reasonable proposals, not whatever this administration has tried to put forth so far.

Speaker B: There's a lot in there to Unpack. But let me just respond to a couple things first, which I would say, you know, certainly on fit 21, we also saw Catherine Clark, the minority whip, not only not whipping against it, but also voting in favor of it. We had Nancy Pelosi, who remains the uh, standard bearer for a lot of the party. Uh, despite her, I think, um, really, I think impressive ability to step back and remain, remain active and present in Congress without, I find really, uh, uh, pretty amazing, uh, I must say. But nevertheless, I think she does retain a very strong voice and people really do look to her as a leader. So my point is, whether she's technically leader or not, uh, in the sort of the clinical terms, she is still somebody who's highly respected. So you did see those ones come through. Right. So I, and I, and I also would note, in terms of retirement, as a general matter, I think we have a problem, I mean it's a societal problem with the inability for, you know, new, younger talent. And by younger I don't even mean like 20 somethings, I mean like people in their 40s and you know, even early 50s being able to come into positions of power. I think that's a societal problem as a general matter that exists almost anywhere apart from entrepreneurship in the tech sector. So I'd flag that. But I'd also point to Debbie Stabenow, who is stepping down as the chair of the Ag Committee this year. Somebody who's been a formidable political actor even though her name is not nationally known. She doesn't get this sort of, uh, you know, street cred, if you will, from the average voter. But she is somebody who has gotten a lot of things done in the charity Ag Committee and is actually stepping down and retiring this year. So I would just point out that it's as usual, as always with these things, it's not monolithic. But your points about kind of uh, an older guard of folks, as a general matter running things, I think is a fair one. Nobody controls American voters. People like to say they do, but they don't. The American voters vote how they're going to vote and you get the converse that you get. And so I want to go back to. The last thing I want to say on this is uh, remembering the uh, yes, I agree with you. The now infamous 2022 set of the dinner and then the lunch that we had. Someone called it the Sam Bankman fried drive by where a bunch of us were talking policy and Sam sort of showed up for five minutes or whatever and then bailed out. And uh, it was Very. It's a bizarre move, I must say. But at that, at one of those things, the question came up, okay, how are we preparing for the red wave? So everyone might remember going back to 22, which is. Feels like a generation ago, but it was not that long ago. There was this sense. And this was coming, by the way, not just from crypto policy people. It was coming from, like, the broader, you know, intelligentsia around this stuff, right? Like the, the Nate Silvers and the whatnots as well, saying it was going to be this massive red wave. And I actually put my hand up and said, well, you know, what happens if there's not a red wave? Uh, and I was really like, the pitying looks I was given in that room, okay. And I must say, the victory lap I privately, internally did when we turned out to be right, and we wound up with a mixed Congress again, Democratic Senate, House Republicans. You just never know until the votes are counted. You don't know how these things are going to go until the votes are in at the end of the day. And I will say this, as somebody who spent a lot of time trying to get votes for fit21, we thought at some point, and I think you and I even, I think, uh, a group of us were texting about this, like, how many Democrats do we think are going to vote for this thing? Someone told me, sheila, you're lucky if you get 30. And we got 71, as you know. And the point of that is just to say you don't know until people are forced to vote, number one, until they're actually called to vote, you don't really know what their position is. So they're going to say all kinds of blah, blah, blah. But the truth is in the vote, and that's true in Congress, and it's true of American voters or voters in general. And so to me, I feel like recognition of that in my role is I'm going to have to work with the Congress that I get, whoever that winds up being. Relationship maintenance is important. And as you say, everyone has a role to play. But I see it as those of us who are full time in policy. And Tom Emmer said this, right? Tom Emmer gave up and gave a speech, uh, in Austin where he himself, Tom Emmer, one of the biggest supporters and people who understand this technology deeply, stood up and said in front of a giant room of crypto people, I would say the crypto glorati, if you will, that being bipartisan was crucial and a really, really important thing to do. So I'M just curious how you think about, in the context of that, how you think about your position, your role and the role, I guess, of, of overt partisanship. Even if, Even if, as you say, which is something I don't think comes across in your social media, even if, as you say, that's just for one election cycle, the role of extreme partisanship. In a time when everything feels 50, 50, the country is pretty much centrist. Uh, when you look at polling again outside of crypto, and it's tough to know in the coin flip, how are any of these things going to play out?

Speaker C: Well, you guys know how highly I think of myself, but I certainly don't represent the entire industry. Right. So I think crypto as an industry will be bipartisan regardless of what I say individually. And I do agree with you, Sheila, and with, uh, so many of my other friends, uh, that I've spent the last few years in D.C. with and gotten to know, um, particularly those that are on the progressive flank, that um, it is the job of the quote, unquote, crypto lobby, um, to work with Congress in general and to be bipartisan. I just view that it's my job to make sure that Congress is Republican at this point. So, um, we're all playing our role, um, and I'm going to continue to help do that. I am curious though, um, how many votes you thought we were going to get? Chile in the fifth? 21.

Speaker B: Yeah, I thought we were going to cross 50. I was quite confident. I didn't say it out loud because under promise right over deliver. Um, but that's where I thought we'd get. And 71 was a surprise even for me.

Speaker C: Um, I think we would have gotten 15 to 20 if it weren't for President Trump's timing, uh, um, and how, um, elevated this issue became in D.C. over the course of May. And I know you and I are going to disagree on that. And that's not, and that's not to diminish the work that you or anyone else has done in terms of educating folks and making sure that this is an issue that, um, progressives, you know, Democrats from anywhere in the blue spectrum, they need to understand this stuff and they need to be capable of, um, defending their positions and their votes and doing so in a way that's not immediate, consistent with their values, uh, you know, just, uh, around investor protection and inclusion and all those things. I understand all of that. Um, I just don't think. And we're never going to be able to prove the, the, you know, the um, causality wouldn't exist. But I mean, I think if you were, and maybe there will be polling about this, but I think if you looked at the prediction markets or if you just pulled, um, the crypto lobby writ large, uh, before, uh, you know, during, during the month of April, how do you think that these votes are going to unfold? You know, the private conversations were that fit 21 was going to have a tough time getting as many uh, votes as SAB121, which actually had some bank, um, support and some air cover. And that was about 21 Dems, I believe. And so that was kind of the bogey was, can we get 15 to 20? And then as soon as the political pressure started rising, uh, throughout the month of May and the contrast became so acute and Mark Cuban started yelling about Gary Gensler is going to cost President Biden the White House. And Fred Wilson was working his angles and Mike and everybody, I think on the blue team was doing a great job of converting, um, that side of the aisle. But I think there was probably a 40 or 50 vote swing just based on raw, ah, political power and this being elevated as an issue. Now having said that, again, we're never going to agree on the causality there. But what I do think is important is that we are able to leverage that moment in time to get 71 and that should open things up for next year regardless of how the elections unfold. I just happen to think that we will have even more leverage to get that number from 71 to 200 if there are real political consequences from those who have been against us the last few years.

Speaker B: It's all a huge ecosystem, right. And so every lever matters. I actually think that Majority Leader Schumer voting the way he did on SAB was, was the thing that gave Democrats the signal that they could do it. And you could argue 10 ways to Sunday whether or not, you know, this is going to be, this was about Trump or not. I don't think it was. I think it was. I think that was largely irrelevant to that decision. Um, that being said, I think, you know, again, for two years Democrats were learning about the reasons why there was something here that could, uh, they need a reason, like people need a reason to vote a certain way, right? At the end of the day they need a reason. And the reason that they pick is going to be a myriad of factors. But I can tell you a lot of the folks that voted of the 71, largely irrelevant in these races, they are safe blue state Democrats, uh, who are in no danger of losing an election, who don't really need a ton more funding in their campaigns, you know, et cetera. It wasn't about politics or elections. It was really about what is the right thing to do here. And I think we have to give a lot of credit. And I want to take a moment to really just shout out congressional staffers, um, you know, Patrick McHenry's staff, GT Thompson's staff, Richie Torres's staff, Wiley Nichols staff. These folks were really going around, and in parallel to those of us who do this work, who focus on this work, were also going around and really talking to their colleagues and having the members talk to their members and all of that. So a lot of this comes from their understandings about the bill, what's in it, what does it do, what does it not do. The compromises that were made and the sausage that was made, as it were, you know, for a good two years for that bill kind of came to market. So, uh, again, just to recall that, like, the original versions of Fit21 were around in 22, and at that, and there's been just a tremendous amount of conversation about it with a lot of people engaging on it. So, like I say, this is extraordinarily complicated. Uh, there is never one reason that things move the way they move. It is always the result of all the things happening all the time, which is, again, why policy is. I will just say this on behalf of my team. I think it's the most complicated job because it is, it is so subtle. And when you're doing it really, really well, a lot of times your efforts are invisible because, uh, that's the point. It's not about who did what. It's about the outcome. And so here to your point, I will agree with you that the 71 outcome was phenomenal. Uh, there's no question that everything from, you know, you are on stage at Mar a Lago, the incredible, the unbelievable 24 7amount of work my team was doing, et cetera, all of that was relevant. And I also agree with you that the hope is that we can increase that number so that this becomes not a wedge issue, which it should not be, but it becomes a post partisan issue. Right? It should be. Justin Slaughter and I read an op ed where we said being against crypto should be like being against a toaster oven or a microwave. It should just be like a ridiculous stance to take. Can't be against a technology. It doesn't make any sense. And we have to get either back to or move towards that place. And I think that that is actually the goal.

Speaker C: I do want to pull on the thread because I think it goes to some of my rhetoric, Sheila, which I know people can disagree with the tone and the tactics, um, but I want to get to the substance of what I believe um, to be true. And one of the reasons that I believe that the Trump campaign is earnest and not just pandering, but actually legitimately interested in this tech, uh, and why I think the Democrats are fundamentally um, going to have a tough time getting um, comfortable with it. And it comes down to the fact that I think if the Constitution was up for a vote today, I don't think Democrats would ratify it with the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 10th amendment tact. Um, I just think that it's fundamentally at odds with where the center of the party is right now. And if you look at the values that this technology espouses and kind of what it enshrines in global finance, code is speech or code is law. We can quibble, quabble about like whether that's a good thing or not, but that is kind of First Amendment adjacent. You know, crypto is as you know, financial defense tech I think is, is very legitimate if you think about people that are unbanked or people that are politically exposed. If you look at the fourth Amendment and privacy issues, I think there's ah, a major issue with the neoconservative movement and crypto privacy. But I also think that it is more or less universal on the left, um, outside of the exception and kind of the old classical liberals like Ron Wyden, who helped ensure that there was a free and open Internet in the 90s. I think on the Fifth Amendment side, you know, due process, uh, there's a lot of folks on the, on the right in the country that you know, basically think that that's been thrown out the window in the last few weeks. And then uh, in terms of the 10th, I think that you know, we see the majority of the disagreement in um, uh, unstable coin legislation for instance, revolve around what are the state's rights versus the federal rights. And you're kind of at an impasse because Democrats, uh, will not allow for stable coins that are not regulated by the Fed, even if they're kind of state issued. Um, so essentially you have this tension between um, folks that believe in a decentralization of power and uh, one party states like California that look a lot more like uh, Communist China politically than they do the rest of the U.S. um, and that's just borne out in the numbers, um, and the voting track records, uh, over the course of the last couple of decades. So I know that's not necessarily a popular thing to say, um, and again, you can't really prove the alternative. But, um, that is, I think the position, um, that I feel pretty strongly about and I don't project that onto any individual Democrat. But it is, um, the position and where I believe, believe the majority of the party is, um, in terms of its ethos right now. And that's why to me this is a little bit bigger than just crypto. Because if the US Goes the wrong direction on this, it is going to be symptomatic of a very dark future, in my opinion.

Speaker A: So when I hear that, first of all, I'm going to just try to get you guys, you guys listen to the two of you and you're doing a lot of inside beltway conversations about policy and so forth. I want you to get to the emotional piece of this, this because I actually think it's really important because I don't think that politics exists anymore outside of the theater. That is social media. Right. And that, that is indeed a very emotional place because people, this is an incredibly polarized electorate. And um, I think that it's important for us to focus on that because this is why I think single issue voting, that you, as you put it, Ryan, you want to put Republicans in the House to fix crypto. The real problem with that is that if you take a Democrat's position and I'm going to put my own politics out there and say I am yet one of the many people in crypto is who is of the left. Um, and I would argue that there are loads of Democrats in the House who are as well have seen them vote this way. But either way, that Trump is dangerous and he's dangerous for reasons that I would say are challenging to the Constitution, the, that you rightfully want to support. You don't even need to go into why that is a, that's a fairly obvious statement to make. But I would argue, you know, you called yourself a libertarian and I think that's, that's, you know, a clearly clear description of yourself. But I remember meeting you as well in those early days and you having fairly social liberal positions, and I presume you probably still hold them. I don't know what your positions on abortion, immigration rights and so forth are, but those issues to me have always been fairly consistent with a crypto mindset of talking truth to power and essentially recognizing the rights of the minority. And so forth. And Trump in so many ways embodies the sort of antagonistic attack on all of that. Therefore, I suppose, and you can address that. But I'd also like to address this idea. How do you feel about the idea that there is always going to be collateral damage, particularly in a moment like this when the electorate is so polarized, it's a single issue vote, uh, on one party, that there is actually potentially greater harm being done to all the other institutions. Whether it's crypto or not, it's part of this.

Speaker C: So I'll answer some of that straight, um, some of that at a later date and then some of that, um, I'll defer on, um, mostly because, look, as an operating CEO, I should not be commenting on some of these explosive cultural war issues. I've already.

Speaker A: Ryan, you tweeted the other day that people should buy guns when, uh, you know,

Speaker C: are you making my point? The Democrats don't believe in the second Amendment.

Speaker A: Buying guns is not just a sec, that is a call to arms. Um, that is the way it's going to be read again in the environment of Twitter, in a polarizing environment, a statement tweet like that is going to be read not just about a second amendment statement, that it's going to be

Speaker C: a cultural self defense in a well regulated, uh, militia that is legal, um, and is constitutionally protected. I think that's totally fair game because of how uh, obvious it is that parts of the justice system are being weaponized against one particular team today. Um, but you know, I'm not going to comment on all the individual cultural, um, war issues and social issues. You are right. I do consider myself socially liberal and some respects not at the extreme, um, that the left flank, uh, today I think has, has taken things. But, um, I would say if you planted me into the 90s or the 2000s or uh, even the 2010s, I would probably be considered very safely socially liberal. The truth is one of the most explosive issues and the one that Sheila was ultimately right about, um, in terms of the, the lack of red wave has, uh, been around women's rights. And I can tell you with just about certainty that this is not an issue that the Democrats want solved this year because it's one of their only political winners. And anyone that's in Washington D.C. knows that this is true. I've actually proposed to several liberal members of Congress. Why don't you introduce compromise legislation that would federally legalize first trimester abortions? They won't do it. They won't even touch it, because they would rather fight about it on the off chance that in 10 years and 15 years, or with a full replacement of the Supreme Court, that they could ultimately overturn that and restore Roe versus Wade. I live in the real world, and I would like some of these issues to be resolved at a federal level and have some unification of the country instead of just a perpetual fight. And it's why I haven't shied away from some of the fights that I've taken to on Twitter, because I do believe what I believe on that particular social issue that is explosive. And you know what? My position, if it were actually put into law, would be the entire Overton window of that particular policy in Europe today. It would improve the situation for 50% of the country. 50% of the states would be improved, essentially. No states would see a diminishment of the current rights that women have on that particular issue, that they won't do it. It won't get introduced. Because if they lost that issue, they would lose this election by 200 electoral votes. They would lose 7 or 8, and they'd lose the House.

Speaker B: Well, I mean, let's be real. If you're, if we're going to be real, let's be real. Because it's certainly not the Democrats who are the only ones politicizing that issue. Okay. I mean, it was a, it was a Mike Pence, uh, staple in terms of wanting to get that done. And you have a number of folks, um, on the Republican side of the House who would not accept that, who only want a total and total ban. So, uh, you know, if we're gonna talk about it more specifically.

Speaker C: So I think, and I don't agree with that. I don't agree.

Speaker B: I'm not saying you do, but I'm saying to kind of put that squarely in the laps of Democrats, I think, is a bit of a false thing to do, because that issue arose, first of all, it was pretty settled law. And let's not forget viability was threshold for Roe v. Wade. So what Roe v. Wade actually offered is really what you just said pretty much is how it was being interpreted. And the Republicans are the ones who pulled it all the way, you know, to a different place. So I think you got, if you're going to assign blame, you got to be. You got to think that all the way through, through. And look at the history of what we had. We had a very well settled law passed in 1973 in Roe v. Wade, established by Supreme Court. And then deliberately, justices were appointed by Former President Trump to change that. They did change that. And now you have the food fight that we have. It was. It was a settled issue, and it was largely exactly what you just said. The reason most Americans believe that about first trimester versus second versus third is because of Roe v. Wade, because that is what it laid out with the Constitution, viability. So, like I say, it went from a position that was pretty well settled with, with folks kind of screaming on either side in the margins, to something that now every state feels like they can create their own bespoken custom regime around it, which I do not believe is the right answer as big as fundamentals, women's rights to the points Michael's raising. So if we're going to have that conversation, we just have it all the way through and look at the history starting back in the 60s.

Speaker A: Because I don't want to dig into the weeds. I want. I want to get back to this higher level, because I think it's really important that we do so. Right.

Speaker C: Hold on.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker C: Okay. You got to understand that I'm literally an operating CEO that's being maligned as, like, someone that is going to try to support this particular policy. You brought it up. It was the first one you brought up. It's the first thing Democrats will bring up. It's the first thing the bullies in Silicon Valley finance will bring up when they're trying to bully people into silence. And I just told you not only why I disagree with that, but what my proposed solution would be. And the fact that the Democrats that I've approached proactively with this won't touch it because it will lose them elections, that is indisputable going forward. I'm not going to talk about what's going backwards. I'm only, as I do every single day when we're talking about, you know, the challenges that arise at work only considering what are the forward solutions, not what are the backward ones. And the longer that people are stuck on what happened historically and, and who's responsible and who's to blame, it's a path to nowhere. It's a path to really, really bad problems in this country in this election and beyond this election. And I think cooler heads have to prevail, and those are the fights that we actually need to prioritize versus you know, whatever stigma you're going to, like, apply to folks that are supporting a candidate who is clearly better on crypto, clearly, indisputably better on crypto and would be better for crypto. Um, and, um. I don't think it's.

Speaker A: I personally don't see how that is obvious, to be honest. I don't. I just. I see that you, you know, this candidate doesn't really necessarily understand it, for one. But, but putting all that aside, I think, look, the, the issue to me as well is again, this polarization. As you know, I read a book with Frank McCourt, whom you interviewed on stage at Mainnet, and, you know, one of the. One of the theses that we. We really ran with is how social media as a force and an algorithmic structure that is driving people into these, uh, polarizing differences has infected our politics. That, in fact, it is much easier to get votes and recognition and essentially a political brand by running with an extreme position. And so I don't quite understand how, if you're calling for bipartisanship and you want to get to this situation where we're less polarized, you might be talking to Democrats behind the scenes on suggesting certain things about abortion. But Ryan, in the public sphere, two bit idiot is as a brand is rising on the basis of taking extreme positions, I think is just indisputable. That's a huge. And as you said earlier on, it's part of how tokens is a valuable thing for you. Now, how do you reconcile.

Speaker C: Name one extreme position that you are not projecting on to me?

Speaker A: I mean, again, I would. The codes to arms. What? The call to arms the other day when you said, go buy guns. I can't remember exactly what it was. I think it was in Biden.

Speaker C: Bitcoin.

Speaker A: Yeah, guns buy Bitcoin. It was. It was in the context of responding to a Democratic position that it was literally. This is. This is the era of January 6th. Right. So anything like that, I think is an extreme statement. You can't possibly take that out of context.

Speaker C: This is like.

Speaker A: I don't think that many people would disagree with me.

Speaker C: Ryan, all these conversations devolve

Speaker B: because it's

Speaker A: a critical part of our political system. It may be frustrating to you that they devolve in this, but our political situation right now is a function of a dysfunctional social media. Right. So inevitably, we have to face that elephant in the room, which is to say, how do we all bring some level of concert and collaboration and compromise into our conversations?

Speaker C: There's something like 100 million people that own guns in the country. And, you know, first of all. And second of all, you know, like, if that's the most extreme position that you can find for me, which is literally my point about if the Bill of Rights were to be codified Today, you know, 50% of the. Of the elected representatives probably wouldn't go for at least the second Amendment and others. But, um, you know, like, you can't have it both ways.

Speaker A: Uh, buying guns is not supporting. It's an act of accidents. That's got to do with whether or not stand up for the second Amendment. M. Those two are completely different things. You're literally telling people to arm themselves. Right.

Speaker B: I. I also think, Ryan, there's a, There's a. What you meant and how it comes across. And you're aware of this. I mean, you're a, You're a context. Professional. Okay. There's a context to this. And I think that. I think that's what Michael is. I don't want to put words with. I think that's what Michael's trying to say is there's a. There's a context within which your actual positions on these issues might actually be middle of the road. Road. But the context in which the tweets are being received, I think is a. Is an important part of the soup and the way that they're being taken by some. But let's, but let's switch away from social issues because I think we can go all day, um, and it doesn't really matter, frankly, what any of us think on this. We're going to vote the way we're going to vote for the candidate we think is the right candidate. And you know, I, I think those views are. Have been expressed publicly by all of us outside of this, you know, of this conversation. Uh, and I do not think are going to change. So I do think there's something you said about tactics as well. Right. And so one thing I do want to get into and address a little bit is, uh, this kind of, uh, the. Well, I don't know if it's a policy, but the position that you have around calling out very specific people on Twitter, um, by name. Right. And basically, uh, either challenging them or calling them out or trying to take them to task. M. And look, to some extent, I think people who choose to be in the public sphere, there's an element of that that is part of the nature of the beast for other people, I think, who are not public facing, who are just doing their jobs, ah, et cetera. Um, I think there's a difference there. But I'm curious just about your sort of the approach you've taken to this of like, challenging people, uh, in very, um, occasionally very dramatic ways, uh, online. A, how's that going? And B, what is the, what are, what is it that you feel your, uh, uh, goal is in doing that?

Speaker C: I just think that most of the bullying comes from the left, not the right. And, you know, this is not the consensus position or the consensus tactics to actually be outspoken when you're in a vulnerable position, which is as an operating CEO. Right. It's not popular to be involved in any of these culture war clashes. But the folks that I have punched up and hit hard have been those that have either initiated it from positions of power like the Node Khoslas of the world. He called Trump supporters valueless, um, and called us assholes. And this, that and the other thing, the folks like, um, I'm not going to name all the names. People can follow my Twitter, know kind of who, which fights I'm picking, um, and with whom and why and when. But these are not weak men and weak women that I'm, I'm, I'm taking to task, as you put it. They are the most powerful people in society and they're trying to stifle dissent. And by the way, they're trying to stifle dissent for a community that they are on the wrong side of politically. So instead of engaging on the issue, what they will do is basically ignore how bad they are on this issue. Ignore the fact that I might have to move my family offshore if I want to continue to participate in this industry in the way that I have in the past decade if, uh, Biden is reelected. And I just need to gloss over that and pretend that that isn't a factor. And by the way, if you don't do it, you're a racist, you're a misogynist, you don't care about the women on your team, you don't care about this. You're inciting people to viol bull. I'm finished with it.

Speaker A: How is it. I don't know how it's not. But anyway, the single issue vote, uh, concept itself, right? Do you, do you, do you believe that crypto for you is everything? And I can see a strong argument that in fact, I mean, it's the most. Wherever comes what may. And at the end of the day, if we, if this industry thrives, technology moves forward, we will actually get to the promised land somehow. And that may be one way to view this. But do you, do you literally hold a position that you don't really care whatever happens on every other non crypto issue, or do you actually also think that Trump is fine with all that?

Speaker C: No. No, I think it is one of the most important positions right now. And I think it is one of the most important technologies and I've backed it up for over a decade.

Speaker A: I agree with that.

Speaker C: I think separating, um, or at least providing a check on state, um, surveilled and state issued digital assets which are digital dollars or digital fiat at this point. It is important given how irresponsible our central banks and our leaders have been not just in the US but worldwide with respect to debt financing and just the history of money and how disruptive it is when you have high inflation economies or not, uh, access to the rule of law and you have wealth seizures and things like that. I also think that uh, crypto is going to be incredibly, incredibly important as defense tech against, um, some of the really gnarly potential applications of AI. Um, I think AI and crypto are yin and yang and the digital uh, scarcity that's afforded to users that actually build in and kind of leverage crypto solutions, um, that is going to be one of the shields against out of control AI. Whether you're talking about IP protections, whether you're talking about authentication, identity, a lot of things that you've written about, Michael, um, property rights. This is really important stuff. And I think um, if you don't have that or if it's controlled by a state that you are just pretend, you're supposed to pretend to trust. I mean, you have to realize when we play back the tape here, President Trump wins everything that you've just defended about the current activity of the state. You would be shouting from the mountaintops how out of control and fascist the Trump administration was if they were doing the same thing to their political opponents next year. So if you extrapolate that to policy in general, what powers do we want the government to have? This is a country that was founded on small government principles and we've gotten so wildly out of touch with that, that a technology that is actually helping move us closer in that direction is important. And it is my number 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 issue because of that reason, not just because it feeds my family.

Speaker A: Okay, look, I, I can, we can sort of land in a similar place there, right? I mean, I think we all certainly understand the power of this technology and its importance from a societal advantage that I do think. I agree with you. It can put us in a position to address all these concerns and it's vital that governments, not just here, but all around the world, recognize its importance. And that's what all of us are dedicating our lives to really and have done so for the better part of a decade. Um, it's just, there's so much at stake. Right. I think of my family and I think of, you know, all of the, the people who will be impacted by, by this particular election. And I'm, you know, it's going to be a difficult one. So on that note, let's, let's, let's, let's agree on those principles. Let's, uh, let's sort of see how this all plays out. Thank you, Ryan, for being, you know, a gracious guest. Thank you, Sheila, for being very well controlled in your questions and answers as well.

Speaker C: I'll make, I'll make one promise, Michael, to you and Sheila, If President Trump is reelected, I will make sure that I defend your families from prison in the gulags, but it puts you in

Speaker A: charge of the NSA or something. What position are you going to be taking?

Speaker B: I would love a promise, Ryan, that you'll, that you won't dox people because it makes my job harder and those in Congress. But, you know, if, uh, if it's a protection from a gulag, I was. I suppose I'll take what I can get.

Speaker A: I'm intrigued to know which, which. Yeah. Which cabinet position you're actually, uh, interested in taking, Ryan. We'll see.

Speaker C: Single issue.

Speaker A: Okie dokie. All right, well, thank you both. Thank you all for listening. Thank you to Michelle Musso, who tirelessly works behind the scenes to make this podcast get out every week. Come back again next week for another edition of Money Reimagined. That's all we have time for for now. See you.