How Crypto Fixes U.S. Debt | Fmr Speaker Paul Ryan

It’s been a while since former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan was in the public spotlight, but in this episode, we discover his surprising stance: he’s bullish on crypto! In fact, he believes that crypto could be crucial in staving off a U. S. debt crisis. We dive deep into his core argument and explore a range of related topics, such as: - America’s debt crisis - The potential loss of the U. S. reserve currency status - How crypto could help the U. S. stay ahead of China - Why the left is anti-crypto - Crypto under a Trump vs. Kamala’s administration This episode highlights how crypto is becoming an essential issue in Washington. Tune in for a comprehensive look at crypto’s growing influence on U. S. politics and beyond. ------ BANKLESS SPONSOR TOOLS: 🐙KRAKEN | MOST-TRUSTED CRYPTO EXCHANGE https://k.xyz/bankless-pod-q2 ⁠ 🦄UNISWAP | BROWSER EXTENSION https://bankless.cc/uniswap ⚖️ ARBITRUM | SCALING ETHEREUM ⁠https://bankless.cc/Arbitrum 🛞MANTLE | MODULAR LAYER 2 NETWORK https://bankless.cc/Mantle 🌐 OBOL | STAKE ON DVs, SCALE ETHEREUM https://bankless.cc/obol 🗣️TOKU | CRYPTO EMPLOYMENT https://bankless.cc/toku ------ ✨ Mint the episode on Zora ✨ https://zora.co/collect/zora:0x0c294913a7596b427add7dcbd6d7bbfc7338d53f/55 ------ TIMESTAMPS 0:00 Intro 5:11 Why Politics Are Messier 7:36 Being Speaker of the House 11:27 Paul’s WSJ Stablecoin Op-Ed 16:47 Paul’s Intro to Crypto 18:54 U. S. Debt Crisis 26:05 Losing Reserve Currency 28:29 CBDCs vs. Stablecoins 38:06 KYC Stablecoins & Legislation 43:27 Anti-Crypto Army 46:16 Is the Left Anti-Crypto? 51:03 Right vs. Left Crypto Adoption 55:50 Kamala vs. Trump 58:49 Advice to Bankless Listeners 1:01:18 Closing & Disclaimers ------ RESOURCES Paul Ryan https://x.com/speakerryan WSJ Article https://www.wsj.com/articles/stablecoins-could-stave-off-a-us-debt-crisis-china-digital-currency-c491d717 ------ Not financial or tax advice. See our investment disclosures here: https://www.bankless.com/disclosures ⁠

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:03Ryan Sean Adams?

  Welcome to Bankless, where today we explore how crypto can stave off a US debt crisis. This is Ryan Chon Adams. I'm here with David Hoffman, and we're here to help you become more bankless. Now, it's been a while since Paul Ryan has been in the public spotlight, let's say, but it turns out that this former Speaker of the House is bullish on crypto. In fact, he says in today's episode, crypto is necessary to stave off a US debt crisis. We get into the core of that argument, and we also talk about a few other things like America's debt crisis and why it matters, the loss of the US reserve currency status and what that means, how crypto can help the US win against China, why the left has

• 0:45Ryan Sean Adams?

  been so anti-crypto, and how we can make crypto bipartisan, and crypto in a Trump White House versus a Kamala Harris White House.

• 0:53David Hoffman?

  I think this episode is emblematic of how crypto is becoming such a big deal for almost anyone in Capitol Hill, anyone related to governance. Paul Ryan, I did not know that he was a crypto person. No one knew that he was a crypto person until he wrote this op-ed about the potential of alignment between the United States and stablecoins back in June of this year. And I think this is slowly emblematic of how every single politician is going to ultimately have to have an opinion about crypto. And here today on the episode, you're going to hear about Paul Ryan's opinion about stablecoins and what we can do with them in the United States. So let's go ahead and get right into that episode. But first, a moment to talk about some of these fantastic sponsors that make this show possible, especially

• 1:34David Hoffman?

  where a place where you can buy, or trade, or sell, or send stablecoins, Kraken. If you do not have an account with Kraken, consider clicking the link in the show notes so you can start with Kraken today. If you want a crypto trading experience backed by world-class security and award-winning support teams, then head over to Kraken, one of the longest-standing and most-secure crypto platforms in the world. Kraken is on a journey to build a more accessible, inclusive, and fair financial system, making it simple and secure for everyone, everywhere, to trade crypto. Kraken's intuitive trading tools are designed to grow with you, empowering you to make your first or your 100th trade in just a few clicks. And there's an award-winning client support ...team available 24/7 to help you along the way, along with a whole range of educational guides, articles and videos. With products and features like Kraken Pro and Kraken NFT Marketplace

• 2:19David Hoffman?

  and a seamless app to bring it all together, it's really the perfect place to get your complete crypto experience. So check out the simple, secure and powerful way for everyone to trade crypto, whether you're a complete beginner or a seasoned pro. Go to kraken.com/banklist to see what crypto can be. Not investment advice, crypto trading involves risk of loss. The Uniswap extension is here. The self custody wallet created by the most trusted team in DeFi, Uniswap Labs, designed to make swapping feel effortless. This extension lives in your browser's sidebar, letting you swap, sign transactions and send or receive crypto without ever losing your place on the internet. Plus, with human readable transaction messages, you'll always know exactly what you're signing. Navigate a multi-chain world effortlessly with support for 11 chains like Ethereum Mainnet, Base, Arbitrum and Optimism.

• 3:02David Hoffman?

  No more chain switching or token importing. All your assets are right where you need them to be. The Uniswap extension is designed to level up your swapping experience with other Uniswap Labs products as well. Easily onboard to the extension using the Uniswap mobile wallet to begin managing your assets across platforms and take advantage of smooth seamless synergies with the Uniswap web app. So go and download the Uniswap extension today by clicking the link in the show notes. Just another way Uniswap is helping you swap smarter. The Obol Collective is up and running and is maybe one of the most important collectives that you've never heard of. Obol is bringing distributed validators, or DVs, to the Ethereum staking stack. Distributed validators allow multiple parties of people running multiple nodes to create a single virtual Ethereum validator. Together, this makes participating in Ethereum consensus

• 3:45David Hoffman?

  more accessible, more affordable and more inclusive. It is a strict improvement to the Ethereum staking tech stack. With collaboration from Lido, EtherFi, Eigenlayer and 50 other entities and thousands of individuals, the Obol Collective is working to scale and decentralize Ethereum using DVs. And now you can get involved. Introducing the Obol Contributions Program. Visit obol.org/banklist to stake on DVs, either through a partner staking protocol or at home. Earn access to future governance and ownership in Obol while contributing to retroactive funding for projects that are actively decentralizing Ethereum. Your opportunity to secure inclusion in one of the most important projects working to scale Ethereum's foundation for future growth. Visit obol.org/banklist to get started.

• 4:28David Hoffman?

  That's O B O L dot org slash bankless.

• 4:31Ryan Sean Adams?

  Bankless Nation, very excited to introduce you to Paul Ryan. He served in Congress as the 54th Speaker of the House from 2015 to 2019. So he got to see two presidents in office, first Obama and then Donald Trump. And more recently, and I think of interest to Bankless listener today, he wrote this fantastic op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, talking about stable coins, talking about crypto, how these technologies could help stave off US debt problems. So we're obviously going to talk about that. We're also going to get his takes on crypto legislation. I think he knows a thing or two about how the legislative process works and the 2024 election. Paul, welcome to Bankless.

• 5:09Speaker 02

  Hey, Ryan, David, thanks for having me. Great to be with you guys.

• 5:12Ryan Sean Adams?

  Somehow, since you left, politics have got has just like gotten even messier and more divisive. I don't even know how that's possible. What's your take on why? Just at the highest level here?

• 5:22Speaker 02

  The internet. Easy, easy answer. Digitalization has changed the way we get our information. It has brought people down rabbit holes where they are basically hanging out in their information biased, you know, cul-de-sac where the algorithm is pumping back to you your bias, your beliefs, and it's playing people off of each other. So polarization is an easier sell in the digital marketplace. And that's and you basically take moral relativism, which is alive and well in society, you add an accelerant like digitization to it, and therein lies, you know, polarized politics. I think it explains a lot of it, not all of it, but a lot of it.

• 6:02Ryan Sean Adams?

  Do you think like, what's the solution to this? You think it works itself out over time? Do you believe in kind of free market solution?

• 6:07Speaker 02

  I think, you know, we're going, you know, we're in a new era where most of us, you know, I mean, I grew up without the internet. Yet I'm 54 years old. So we're just, it's a new era of human development. We'll find our sweet spot, we'll stabilize. But right now, we're in the beginnings of this. And so I think. I think the world and the country will become polarized, fatigued. Hopefully, they'll think that problems going unsolved are no longer, you know, good. And that they'll demand, you know, political leaders that get stuff done, that solve problems. And I think people get sick of hating each other and they'll find new ways. And I think reviving civil society, the space between ourselves and our government, where we actually live our lives in reality, can be revised. And I think that can help as an antidote against sort of this digital polarization that we have.

• 6:52Speaker 02

  I think it will get better. Um, I think, you know, it will because it has to. And I think, I think, again, stuff not getting done, the debt is a big issue of mine. Spent my whole career on it. Um, that issue is going to have to get solved. Hopefully, we do it ahead of, ahead of schedule and ahead of an ugliness, but it could get ugly as well. That's one of the reasons why I talk about stable coins.

• 7:13Ryan Sean Adams?

  Yeah, maybe some of this ugliness like, like will be with us for, for this election cycle. But hopefully it does get better. And you mentioned your age, which might actually be a relevant factor here because, um, you, you mentioned yourself being sort of, you're like older, but actually it's super young. With respect, like, you know, relative to US politicians. And maybe, maybe that factors into your, your sentiment on, on crypto and why you're bullish. But before we get there too, I just want to ask you about sort of being inside the belly of the beast. Like, what's it like to be Speaker of the House? Is that, I mean, it seems like a really hard job. And I, I think that comes into play as we're, we're trying to understand in the crypto community, how legislation gets done, actually. And that seems like one of the toughest jobs that exists in government.

• 7:58Speaker 02

  It is, it's, I mean, after the president's, I think it's the hardest job. The president's harder because just the weight of responsibility solely rests on your shoulders for your branch of government. The speaker is the head of the legislative branch of government. Another separate coeagle branch of government. Um, what's the job like? You basically, I came into the job as a policy person, very different. There's two tracks in Congress, a policy track or a leadership track. People who want to be in elected leadership run for, you know, conference chair, deputy whip, whip, majority leader, speaker. That wasn't my bit. I was chair of the budget committee, then I was chair of the ways and means committee. Economics is my background. When we had a speaker turmoil, I was drafted into the job because I was the consensus candidate.

• 8:42Speaker 02

  And so I took the job, a job I wasn't looking for. So I got this job very, very differently than most people get the job. As a result, I looked at the job a little differently, which was I wanted to decentralize power in Congress. I like empowering committees and committee chairs who are experts in their committee jurisdiction to write the policy in those areas. That's fairly non-typical for leadership who typically, not necessarily today with Mike Johnson, but typically want to consolidate power. Long story short, the job of the Speaker of the House is to identify political objectives. What are your objectives in law writing? What are your objectives, you know, politically winning elections?

• 9:23Speaker 02

  And then you move the entire institution to reach those objectives. What really the speaker's job is do is there's laws you've got to pass because of deadlines. There's laws you want to pass because of your policy priorities. You have to marshal the institution to work toward those ends. So with Web three, with crypto, with stable coins, with market structures, all these bills, I would say, and I don't want to get too out of your questions. It's going to happen because it has to happen because Web three is here. The question for Americans is, are we going to do it here or is it going to just be done overseas? And given that we're the world's, you know, reserve currency, it kind of makes sense. We've got to have a law governing all of this stuff.

• 10:07Speaker 02

  It's just drives me nuts that you've got US dollar denominated stablecoin laws in place, just not in this country, the country that issues the US dollar. So there's an example of a speaker needs to move toward that end, get this stuff done. There's an effort afoot. I think it will eventually get done. But that's an example, just for your audience of what you do as speaker. You have an objective, you've got to move the entire institution toward it. And it's very, very, very different than a parliamentary system, which are like Europe, you know, our parliamentary systems, they're done with their law. Those are faster. In a parliamentary system, you pass one bill and it's done. You know, the prime minister is the head of the party, just like the speaker is in the house.

• 10:51Speaker 02

  And it's one and done, not so in our country. You pass the house, then you pass the senate, then you reconcile those differences, then hopefully the president will be willing to sign it. So three stops along that legislative path, much different, much slower. I would argue it's better because we don't do big things unless we have a lot of consensus in this country. And as a result, we have stayed more tethered to our constitution and its founding principles than, say, other parliamentary democracies. So it's a little frustrating, it's kind of agonizingly slow, but it's really good compared to the other systems, in my opinion.

• 11:28David Hoffman?

  Paul, not terribly long ago, last June, you wrote this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled "Crypto Could Save Off A U.S. Debt Crisis." And it was a focus on stable coins. And it touched on a lot of different talking points about stable coins that us in the industry have been like beating the drum for a good number of years now, mainly just the expansion of dollar dominance, competitiveness with China. And inside of the crypto industry, whenever somebody outside of the crypto industry, especially if somebody with influence, starts saying like our words, starts chanting our chant, and we always kind of like perk up and say, oh, like they've been paying attention. This is, these are nuanced points that you are making about stable coins. I'm wondering just about like the motivation behind writing the op-ed and how long you

• 12:12David Hoffman?

  have been like tapped into the world of stable coins and the crypto industry.

• 12:16Speaker 02

  I, so I spent most of my life in, of my adult life in Congress, I got elected when I was 28. I was always, before that, I was a, I was a staff economic policy analyst, like an economist. I'm not a PhD economist, but I spent my early days in economics, working at think tanks and for a guy named Jack Kemp, who was one of the original supply-side economists. So I believe in supply-side free-market economics. I come from the Austrian sort of Chicago School of Thought, Hayek, Mises, Milton Friedman, the rest. And so that economic school of thought is very pro-crypto from a philosophical ideological standpoint. So that's one point. Second point is, in my time in Congress, my, I was the chair of the Budget Committee,

• 13:01Speaker 02

  I wrote a bunch of budgets back in those days. When I chaired the Budget Committee to balance the budget, pay off the debt, to get us off of the path of a debt crisis where we are now. And when I was Ways and Means Chair, I advanced those goals. The big public policy goal I had, I did not reach, which was, get a debt consolidation plan underway, because I'm very worried about a debt crisis. It's what I spent most of my time on. And so, I do spend my time now that I'm in academia, the think tanks and the private markets, looking at our bond markets, looking at our debt markets, looking at the dollar as reserve currency. It is an enormous privilege that we, the dollar, have the reserve currency status.

• 13:44Speaker 02

  It gives huge advantages to Americans. And so, when I look at this situation, I'm very concerned that A, we can lose dollar dominance because of a lot of things: China, Enbridge, digitization, we're slow on the reforms, and because of our debt. And so, when I take a look at what a debt crisis could look like, you don't have to go far to talk to bond traders and bond market vigilantes. We used to exist as vigilantes, who probably will come back. And the long story about it, and that's why I wanted to write this op-ed, is we need to find more demand for our bills, bonds, or notes, for our treasuries,

• 14:26Speaker 02

  because other sovereigns are reducing their appetite for our treasuries. That is, reducing the dollar's reach into the world. And not only is digitization good for getting the dollar more embedded into the global economy as it digitizes, that's first point. Second point is, stable coins produce a natural new source of demand for our debt that needs to replace decreasing demand by other sovereigns. I just brought the chart up this morning. If stable coins were a country, you take out the Luxembourg and the Caymans out of here, it'd be the 13th largest purchaser of our debt, if it were a sovereign. And that's without having a law. So, my point in writing this op-ed was,

• 15:10Speaker 02

  stable coins are a perfect supplement for demand of US treasuries. Imagine if we go from 139 billion today to trillions, if we actually have a law governing stable coins. That would help. Um, defer a failed treasury auction. When people look at a debt crisis like me that think about it, I could see a situation when, when the Fed is done cutting interest rates. Let's just say after 2026 or whatever that's going to happen. It's not inconceivable that we could have some bond auction failures. That's when the Federal Reserve would then step in, fulfill that auction and then we're monetizing debt, not for monetary policy mechanisms,

• 15:52Speaker 02

  but we're monetizing debt simply for the sake of monetizing debt. That is when you could have the bond market vigilantes reconstitute themselves, have a run of the dollar and you could have a debt crisis on your hands. And so not wanting to see that happen because innocent citizens will get hurt under a debt crisis. That's very bad for the dollar and for our country. Creating new sources of demand for our debt would be a good thing to do. Stablecoins does that. In addition, I think having stablecoins, um, having a law that governs stablecoins so that they're more deployed around the world further deeply embeds the dollar in the global architecture as it's digitizing. Um, there's a whole freedom versus tyranny argument here. We probably should get into that.

• 16:36Speaker 02

  Us versus China and the rest that I think is a big issue that a lot of policymakers just aren't giving enough thought to. That's why I wanted to write sort of an op ed, sort of poking policymakers to get moving on this issue.

• 16:47David Hoffman?

  Do you remember what your first touch point was with like the topics of stablecoins? Did it first come onto your radar as like legislation? Maybe your kids are playing in crypto, like how did you first like discover them?

• 16:59Speaker 02

  It was lunch with Mark Andreessen, um, in 2019. So Mark's an old friend of mine. He's from Wisconsin, Andreessen Horowitz, Mark Andreessen. You know, I spent most of my time in fiscal policy. Uh, I'm a free market supply side, you know, limited government advocate. So Mark and I went to lunch, I want to say maybe a month after I left the speakership, probably February 2019, I'm just guessing. And he said, look, you know fiscal policy, you're a free market guy, but you probably don't know much about crypto. I said, well, I've read about it. It's interesting. I read Satoshi's, Nakamoto's white paper. I thought that was pretty interesting. He said, you need to learn more about crypto because crypto doesn't know government and the people who are interested

• 17:41Speaker 02

  in crypto like me need people like you who are sympathetic to our school of thought and know a lot about government. So I want you to read up on crypto. So he sent me a bunch of stuff to read and got me really intrigued and interested in crypto, actually. So it was really from a conversation with Mark that got me into this. So I just read everything I could. As a result, I spent some time in this space. I'm on the Policy Council Paradigm. You know, Vishal Garg at Over Electric Capital is a very dear friend. So and the Andreessen Horowitz guys I know pretty well. So I spent a little bit of time in this area. Katie Hawn, I've known for many years. And just, I see it as a confluence of the future of money,

• 18:21Speaker 02

  the future. I think Web three is a wonderful thing for society. And I think it's one of the best things you do to preserve liberty and freedom in the 21st century, when we're facing down tyranny, the likes of which China is presenting to the world. So it sort of ticks every box in my mind. Free markets, free people, self determination, privacy, liberty, and economic development and disruption. That is, that is a good thing that provides more prosperity. So that's why I spend a little bit of my time in this space because I think it's, it's, it's really, really interesting.

• 18:54Ryan Sean Adams?

  So I think that was a great, you know, overview of the argument that you made in the ob ed. And I want to take these things maybe one by one and dig into them at another level. So the first is this idea of a, an impending debt crisis that may come, right? And the idea being that a stable coin is more induced demand for treasuries, more induced demand for US bonds, more induced demand for the dollar, and that is good for the US's position as the global reserve currency status. Let's dig into that argument a little bit more. The first is debt crisis. I mean, it's since you left Speaker of the House, US debt has only, you know, like piled on.

• 19:33Ryan Sean Adams?

  Or we haven't hit this crisis point is this and we've been hearing about debt crisis for a very long time. Is this not kind of a Chicken Little type of, you know, debt, debt is happening like, why, why are we in more crisis? And why do you think like 2026 could be a year like, why can't we just ignore this? We've been, we've been under the rug. We've been doing it for 10 years at least.

• 19:54Speaker 02

  It's a really good question and I don't, I hate sounding like Chicken Little. Cause I've been talking about this stuff for more than 10 years, for, you know, 25 years. I think it's because there is going to be an endpoint in which the markets conclude. The Americans don't have the political stuff that it takes to get their debt under control. And therefore they're just going to monetize their debt. If that moment ever comes, then our, we won't deserve to be the reserve currency. We won't be the reserve currency. And then that means our government will debase our currency. What does that mean? That means we will wipe out the savings of people who lived on, who live on our dollars.

• 20:37Speaker 02

  It means that the social safety net that we depend upon, I call it the social contract. The social contract is health and retirement security for all Americans. And a safety net for the poor, in general speaking. And that's something that we agonize and debated over the 20th century. We've come to consensus in the 21st century that we want these things. Nobody running for president is saying, I'm going to get rid of these things. Nobody is. No political party is saying, we're going to shred the social contract. They're all saying, we're going to preserve it. Now we as Republicans have different ways of doing it than they may be Democrats. But we operate under this consensus. We want our social contract.

• 21:16Speaker 02

  Problem is that social contract was written in the 20th century in a way that proves unsustainable in the 21st century. And we're not the only country in the same boat. All the other first world countries have the same problem. Which are demographically based pay as you go programs where current workers pay their taxes to finance the benefits of current retirees. And when these programs grow in cost far faster than your economy or revenues grow, you know, like six to eight percent a year. And you're doubling the amount of consumers retirees on these programs with the retirement of the baby boomers and our birth rates are lower. Therein lies a compounding problem.

• 21:58Speaker 02

  And so, America is leading on this problem, but all the other sovereigns in the first world had the same problem. Japan, Europe, Australia, so on and so forth. So they all have aging baby boomers. They're all going to the debt markets, trying to finance the deficits to make good on this social contract. And because all of that is now starting to happen and our boomers are retired for the most part or retiring, this kind of brings it to a height, to a pivot point, to a denouement. And that is why I think this is different than say, the last 10 years when we were pre-peak retirement.

• 22:38Speaker 02

  At the same time, we have all these debt projections that show our debt is going up like a hockey stick and never coming down because of what I just said. And so, if there comes a moment where the markets conclude, we just aren't going to get our hands around this stuff, we're just going to monetize. That is when we debase. That is when we truly shake the confidence in the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Okay, juxtapose what I just said with the fact that China is on the rise and they're rapidly deploying their digital RMB. They don't like the Swiss system. They don't like the sanctions that come with it. So they're teaming up. I mean, Enbridge is what?

• 23:21Speaker 02

  Hong Kong, China, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and I think Thailand, maybe. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but there are already experiments out there playing with digital money, digital payment rails outside of the dollar-denominated system.

• 23:37Speaker 02

  And, and, and what, what danger that presents to us is twofold. Number one, it means there are, there's digital architecture being designed to circumvent the dollar system, which, which removes our, our status as the rule of reserve currency or challenges it. I don't think anybody else can really replace it, frankly, but, but you see my point. The second problem this presents the world is, um, freedom and liberty versus tyranny and privacy. So if the Chinese are able to hook their client states in the one belt, you know, world up or, or other, other countries up to a digital RMB, it's as if they're going around

• 24:19Speaker 02

  the world offering tyranny in a box to other countries and other dictators. Here's your digital currency with full surveillance power so you can surveil how your population is spending their money. You can control how they spend their money and, oh, by the way, here's your smart city system with a nice surveillance system and all these other things. It is up to us as the largest free country in the world, democracy, republic specifically, to offer the world something better. And to offer the world a digital currency that is complete with our values, freedom, privacy, liberty, self-determination. So I think at an epist- at a epistemological level, meaning philosophical level, and from

• 25:04Speaker 02

  just a plumbing of the, of the global financial system and the ability for us to be able to borrow money at an affordable rate to finance our, our social safety net and our social contract, this is really, really important and all of it is under duress because we're not showing the world that we're going to get our house in order, that we're going to get our fiscal house in order, that we're going to pay our bills, that we're going to pay all our bills, bonds and notes back without monetizing our debt. I still think it's not too late to do that. We can do that. I regret nobody running for president is proposing that we do that. But I still do believe at the end of the day that we can get it together. Uh, that we will solve this problem.

• 25:48Speaker 02

  Probably a fiscal commission or something like that. And to buy us more time to get our politics right to stop a debt crisis. It wouldn't it be nice as we digitize to have some more demand on our bonds to buy us a little more time? And that is why I think among many, many reasons why stable coins is a good idea.

• 26:06Ryan Sean Adams?

  Let's sharpen one other point of your argument here, which is like, uh, the, the point that having the position as the global reserve currency is actually like good for America. Cause there are also those that would, would argue that it's a, it's actually not that, you know, Triffin dilemma stuff. We've, our chief export is the dollar. And so this is also exported manufacturer, uh, like to, uh, other markets. And, you know, is attributed to that kind of the rise of, of populism. We've been on this, this morphine drip for too long. And the healthiest thing for America at this point would actually be to lose the global reserve currency status. Granted, we don't want another nation to take over, particularly a nation that, um, you know, exports financial surveillance and controls.

• 26:47Ryan Sean Adams?

  You know, something like an authoritarian China, but maybe it wouldn't be so bad for the U S to lose its position as the, uh, global currency reserve of the world. And for, for the dollar to, to fall so much. So who cares? We can just monetize all of it. That's the end destination.

• 27:00Speaker 02

  Right. I mean, I, so I'm familiar with the argument, uh, which that just means we make all of ourselves much poorer. That means anybody living on fixed incomes just gets their living standards wiped out by that amount that which you, you, you debase. You, uh, you, you, you reduce your, your purchasing power. So I agree, we're not acting like a country that should be a reserve currency because we are running perpetual deficits with no end in sight. That doesn't mean we should just spite off, you know, bite off our nose despite our face. That doesn't mean we should just basically debase our currency, make us live under, you know, more strict, more structure and more discipline. I would rather get to that discipline voluntarily than what debasing our currency.

• 27:42Speaker 02

  And by the way, propping up some other currency that does not share our freedom values, our values of privacy, of liberty, of freedom and sub determination. So I think that idea, and I've heard that from, from libertarians tell me this, like, let's just forget it. Who cares? It's been like you say, a morphine drip. We've been irresponsible, yes, but we still can get responsible. And if we all of a sudden say, let's just trade in the reserve currency for something better. What is better than this? What is better than being able to be in charge of our own destiny? What is better than being able to basically finance our economy? All the things we want to buy at lower prices? That's a good thing. And by the way, don't forget the fact that at the end of the day, there are very critical principles involved here.

• 28:27Speaker 02

  Tyranny versus freedom on top of them.

• 28:29David Hoffman?

  And at that point, I want to touch on right now. You mentioned just the way that China has been making investments into the emerging markets with the digital RMB. There is a growing sphere of influence, which is the Chinese digital RMB, where a lot of emerging markets are using it as dominant payment rails. And it's becoming a very large payment network over in the East, very far away from our sphere of control. And it's really just like throwing in the face the power of the petrodollar. Meanwhile, on the United States front of things, conversations or investments around our digital CBDC have gone nowhere, to the point where it's like kind of a joke about

• 29:11David Hoffman?

  like any conversations or progress around the digital CBDC for the United States. Yet nonetheless, basically every single stablecoin, the stablecoin market share of US dollar stablecoins is like 95% plus percent. So when it comes to the world of emerging markets and foreign investments and foreign relations, how would you say like stablecoins play a role for our interests, our national security interests abroad?

• 29:34Speaker 02

  Yeah, so all these other countries are flirting with CBDCs. Everybody else is looking at doing their own central bank digital currency. What's great about us being in the catbird seat, meaning having the reserve currency means stablecoins can be our answer to a CBDC. We don't have to go down the path of debating a CBDC. If I were king for life, I would have a CBDC that is a two-tier system so that the Fed never is in the business of giving retail dollars. So that should, let's just say, some progressive, Elizabeth Warren becomes Treasury Secretary or Fed Chair, and then our ESG scores aren't good enough.

• 30:16Speaker 02

  You would never want to go down the path of the government having the ability to micromanage our money. But that could happen. So we, because we're the dollar... Because CBDCs can be, I mean, because, excuse me, stablecoins can be, they can be our substitute for a CBDC and no other country could do that like we can. So the entire good and legitimate debate about whether or not you have a central bank digital currency, you don't have to go down this pathway because by the way, no one's king for life, you're king for a while. And that means today's two-tier system could be collapsed into a one-tier system theoretically. And you could lose your sovereignty, you could lose your privacy, you could lose your freedom. And this is a really good debate

• 31:01Speaker 02

  to have. We don't have to have it. Because stablecoins can be our answer toward a central bank digital currency because we're the world's reserve currency. And by the way, there are a lot of stable, there are a lot of CBDC experiments out there. Many countries are going to do that. But if we actually, I think we have a really good shot, by the way, of getting a stablecoin law this session, probably not market structures, but stablecoins this session, we can get into that. I think we have a really good chance of that. I think that's going to help us a lot. And that to me is a better answer than having to go down this debate of whether or not to have a CBDC to compete with other countries because we don't have to. So we can have our cake and eat it too. We can have the dollar more

• 31:44Speaker 02

  deeply embedded in the digital system, helping further guarantee our status as world reserve currency in a digital system. And we don't have to grapple with these very legitimate, you know, libertarian privacy, liberty concerns that you inevitably have to grapple with if you're going to digitize your currency. Because Hayek had, he had this idea in the 1950s, you know, private dollars. That's basically what this is. So I think we can have our cake and eat it too. Digital dollars without any chance of the federal government meddling with our money like you could have with a CBDC.

• 32:23Ryan Sean Adams?

  Is the Paul Ryan, so is your position basically when you say two tier versus one tier? Like a one tier central bank digital currency would be something like, yeah, what China's rolling out or what other Western countries are maybe considering? And your concern there is obviously in China, it's just like control, state control authoritarian type tendencies. Then your concern for the US adopting a one tier system would be like similar, basically, that this would exert undue control over, you know, the populace. And so there's been legislation, by the way, like you know this, I'm sure, you know, anti CBDC type legislation coming, I believe, on the Republican side. And so I don't know if you would support that, but make it very clear.

• 33:04Ryan Sean Adams?

  What's the difference between CBDC and a stablecoin in your world? Because I think to the person on the street, both are digital dollars. They have just like no idea what the distinction is.

• 33:15Speaker 02

  So right now, we have a two tier system. That's the way our money works right now. And that system works well, but this is not a digital world we're in. You can see in a digital world, if the issuer of that digital currency is your central government, there could be political temptations down the road to meddle with the way money is being used or see how money is being used. That's exactly what China wants to do and is doing. And so if you are going to do a central bank digital currency and you want to guard yourself from that, you have a two tier system where private banks are actually the retail providers of currencies, not your federal government, which is wholesale.

• 33:58Speaker 02

  The problem with that idea, and I'm sympathetic to it, the problem with that idea is you could, you could, you could get rid of it. And you could have your central government, your Federal Reserve, being the retail issuer of digital dollars. And therefore, it's not a stone's throw to go into meddling with the way we use our money, like the Chinese want to do. So my point is, stablecoins are different. Stablecoins are issued by private enterprises on their own blockchains. And with the law, you would have, you know, you would have a stablecoin law that governs how the stablecoin system operates. What are the reserves, what are the cash and cash equivalent reserves you must have

• 34:43Speaker 02

  in order to make sure that a dollar of a stablecoin is redeemable for a dollar of cash? That's, it's pretty much that simple. The point being, though, these are private issuers PayPal, you know, you name it, USDC, Coinbase, all these different groups would issue regulated stable coins, but they're private and that the government cannot meddle with that. So it gives you a greater wall of separation between your government and your money, so that you have that that intermediating institution, that intermediary, that is a private institution, to further guarantee your civil liberties are always protected. That's the point. But here's the here's the great thing for us. No other country really can do this but for us, because we're the

• 35:27Speaker 02

  dollar, because we're the reserve currency. So we truly can have it both ways. And that is why I think, whether you're, whether you're a progressive or a conservative, classical liberal conservative like myself, stable coins is an easiest answer for everybody, because you do not have to make those awful choices, like the other countries have to do if they want to have digital currencies.

• 35:50David Hoffman?

  New projects are coming online to the Mantle Layer 2 every single week. Why is this happening? Maybe it's because Mantle has been on the frontier of Layer 2 design architecture since it first started building Mantle DA, powered by technology from Eigen DA. Maybe it's because users are coming on to the Mantle Layer 2 to capture some of the highest yields available in DeFi, and to automatically receive the points and tokens being accrued by the $3 billion Mantle Treasury in the Mantle Rewards Station. Maybe it's because the Mantle team is one of the most helpful teams to build with, giving you grants, liquidity support, and venture partners to help bootstrap your Mantle application. Maybe it's all of these reasons all put together. So if you're a dev and you want to build on one of the best foundations in crypto, or you're a user looking to claim some ownership on Mantle's DeFi apps, click the link in the show notes to getting started with Mantle.

• 36:35David Hoffman?

  Launching a token? Don't let complex legal and tax issues slow you down. Toku provides specialized support to optimize your launch and ensure that you as a founder, and your team, and your investors, get the most tax-efficient outcomes. The Toku team understands the crypto space inside and out, and will ensure your token launch is fully compliant while maximizing tax efficiency. Toku can connect you with the best attorneys if you need them, to make sure that you have the best advice, and Toku can help to optimize your taxes, so you pay the least possible amount of taxes while still Maintaining legal compliance. With Toku's guidance, you can concentrate on building your company while Toku handles the logistics. Token launches don't have to be complicated. Talk to Toku today to get a free initial token valuation. Arbitrum is the leading Ethereum scaling solution that is home to hundreds of decentralized applications.

• 37:18David Hoffman?

  Arbitrum's technology allows you to interact with Ethereum at scale with low fees and faster transactions. Arbitrum has the leading DeFi ecosystem, strong infrastructure options, flourishing NFTs, and is quickly becoming the Web3 gaming hub. Explore the ecosystem at portal.arbitrum.io. Are you looking to permissionlessly launch your own Arbitrum Orbit chain? Arbitrum Orbit allows anyone to utilize Arbitrum's secure scaling technology to build your own Orbit chain, giving you access to interoperable, customizable permissions with dedicated throughput. Whether you're a developer, an enterprise, or a user, Arbitrum Orbit lets you take your project to new heights. All of these technologies leverage the security and decentralization of Ethereum. Experience Web3 development the way it was always meant to be: secure, fast, cheap, and friction-free.

• 38:01David Hoffman?

  Visit arbitrum.io and get your journey started in one of the largest Ethereum communities. There's a certain loss of control that stablecoins invoke into the world of our banking world. Mainly with PayPal, previously to PayPal issuing a stablecoin. If I wanted to send you money on PayPal, both of us would have to be KYC users of PayPal in order for me to send you payments. But with USDC and even PayPal's USD, I can send you any of these stablecoins and you have no KYC information with these banks. And so there's actually a loss of influence, a loss of control over this banking system under the stablecoin paradigm. How big of a problem do you think that is?

• 38:45David Hoffman?

  And do you think that the powers that be will want to see that whole covered? Do you think that there will be pressure to have a completely KYC stablecoin paradigm? Or do you think they will let us have these cash-like properties?

• 38:59Speaker 02

  I don't know the answer to that question at the end of the day because my question is it's a regulatory legislative question, which I'm not in the middle of it right now. I do believe that there are certain thresholds under which you should you would not have that concern that problem like you have right now. I think the Federal Reserve, this is where the whole states rights kind of comes into this issue. The Federal Reserve is going to worry about its conduct of monetary policy and its impact on money supply. That's understandable. I think the bill that McHenry negotiated works pretty well. Patrick McHenry is, you know, this close to getting a stablecoin bill through. I think that's going to be a lot easier than market structures, which is a whole different issue.

• 39:44Speaker 02

  And to answer your question specifically, I think at the end of the day, there will be a compromise where you will have a federally regulated stablecoin legislation, where federally regulated stablecoins. And I would argue you should give states also a regulatory entry into this market to in order to keep disruption alive, to not lock up incumbency, and to sort of have a regulatory sandbox out there. This is probably matters a little bit more for market structures, but I think the same goes for stablecoins, so that there is a marketplace for simplicity and making sure that that you have many different product offerings in the stablecoins. And what matters with stablecoins at the end of the day, from a regulator standpoint

• 40:29Speaker 02

  is, do you never break the buck? Is a dollar a dollar, always a dollar? And you can protect that with the right kinds of rules. And then with respect to all the KYC issues, there will be some kind of a compromise that looks like the present day, in my opinion. It looks something like that. But I'm not as well qualified or deeply into those that that area as I used to be.

• 40:49Ryan Sean Adams?

  Why don't we have stablecoin legislation today? You said McHenry's bill is is close, but like, what are we missing? I mean, it seems like the case you made is just like not necess it seems.

• 40:58Speaker 02

  That's why I wrote the op, but I was a little I am frustrated with this because it's such a no brainer. There really shouldn't be anybody opposed to this from the left or the right, in my opinion. It's just the typical machinations of legislation. I don't want to get into what Schumer is trying to get and what people are trying to get, other than I think. This is, it's just like any good idea that has bipartisan appeal. That means you want to add more to it to get it through. There aren't many vehicles leaving Congress these days that you can hinge your, your piece of legislation onto to get it through into law. And my guess is it's becoming a victim of that. So, you know, I, I don't know if you're into this, but you know, Chuck is trying to get his pot banking bill attached to something in this area. So my guess is this is becoming trade bait.

• 41:43Speaker 02

  That's a, it's a phrase we use in the legislature, which is, everybody kind of agrees on stable coins. It's not as controversial as, I mean, look, I think Patrick's market structure bill got like 71 Democrats and Nancy Pelosi voted for it. So, so I think there's, I think it's going to get done, maybe not as early as I'd like. Stable coins ought to pass on its own, but the, the problem with that, that is, is because it's popular, because it has the votes, other people are going to try and add their thing to it as well, because there aren't many trains leaving the legislative station this year. Having said all of that, because I believe there's a sense of urgency and we keep telling people in Congress, there is a sense of urgency here. I think they're going to get that done this year. It may be in lame duck.

• 42:27Speaker 02

  It may be on the CR or some of the must pass bill, but I do believe it's going to happen soon because I think policymakers are beginning to wake up to the fact that there is a sense of urgency in our hands. And, and, and I think it's just, it's a little ironic that other countries already have stable coin laws in place on the books issuing US dollar standard stable coins and we don't even have a stable coin law. Right. So I think that that is, I think that issue is ripe. I think it, I think it's probably going to pass in some form this year. Um, the, and the reason it hasn't happened yet is because just the sluggishness of our system, again, unlike a preliminary system. It's not pass it once and it's done.

• 43:11Speaker 02

  You gotta pass it twice and then a president's gotta sign it. So it just takes a long time to get stuff like this done.

• 43:16Ryan Sean Adams?

  So you think something like this can be bipartisan? I think we've had more recent hopes of that, seeing how the FIT bill went, even though the White House, you know, did decide to veto it. I will say though, Paul, like for the last two years, at least from our vantage point in crypto, there's been an influential contingent, particularly in sort of the executive branch, and maybe call it the administrative state, that has been anti-crypto. And obviously, some legislators too. I mean, Elizabeth Warren quite famously, but then you have the regulators like Gary Gensler and to like everything that that class, Operation Choke Point, this kind of choking off of the banking system from a number of, you know, administration officials in charge of that. Like, how do we get rid of that?

• 44:00Ryan Sean Adams?

  Because it seems like that could throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing. You mentioned there's three passes for legislation to actually get passed. One of those is actually the White House and the executive branch. If the anti-crypto army is so influential, like, won't that just halt things?

• 44:15Speaker 02

  I wouldn't know if it's wholly will delay things. Look, this is probably the most anti-crypto administration you could think of with Gensler and the rest. No two ways about it. I don't know where Kamala Harris is on this. She's from California, that speaks to her favor. California Democrats are a little, since they're a little closer to it, they're a little more sympathetic to it. I have no idea where she is. I'm not, I'm not going to get into the political thing here. Other than to say, it can't get any worse than it does right now with Gary Gensler and anti-crypto stuff. So, elections have consequences. I know Senate, I mean, I think Chuck was gonna try and get Debbie to mark up the CFTC side of this bill, not Senate Banking. He, they were, she was supposed to do a markup in June, I think, but she didn't do it.

• 44:59Speaker 02

  The point being is, you have Senate Democrats trying to sound a little more pro-crypto than the administration is. That's a good step in the right direction. That must be because of political pressure. So that's good. So what that tells me is, you know, obviously, I'm not trying to be dismissed a Republican here, but we're more for liberty government and free markets. We passed our bill out of the House already with our majority. The Senate Democrats are saying things we want to hear in the crypto world, but they're not doing it. But at least they're saying it. And that's a whole lot better than you can say about the administration. So the good news is you're gonna have different administration. The bad news is if it's, well, we already know Trump's pro crypto. We don't know where Harris is. It can't be worse than it is right now.

• 45:43Speaker 02

  And California Democrats historically have been better on this issue than other Democrats. So that's all I got for you there, other than to say, I believe this is gonna get done. Why? Because it's gotta get done. Because it's going to be developed. The question is, is it overseas or is it in our country? Is Web 3, which is a beautiful idea, beautiful concept? It is this next generation internet. Is that here where the internet was created or is it overseas? I think cool heads will prevail. It will be here. The question is, how ugly and how long does it take?

• 46:17Ryan Sean Adams?

  Okay, so I like, everything I learned about politics, I learned via route of crypto, right? So it's just like, you know, David and I, and I think a lot of people in the crypto space aren't political animals. So we're sort of observing this. We're trying to connect some dots. And here's one dot I can't seem to connect. As you mentioned, you know, Democrats like Chuck Schumer have been increasingly like pro crypto. In fact, he attended a, you know, industry call just last week. You know, like kind of reaching out to the crypto community and that was all great. Trump has come down on the pro crypto side as well. And the GOP political platform seems very much pro crypto and supports many of the rights that we talk about on Bankless. Kamala Harris, though, has not said anything on the subject.

• 47:00Ryan Sean Adams?

  And I know it's like new and she's just kind of recently become a VP. But the longer it goes, the more it seems to those that are watching like David and myself, that it seems like de facto, if she doesn't say anything, it'll be a continuation of the previous administration, which has been purely anti-crypto. The thing I can't Understand is she has to get election, like elected, doesn't she? And like there are votes on the table, reports 18% plus of Democrats own cryptocurrencies are like crypto favorable. In other words, there's no votes on the table for being anti crypto, but there are votes that you could lose for being anti crypto. And there's certainly votes you could gain for being pro crypto. And so isn't the logical position for somebody who's running for for president to be pro crypto?

• 47:44Ryan Sean Adams?

  I don't understand why she's not commenting on this or weighing in.

• 47:48Speaker 02

  That's very practical argument, but it could collide with philosophical differences. So, look, you're asking a conservative to tell you, you know, how bad progressivism is. Thank you. My point is a progressive wants more control and crypto by its own definition. The entire web three DeFi intellectual architecture is decentralization, privacy, liberty and no centralized control. So that is in keeping with a conservative philosophy, a classical liberal conservative philosophy. It is anathema to a progressive philosophy. It's not coincidental that Elizabeth Warren, probably the leading progressive voice in

• 48:32Speaker 02

  Congress is anti crypto for that very reason. So that is why there is a bit of a tug of war mentally on the left side of the aisle. And that is probably why what you said is exactly true. I don't want to get too deep into politics, other than the fact that I think we, my party will win the Senate just because the way the map is. So I believe where we now have a problem, which is nothing getting done in the Senate. I think we have a high likelihood of taking the majority of the Senate and therefore having a far more pro crypto Senate than than we have right now. If we keep the House, you have what we have right now. I think it's Prince Hill is going to replace Patrick McHenry, I could be wrong about

• 49:13Speaker 02

  that, but he's very pro. He, Tom, we have a lot of guys who are pro crypto in the House. So I see Congress getting more pro crypto. Then the question is, what does the administration look like? Again, if you have the Senate, there's no more Gary Genslers going to the SEC. There's no more Lena Kons going to the FTC. You have a handbrake because the Senate approves the cabinet. The Senate approves, you know, presidential appointees and along with the House approves legislation. So I see, if my projection is correct, that we do win the Senate, which I think it is, I see everything moving in the direction of more pro crypto. I think it's probably one of the reasons why Chuck is sounding pro

• 49:55Speaker 02

  crypto because he wants to head that off. He doesn't want what you just said to translate into a lot of support for Republicans. Sherrod Brown, last I checked, is not very good on crypto. He's the head of the Banking Committee. You replace him with Tim Scott, very pro crypto. You just have like a Patrick McHenry over in the Senate in charge of the Banking Committee, or a Pat Toomey, who used to be head of the Banking Committee in the Senate. That's what happens here. So my point is, it's going to get better because I think our elections are going to be better on the congressional side. I have no idea who's going to win the presidency. I don't think anybody has any idea. And again, to your point, where is Kamala on this? I have no clue. It can't be worse than it is right now. And if she has no opinion, then you have to just assume she's good with the current

• 50:40Speaker 02

  sentence quo. That's why, for me, get Congress and you'll solve a problem there. I don't know why that just went off. I like it. There's fireworks going off on Riverside right now. I didn't put that up on my iPad. Well, fantastic. It was very appropriate, though.

• 51:01David Hoffman?

  It was great timing, honestly. Paul, like, over the last, like, year or so, there has been a big talking point out of, like, the Bankless Podcast and many others about how cool it is that crypto is so bipartisan. Both people down both aisles were trying to push crypto legislation forward. Over the last like, you know, 18 months a year, that has changed dramatically in the last two to three months or so, where many people are just saying like, it's, I don't think anyone really would debate that the Republicans, the Donald Trump party is absolutely the pro crypto party if you are a crypto single issue voter. But also at the same time, there are people who are saying, that I would agree with, crypto, the technology

• 51:44David Hoffman?

  is bipartisan. The internet is not a partisan technology. Crypto therefore is very, very similar. Yet nonetheless, like even you just now said, said some bits that would allude to the fact that like fundamentally crypto aligns with a more right-leaning ethos. I'm wondering just how do you think about this debate where technology is inherently neutral, but nonetheless, like the right have truly adopted and promoted crypto far quicker and with, you know, a more wholeheartedness than the left has. But it's also technology. Like, how do you navigate this?

• 52:14Speaker 02

  Architecture matters so much. So how I navigate this is, it is basically liberty enhancing. This kind of decentralized technology enhances liberty and preserves privacy and freedom, which are the core cornerstone principles of the, the center-right movement. Now, there's different kinds of Republicans. There's populist, there's big government Republicans. I'm a classical liberal. I want to conserve the principles that made our country great. Liberty, freedom, privacy, self-determination, free enterprise, free markets. That's the kind of conservative I am. That's not necessarily in vogue these days with the kind of populism we have these days. But this web three blockchain technology is in perfect keeping with the

• 52:58Speaker 02

  philosophy and the principles that I want to conserve as a conservative. If you're a progressive, that is an anathema to that because generally speaking, now you're asking a conservative to tell you what liberals think or the left thinks. So just take it for a grain of salt. But a progressive is much more of a collectivist, less of an individualist. And they believe that it's, it is good and right that you centralize decision-making, you centralize government actions in the sake of harmonizing people's lives and making them for the better. Go back and read Hegel and Wismar and Max Weber and all these guys in the, in the last, to turn in the last century. And that is very much in keeping with that sort of progressive Wilsonian doctrine.

• 53:43Speaker 02

  That is what I would describe as sort of the cornerstone philosophy of sort of an Elizabeth Warren progressivism or an AOC progressivism. And Web three and crypto are anathema to that philosophical or epistemological construct. That is why this is a problem. But if you take a look at, let's just say, more practical Democrats, more center-left Democrats, Richie Torres, Rogue Con, I'm just throwing names off the top of my head, who are more embracing of this technology, who see that it actually does do good things for the people they want to help, the unbanked, the third world, the people who don't get access to banking products, they can be helped with this kind of technology.

• 54:27Speaker 02

  It just means, though, you're decentralizing power. It just means, though, you're not centralizing, collectivizing power, but people are helped nonetheless. So I think you can get left of center, practical Democrats who are pro-technology to also see the benefits that this technology brings to society and appeal to them and build yourself a big right and center-left movement that is majoritarian in this country, that embraces Web three technology. But that's not Gary Gensler, that's not Joe Biden, that's not Lena Kahn, that's not Elizabeth Warren. But it is a lot, I'm just, like I said, I'm trying, I'm post-politics. It is a lot of people left of center.

• 55:12Speaker 02

  The question is, are they running their party? Are they running Congress or not? And they haven't been lately. We'll see what the future provides. But if we have an election where you have a center-right axis, then I think you can get off the dime and get a lot of this stuff passed and advance Web three blockchain technology. So that crypto, so that blockchain and stablecoins and all the rest are deployed in America with good regulatory footprints that allow for sandboxes, state experimentation, and all this innovation to occur in America where all of this got started. Does that make sense?

• 55:51Ryan Sean Adams?

  It does, yeah. And as we start to close this out, I'm going to ask maybe for some prognostication here, just like, you know, it's kind of a coin flip on who wins at this point, at least according to polls, prediction markets, right? Trump versus Harris. Let's say the Congress swings, like, it goes in the direction of Republican, right? You're expecting more crypto legislation progress there. Let's contrast that if you have a Republican Congress and then you have a Republican president, so Donald Trump wins, let's say. I'm assuming you believe he's just going to keep his election promises, not veto anything, be incredibly pro-crypto, and all of the stablecoin legislation, the things that we've been talking about, that just passes in that case. Is that correct?

• 56:32Speaker 02

  Yeah, that's right, that's right.

• 56:34Ryan Sean Adams?

  And then, okay, so let's say we have a Republican Congress and then we have Kamala Harris as in the executive branch. I think from the episode, like, from the conversation thus far, you would say that it's still going to, we're still going to make progress on key legislation pieces. You don't expect Kamala Harris to just be default anti-crypto veto that will still make progress, but it'll be slower progress. But either way, over the next four years, we make progress?

• 57:00Speaker 02

  Yeah, I think that's right. Now, what's the game theory here, which people who are listening to podcasts aren't, you know, inside congressional people, what happens in lame duck? What happens in lame duck? By the way, because you've got a market structures bill that's out of the House, you've got, you know, lift service being paid to it in the Senate, and then you've got stablecoin legislation that is very close to being dislodged.

• 57:24Speaker 02

  Whoever wins the presidency in Congress will decide whether you have a productive or unproductive lame duck session of Congress. So from the second week of November till January 1st, there's going to be a legislative window there where maybe a lot gets done, or maybe nothing gets done, based upon who's coming into power from where we are. So you could see a situation where a lot of this stuff gets done right then and there. Because Donald Trump didn't win, and Republicans don't have everything, so we want to get stuff done right now. But if we have better, you know, a better government around the corner, we're going to do nothing and wait till then. So that point I'm trying to make is, I see both of those scenarios, pro crypto scenarios,

• 58:08Speaker 02

  pro market structure scenarios, pro stablecoin scenarios. It's whether they get done sooner rather than later is the question. So I, again, because this administration's so bad, it can't get worse, and I think it's going to get better, because I think enough Democrats are coming around to the fact that we need to do this, and that they have enough support, and I think that, along with the momentum that Republicans are bringing to the issue, gives me a more positive outlook. My point is, do it fast. Things are happening. Enbridge is up and running. The Europeans already passed a market structure and a stablecoin bill. Let's get going, because we're going to lose this market in America.

• 58:49Ryan Sean Adams?

  So as we close this out, so do you have any thoughts for Bankless listeners? Basically, you know, they're crypto natives, they're people that hold crypto. How can they get involved in the political process? Like, and what's your advice for industry leaders, anyway, in the crypto space? I mean, there was a time, I will tell you, Paul, that crypto people were a bit more libertarian in the fact, like, just disengage from the government, like, how many of us even vote? That sort of thing. Now, we've seen what that disengagement can do. We let bad actors like Sam Bankman-Fried kind of step in and, you know, control the lobbying process. And so we've been much more active over the last two years. Not sure yet that we're winning, but we are making some progress. Anyway, do you have general advice for the average crypto holder who cares about these issues? How should they engage politically?

• 59:33Speaker 02

  We have a republic. That means we elect people to conduct policy on our behalf in this democracy. That means members of Congress, policymakers, listen to their constituents. They are, they can get informed by their constituents. So that means, number one, get involved. Number two, you have to bring information to policymakers because this is brand-new stuff. You know, even, you know, 70-some-year-old members of Congress are really getting into this. I mean, Cynthia Loomis isn't 70 years old, but Cynthia Loomis, I've known Cynthia Loomis for 25 years. She is probably the leading crypto enthusiast in Congress. Why? Because she learned about the issue. She saw the benefits of all of it. She, she, it jives with her philosophy.

• 1:00:15Speaker 02

  So the point I'm trying to make is, the more you get engaged, the more you can educate policymakers so they can make good policy. And the more you show a volume of your voice, the more you can make sure that policy gets made in your direction. But absent that voice being heard, alternative voices will take your place. So that means you've got to get involved through speech. Speech, meaning, donations is speech. Through donations, through speech, but more importantly, educate your policymakers so that they understand what all of this is. Because frankly, I didn't know about it. I read about Bitcoin, I read the White Paper, thought it was interesting.

• 1:00:56Speaker 02

  I really didn't steep myself into this until about five years ago, which, by the way, is not a lot, not a long time ago. And I love economics. So there's so many people in Congress in positions of power to, who don't have a dog in this fight, who can still be shaped as far as their views on this issue, help shape those views.

• 1:01:16Ryan Sean Adams?

  It's all about those undecided voters.

• 1:01:19Speaker 02

  Exactly.

• 1:01:20Ryan Sean Adams?

  Paul Ryan, thank you so much for joining us today. This has been fantastic. We appreciate your time.

• 1:01:23Speaker 02

  You bet. Ryan and David, nice to be with you. Thanks for having me.

• 1:01:26Ryan Sean Adams?

  Guys, end with this, of course, an action item. We've got an op-ed that Paul Ryan wrote. We will include that in the show notes. Got to end with this, of course. None of this has been financial advice, not even political advice. We've got a standard disclaimers, though. You could lose what you put in, but we are headed west. This is the frontier. It's not for everyone, but we're glad you're with us on the Bankless journey. Thanks a lot.