Blame Exchanges for Holding Up the Market Structure Bill? - DEX in the City

In my opinion, and everyone feel free to disagree, we are watching the real-time deterioration of the prospects of crypto market structure law being passed.

If it's true that eventually everything will be on chain, like everything will be tokenized, I think you could see a world where it's really just one regulator overseeing everything.

I just want to say that I hope that CZ's conversation, which was truncated, but also really got at to what it's like there, isn't just a meme, but something that is taken seriously.

Hi all, and welcome to Decks in the City, where the wallets are cold and the takes are hot.

First, we have Jesse, web 3 prosecutor turned web 3 protector at Rivet Capital. Hi guys, good afternoon. And V from the SEC to web 3. If my voice is raspier than usual today, I'm a little under the weather, so bear with me, but happy to be here.

She looks great. And I'm your host, Catherine KK. Fluent in Tradfi and conversing in deep tech over at Starkware.

Before we get going, remember as always, we're lawyers. We're not your lawyers. Nothing you hear on Dex in the City is legal or financial advice, and it doesn't create an attorney client relationship.

For the fine print, as always, check unchainedcrypto.com.

If crypto taxes feel overwhelming, you are not alone. That's why Cryptotax Girl, a team that's been helping crypto investors since 2017, is offering $100 off on one-on-one cryptotax help.

To get $100 off your cryptotax services, go to cryptotaxgirl.com/unchained. Again, that's cryptotaxgirl.com/unchained.

So, we have a great show today. It is jam-packed as usual. We're actually going to be very ambitious and try to cover four topics today.

First, Trump and unbanking. Second, a very spicy take on theft that we're going to go into in a minute. Third, the CFTC SEC joint coordination. And fourth, CZ's interview in Davos and what this means for crypto executives and going to jail and then we'll end with some crypto good news.

So, I don't want to take any more time. I want to jump right into my favorite of the topics. Quite juicy. Last week, Trump sued JP Morgan Chase and Jamie Diamond on Thursday for actually $5 billion.

And I'm just going to say, every time I hear numbers like this, I think of Austin Powers and the $1 million scene. I feel like five billion What?

Okay, so yeah, he sued him for $5 billion. No big deal. Along with a few other plaintiffs. And he sued JP Morgan and Jamie Diamond, the CEO personally, for closing accounts belonging to him and related entities back in 2021 for political actions.

And of course, JP Morgan has come back and said that closures weren't for political reasons, but were due to federal rules and regulations.

So, I want to give some background here. Banks debank customers. It is a fact. They do this to manage risk. They'll debank customers if they hit certain anti-moneyaundering related flags for reputational reasons, suspicious activities, and often they can't or won't tell customers why they were debanked because the customer service reps don't even know why the customers were debunked.

There's a series of confidentiality restrictions. I don't want to minimize this because I think debanking is incredibly devastating. Particularly for normal people and individual users.

Katherine Mink who is the former chief legal officer of Uniswap. She's a good friend of ours. She wrote a fantastic article a couple years ago about her own experience with debanking. She's the primary earner in her family.

I would definitely recommend people check that out. But imagine one day waking up and effectively within days or weeks having no mechanism to pay your rent or your bills, no credit cards, no ability to operate in a world where banks unfortunately are necessary to navigate a day-to-day for better or for worse.

And I think why does this relate to crypto, right? This lawsuit is triggering for crypto because it hearkens back to chokepoint 2.0 where there was an alleged government strategy to limit crypto's access to the banking system.

And to be clear, our perspective, my perspective, debanking itself is not illegal. This is surprising to people. It could become illegal depending on who's doing it, why, and how.

Meaning, basically, banks, like any other business, can serve anyone they want. They can lawfully debank someone if that person or business no longer fits their risk profile.

But they are not legally able to discriminate based on protected characteristics which actually vary based on state or federal law.

One other degree of complication is political views are not protected characteristics under federal law which means you can actually discriminate against someone for being a Republican or Democrat.

Banks could arguably debank someone for being a Republican or a Democrat, but they can't debank if it's in retaliation for free speech or political positions, for example, if they lie about the reason, which is why they often won't say a reason.

And government coerced debanking like what Trump alleges was happening is very legally complicated and arguably illegal because it could violate a whole host of rights.

So, this is a spicy take. This is a huge headache for JP Morgan. And I will tell you, it's not easy being a bank because sometimes they're put into a lose-lose situation with this sort of thing.

Jesse, what is your take on this? I think you had a spicy take or V from your experience with financial services. Jump in here. Yeah. So, V. Yeah. Yeah.

I was just going to say like my my take on Chokepoint 2.0, I know, right? Which is what this whole like episode as it relates to crypto is referred to. As like my take has always been and not to defend the big banks or anything, but they were also sort of caught in the middle of all of this too, right? And in some ways, they were also victims.

like the regulators, I don't know if you guys remember, but the regulators put out a bunch of guidance in early 2023 that were basically veiled threats that don't, you know, like don't even think about touching crypto or you're going to pay for it.

And then we've seen all of this stuff come out, which is messed up, super messed up, right? And then we saw like even more explicit threats or directives come from all of these foyer requests like in the last few years, right? Where banks actually got letters that were more explicit than that.

So I think that put banks like JP Morgan in a really difficult position and honestly they did what any business would have done in that situation which is to comply with what they saw as implicit or explicit directives from their regulators. like they didn't really have a choice.

And so that's why I, you know, like I don't really know if lawsuits like this make sense. Like it it really was something that was driven by the regulators and not necessarily the banks themselves.

But I don't know, Jesse, do you before Jesse jumps in, I just want to explain one quick thing. V rec V mentioned FOYA requests that those are Freedom of Information Act requests and I think a lot of people know about this but others don't.

You can actually file as an individual citizen a FOYA request to get all of this information that you might think is private. It's actually not private. Yeah, but good luck getting it within a few years. Years and you might have to litigate over the real sensitive information.

But these foyer requests are routinely used. for example, in crypto policy to kind of lift the curtain on what's happening in government. Sorry, Jess.

Yeah, this is not debanking. This case is not about debanking. Debanking isn't when powerful people lose treatment like preferential treatment at a bank. It's when ordinary actors lose access to financial rails, which is something I care deeply about. I know you guys care deeply about.

There were crypto companies and crypto adjacent companies that could not get access to bank accounts. That is a conversation we should have. Planned Parenthood many times has not been able to get bank accounts. Gambling, cannabis, you know, even like creators that might be doing something that's a little bit salacious might not be able to get a bank account.

That is a conversation to be had. This is not about debaking. And so the thing that bothers me here is that it conflates the conversation when in fact the real conversation is should banks be put in this quasi regulatory position where they have to make these decisions based on competing interest of the commercial side of the bank.

Plus regulators telling them, "We want you to be the first line of defense in order to help us stop like access to finance for bad guys essentially or bad people." And so they're definitely in a tough spot, but we put them in this spot.

And so the question is, do we want to continue to rely on them in this quasi regulatory space? But conflating this lawsuit, which I don't know if people read it, but essentially like it's pretty limited in terms and I could see it being dismissed and having to be refiled with more facts in it, but it's just takes away from the real conversation that I want us to be having of is this the right position to put a bank in.

Well, I I have to disagree with you a little bit, Jesse, because I do find the concept of banks illegally uh cutting off anyone, whether it's an individual person or a giant powerful person or a corporation, disturbing like there is a lot of illusion to retaliatory action like for free speech, which is obviously one of the things that I referenced as illegal.

It's one thing to cut someone off because they're doing something really risky. It's another thing to cut someone off because you disagree with them or find them repugnant, for example. Like that's very anti-American.

I agree with you, but there's no evidence of that here. And that is my my problem is that we should be having a conversation about whether banks should be given the power to cut off an industry or cut off someone for what they might disagree with.

And that's a real conversation because the, you know, are they quasi regulatory? Should they have to comply with certain constitutional amendments? Like how do we think about them in the realm of either the first amendment or the 14th amendment? And I know you mentioned discrimination statutes as well.

That is a real conversation to be had and I want to have that conversation and I don't want it to be overshadowed by the president of the United States suing a bank because he's upset at them and turning it into like a fight against Republicans and like this system against Republicans. There's debanking on both sides. Yeah. Right.

So you I think you're saying this lawsuit is a distraction from the real issue, right? And so like touching on things that both of you guys said, I think the real issue here is that banks have too much discretion to make these decisions, right?

And coupled with that, there's just like a complete lack of transparency. Like when customers get cut off, they're almost never told why. And in some cases, they're prohibited by law from being told why, right? and there's no process to like appeal it, right?

So before I joined VETA, I was the GC of a crypto custodian which was OC regulated and our CEO testified multiple times before Congress about their own experience being debanked even though they were a federal bank themselves which like that's like very ironic.

So he testified about how they had good relationships with all of their banking partners for years. So no risk issues were ever identified or raised. They were even actively in talks to like expand to new partnerships with the banks when they got a call one day basically saying we need to offboard you within 30 days and we we can't comment further.

No explanation, no appeals process. And you know this was just for their corporate account like to do payroll and admin expenses and things like that. So they had to scramble after that speaking to over I think they spoke to like 30 or 40 banks to try to get a new account. Most of them ghosted them. Others said we can't bank you but we can't give reasons why. Right. Like I think that is it's problem. Yeah. That is the issue, right?

It's like we have to make we have to make it so that banks can't just cut you off because you're in a politically disfavored industry and not for any of the legitimate reasons because you present like actual like AML risk or something like that. And I think there needs to be more transparency when something like that happens so that there's accountability. Yeah.

Preach. They can't cut you off because they don't like you. They can't cut off crypto because they don't like crypto. I think that's such a good point. Yeah. And like we had CCI get cut off even though they had nothing to do with crypto in their banks but just because they had crypto in their name.

And so I think that's such a good point. And isn't that sort of why we're building crypto, right? Because don't have want to have these central institutions telling us who can have access to finance. So this fits on a crypto podcast. I love it.

So and by the way, CCI is Crypto Council for Innovation, another great crypto trade group. and V previously referenced the OC. The OC is the office of the comproller of current of the currency uh word salad right now and it basically is the federal entity that the Treasury bureau that charters and regulates and supervises national banks.

So the OC has definitely been part of the crypto conversation, especially as a bunch of crypto comp companies seek trust charters, which is a topic for another episode, but yes, absolutely. Debanking really important conversation as part of Cris cryptoholistically.

So moving on to our next topic and this is an interesting one and I actually think a lot of people miss this. They did not miss it if they follow David Bailey on Twitter. So he tweeted, I think it was late last week, basically the son of the CEO of the company hired by the US marshalss to safeguard the nation's Bitcoin, stole 40 million from it, and now appears to be running.

Treasury must secure the private keys from the Justice Department ASAP before more is stolen. So I want to kick this to Jesse as our former federal prosecutor. I also want to say Dex in the City is not attesting to the accuracy of any of this. So, this is all secondhand information, but it seems pretty horrifying if this is true.

If you're not watching the video, my face was in my hands for 10 seconds there. This story is so chaotic and it really makes everyone look bad. There's theft, there's goating, there's screen shared wallets, there's stolen government funds. Like, this is going to be a Netflix movie.

Let's start at the beginning so we can walk through what actually happened and then question the allegations. So back in October 2024, somehow we're in 2026, so a while ago, roughly 20-ish million was drained from a US government seizure wallet.

Now that wallet had been holding funds that had been taken from the BitX hack, something near and dear to my heart because I worked on that case for a long time. At the time, there was no clear explanation for this draining. And in fact, like it was just reported because people saw it on chain. Most of the money went back. Pretty much all of it, not all of it, but like 90ish%.

And so the whole thing just faded into the background. Now we fast forward and we know more. And honestly, you couldn't make this up because onchain investigator Zack XBT is sort of the person that put it out there initially and he's amazing in many ways.

He uncovered that the drained funds of this 20 million were tied to a guy known online as John. That's all we knew about him at the time. And Zach is alleging that John is the son of an executive at a place called CMDSS, which is a government contractor that worked with the US Marshall Services.

Now, we won't go into it here, but people Google this company and you'll see like a pretty torid past and how they got this government contract. But let's just pause here for a second. So, the government hired a contractor to help manage seized crypto. Now, that's not shocking. That makes sense.

But there's evidence suggesting that the contractor's kid, and look online at this kid, may have been stealing from a government seizure wallet without anyone catching it. And it gets worse because it didn't come to light because like the government discovered it or there were audits or controls. No, no, no, none of that.

It's because John, maybe this sun guy, outed himself on a live screen share where he was bragging about how much money he had, tying himself to the stolen government funds.

So, what happened on this screen share is that John publicly demonstrated control over wallets holding tens, possibly hundreds of millions of dollars. Some were tied to the government seizure funds I was talking about, some tied to other thefts. And he moved the funds online between his wallets during something called a band forb challenge, which I had never heard of.

And I feel less happy knowing what this thing is, but it's these competitions online. Are you going to make all of us? You're about to make all of us less happy that we now have to know what this is. competition online where people show their wallets and prove who's richer. Oh my god. Sign of the apocalypse.

So, they're online live screening showing addresses and moving money. And that's what John is doing online. And Zach XBT is able to look at what he's doing online in the screen share and tie it back to a governmentcontrolled seizure wallet, namely the 20 million taken from the Bitfinex hack funds.

And like I worked on those cases for freaking years. I spoke to those victims, people who are waiting for this money and this guy is just bragging about stealing it. And then there are records of this guy, the son, flexing with cars and watches and money, just like the worst possible stuff you want to see online.

So this didn't require hacking. As I said, it required access and weak process around what happened. And I guess what I want to get to here because this is salacious and it's interesting and I'd love to hear your guys' thoughts, but I just want to make sure people understand how the government holds crypto assets and why it's so scary, especially when we talk about the Bitcoin strategic reserve because there is not this pristine Fort Knox for digital gold. That does not exist.

So, the government seizes crypto and how it worked in my time, I don't even want to tell you because it's gotten better. No, start getting accounts at Coinbase or those kinds of centralized exchanges to be custodians for it. So, essentially, they freeze it at an exchange and they say, "Send it to our address at Coinbase."

But Coinbase can't hold everything and they can't hold all NFTts. They can't hold like second, third tier tokens. And so that's why they use these government contractors in order to be able to hold sort of the lower tier crypto. And these are huge contractors, right? And it's but it's all just supply chain and keeping track of where things are.

And we should have seen it coming though because there have been years of IG reviews, warnings, like the Marshall Service has not been able to tell um the government how much crypto they have right now in like development of the strategic reserve. So, I just sort of wonder like we can debate the strategic reserve and whether it's a good idea and what it actually is, but has the government shown that it's ready for this and should this make people step back and question it?

And interestingly, like this morning, Patrick Wit commented on this and said they're looking into it and it's being investigated and it has been it it's been investigated before it came um to light yesterday or the day before, but it still just makes me wonder like can the government keep our Bitcoin safe from state actors, let alone online trolls?

Well, and a couple things to this like I will say so the US marshalss are at the crux of this. I'm a little bit of a history nerd. I would like to point out that the US Marshalss are actually the nation's oldest federal law enforcement agency, like established in literally the 18th century, which is kind of cool, by George Washington.

So, that being said, I think I I actually fully support the US government using third party contractors to handle areas where it is not the the epicenter of their expertise, like particularly when it comes to technical challenges. That being said, if the contractor process is not airtight and they don't know the questions to ask visa v the vetting of these contractors or the technical limitations or implementation of the security of crypto assets that is that is troubling and I'm not saying that happened here but it it certainly raises some questions and this is also kind of new to the US government to be fair because prior to the establishment of the reserve It was routine that the US government for years conducted public auctions of Bitcoin.

Like the the story that I love is um Tim Draper bought something like 30,000 Bitcoin in 2015 for some very tiny amount of money, like less than 20 million, and his returns made him in part who he is today. That doesn't happen as much anymore. We need to do an entirely separate episode on the crypto reserve and how that all functions because there's a lot to unpack here.

But now we have a scenario where there needs to be effectively a technical fort knock for the US government's crypto and this situation raises some serious questions around that.

Yeah, it for me it sort of raises the question of like is maybe this is something that the government should build itself like should this be in-house infrastructure? Yeah. um like kind of the way Fort Knox is. But even even if not, right, because something like that, I don't know, might require like a congressional mandate or would take time at the very least. Even so, if it requires There's no reason this should have Yeah, but like there is no reason this should have happened.

There are plenty of secure crypto custody solutions out there. I really don't understand why they were not using those where stuff like this does not happen. Um, so there was no reason for this. I'm actually just kind of shocked that this happened. I mean, and and it's hilarious and ridiculous the way that it came to life. It's a photo of this guy that's circulating. I don't know if this is an actual photo of him, but he looks like 14 years old. So, this is troubling on a whole different level. It's disturbing. Yes. Uh on all of that it it's also a great point in that look I agree with you V. I would love for the government to build this in-house assuming they have the right people to do it which is a big question mark especially don't get me started on the ethics like as especially as we've discussed before there still exist like certain limitations within the US government of people engaging with crypto to begin with.

I I did see news uh I I want to say like a month or two ago about Trump creating a tech core where they're actually using certain individuals on effectively seconment from various tech companies including crypto companies. I actually got really excited about that. I was like yes this is the beauty of the government and the private sector working together like the government should be mining the best mines in the private sector. I like the mining raptor for the mining. Get it? get it for they the government should be mining the best and most brilliant minds of the private sector for the betterment of all Americans, right? Is that I'm so glad you brought that up. Yeah, I I love that initiative as well. I love it. Um and I was really excited about it as well.

But I think that something that people don't quite understand is how decentralized the government actually is. And I don't just mean like state by state. I I focusing just on federal like these cases are happening all over the country increasingly so and some states have to rely on the Marshall service as well to try and understand what to do otherwise they're just holding on a ledger and then someone quits and then they lose sight of the um ledger after that. But like the government has been doing this for 10ish years now. It is time to get your act together and figure out what's happening here.

The truth is is that if you look at non-crypto storage of funds, how the government works, we could probably find 8 million of these more ridiculous stories as well. And that goes more to government contracting than anything else. And I worked for the government for a long time. I have strong faith in institutions. I do worry that we would expect them to be able to build something strong enough to avoid hacking, let alone state actors, let alone this kind of activity. Absolutely.

On that depressing note, I have been on a rant. Let's move. Let's shift topics, please. Just actually something far more positive and brighter. If you're looking for help with crypto taxes, Cryptotax Grill is offering $100 off for Unchained listeners. They provide personalized cryptot tax reports and returns and spots before April 15th are limited. Go to cryptotaxgirl.com/chained to save $100. Once again, the link is cryptotaxgirl.com/chained.

As everyone is aware who probably listened to this podcast, there's two big financial regulators in the United States, which is also very aggravating. I kind of wish we had a jurisdiction where there was just one. But there's the securities and exchange commission which the was uh with with the SEC for many years. There is also the commodity futures trading commission. Commodities securities. These two agencies do not always work well together, but they're working more and more together. V, tell us more about what's happening this week.

Yeah. So, the big news that came out was that the SEC and the CFTC announced that they're host co-hosting a joint public event on crypto regulatory harmonization with both agency chairs doing a fireside chat. And I don't know on its face it might seem kind of just procedural and maybe a little dry, but I I think it's actually pretty interesting.

So you know for many years as we all know crypto regulation was defined by a lot of jurisdictional ambiguity or like what some people referred to as a turf battle between the two agencies. And you know like I specifically remember cases where like the CFTC and the SEC would characterize like literally the exact same token as totally different things and then asserted jurisdiction over them. So, you know, that sort of thing was a problem.

So, I think efforts like these to work together are signaling that the turf battle is over. And they want to focus on making the US competitive and and you know, making sure we have good capital formation and just clarity between the two agencies. So, I think that is really positive.

I do think one very difficult task that they're going to have to sort out is how they treat the trading of crypto securities versus nonsecurities in onchain markets. Right? So I think ideally and you're hearing about this more and more I think ideally platforms out there are going to want to offer everything right as much as they can on the same platform or at least in a way that is seamless to the user.

And so the question for me is, are the SEC and the CFTC going to agree on how this will be allowed to happen? And honestly, I'm not sure how this is going to play out. And of course, this is a question for Congress as well, right?

So, I don't know if you guys have noticed, but Chair Atkins like for months last year, he referred many times to this idea of a super platform or a super app. And I think what he is subtly asserting there is that he wants SEC registered platforms to be allowed to offer everything, right? So, not just crypto securities, but also crypto commodities, stable coins, memecoins, NFTts, like you name it. And and equity in the mix, right? Crypto securities first and foremost, right?

And I actually think Congress is inclined to give the SEC that power, right? They're well resourced. They have like a century of experience overseeing um very deep like retail facing markets. I think on the other hand, the CFTC does not, right? Commodities markets are much more lightly regulated than the securities markets. Um the CFTC historically has not been retail facing.

So, this might be a really controversial take, but my prediction is that Congress will be comfortable allowing the SEC to oversee all kinds of crypto assets, but it's not going to give the CFTC reciprocal authority, right? Like, I think there's no way they're going to say, "Okay, CFTC, you can oversee crypto securities now." And my even spicier take before like I hear from you guys. My even spicier take is that this is actually the fight happening behind the scenes right now.

And this is just like pure speculation by the way. It's not actually based on anything. But I think one of the things that might be holding up the market structure bill is that one or more of the major crypto exchanges is pushing to have the CFTC be allowed to offer everything. What do you guys think?

Okay. Actually, KK, I would love to hear your take about whether you think the CFTC would be equipped to oversee more than just crypto commodities. And Jesse, too, they need a much bigger well more well-funded CFTC to do so. Like, as I believe I've said in the past, like I have the utmost respect for CFTC staff. I I worked closely with them when I was the chief legal officer of a registered uh DCM and DCO, which is a derivatives exchange at Clearing House. They work their butts off like and and but they're really like a bit of a skeleton crew already with their mandate. So they would have to grow significantly.

To reiterate your point B, there's two really important things that you mentioned. One is that particularly during the Gensler years as the chief legal officer of a centralized exchange, it was really scary. We actually only listed five tokens, but having to be in a position where the CFTC was saying like Ethereum is a commodity and the SEC was effectively saying it was not. That was a horrible situation for a regulated entity and everyone was just trying to do the right thing. It was not only confusing, it was scary, frankly. So I'm so glad we've moved on from that point in time and we have the two agencies communicating like that is just a blessing that I don't want to take away from.

Secondly, the other interesting thing is you alluded to this but there currently is no legal mechanism to allow a platform to trade securities and commodities like it does not exist in the law. There's no path forward. Theoretically you can make that happen through exemptions. Maybe maybe not. It gets a little sticky. So we would need legislation to okay that. Now if we look at clarity which we're not the crypto market structure law which we're not even going to talk about because frankly I don't want to talk about it. It's depressing right now. Like we are in my opinion and everyone feel free to disagree. We are watching the real-time deterioration of the prospects of crypto market structure law being passed.

And the Republicans are saying that there are some big holdups including developer protections. I'm hearing different things from the Democrats. There's a lot of fingerpointing. It's devastating. And I'm here to tell all of you people blocking crypto market structure law that when you come crying to me in three years and we're all getting prosecuted, thank you. Like that's don't say that. We'll defend you. Yeah. I'm not gonna get prosecuted. That's when I'm going to move back to a law firm and do white collar defense again. No, that's that's Oh, I thought you meant to another country, which could be a conversation for other day move. Um, I think you guys are both so smart and I learned a lot from you all in this conversation.

One sort of overhang on this, which links both of y'all's comments together, is Kay, you sort of started by saying like, I sort of hope the CFTC and SEC were one and we were only regulated by one like other countries have, not all of them, but many of them. And then V, you're sort of suggesting that there might be a way that the SEC just sort of runs the whole show in crypto in specific. I wonder if there's ever a future where they are meshed a little bit more or you think there would ever be a time where that would happen. And maybe that's very very far off, but do you think it sort of happens in a soft power kind of way?

At least that was a conspiracy theory for a while that they were going to combine the two agencies. Like that was I don't theory. Yeah. You know what? Honestly, I mean this is like very uh futuristic sounding, but like I don't think it's as farfetched as people think, right? I've said this before. If it's true, which I think many of us believe this, if it's true that eventually everything will be on chain, like everything will be tokenized, I I think you could see a world where it's really just one regulator overseeing everything.

I respect that, but right now I think it would be a terrible idea. Two agencies have a different set of laws, different stakeholders, different constituents, different mandates. One is rules-based, one is principles based. I could go on and on. And the other thing that people forget, we're all obsessed with crypto, right? But realistically, if we take a step back, crypto is a very small fraction of markets. So although it theoretically I agree with V, it makes sense for crypto to be regulated by one agency and not two, it does not make sense for tradi to be regul. Yeah, look at silver this week. I mean, right, but what if all markets become tokenized? Yeah. Right. Then then I think there becomes less reason to have a good question.

But then the other question is if all markets become tokenized, do those tokenized markets completely replace the trady whether that's even going to happen on our lifetime? I could see a scenario where it is. I could see a scenario where it doesn't. So yeah, I know all the boomers with their hard metals right now are like dollar bills. Yeah, I think it's boomers and them like what's after Gen A, Gen Alpha