Gold Crashes, Bitcoin Slides, and the Fed Shock Markets

All right, everybody. Welcome to Bits and Bips, where we explore how crypto and macro collide one basis point at a time. I'm your host, Austin Campbell, high scholar of Zero Knowledge Consulting. Here with Chris Perkins, the golden hand of Chris, have you got a name for this yet? To be announced. Excited.

All right. We actually We may or may not have one, but I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you, but it's coming. I've had people threaten to kill me for less. And then very excited to be joined by Cosmos Jang from Pantera. It has been a very interesting week to say the least. So, I think we're going to have a lot to talk about today.

Before we do, remember nothing we say here is investment advice. Check unchained crypto.com/bitsandbips for more disclosures. And before we begin, a quick word from one of our sponsors today. 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, today we're going to start with the market. There's a couple of small things happening. As people have probably noticed, spot gold fell nearly 10% on Friday, 5% more on Monday, trading down to 4,700 per ounce after peaking near 5600 earlier this week. Silver collapsed about 30% on Friday, its worst single day drop in percentage terms since March 1980 and remained down double digits into Monday. The realized 30-day volatility for gold rose above Bitcoin and to the highest level since the 2008 financial crisis.

And since Bitcoin's launch, gold has only been more volatile on two prior occasions in total. Overall, precious metals had been rallying aggressively on safe haven demand, geopolitical risk, speculative inflow, heavy participation from traders in Asia, many sorts of narratives in the space. But notably, and Chris, I'm sure you'll have something to say about this, CME Group started raising margin requirements. Gold went from 6 to 8%. Silver went from 11% to 15%. This forces deleveraging and accelerates liquidation.

So, gold remains up 66% year-over-year despite this fall down. Bitcoin is down about 21% over the same period. And in the current episode, gold has been acting as a higher beta asset. Today, JPM has been saying gold's pullback is probably done.

So, before we go any further into the markets, I'm going to pause there and see what people have to think. Chris, I'll start with you thanks to the derivatives angle here. What are you making of what's going on?

I was hoping we're going to start with our guest, but I'll give it a shot. We've been talking about this for a few weeks and I think Ram was on last week and he talked about how he was a seller of gold at that point. Clearly our narrative took off. The retail hot pool of money, got very excited. You know, we're long-term investors like Cosmo, I'm sure, is as well. And so, we oftentimes have to ignore some of the short-term volatility and we're seeing a lot of it because retail just jumps into something and in the age of social media just feeds on itself. The narrative gets out of control.

I feel like a lot of this started personally with some of the real politic decoupling that we're seeing, you know, and that was that was put on display at the World Economic Forum. From there, you had a couple of central banks that are like, "hm, I need to decouple from the dollar. I'm going to sell treasuries and buy gold." And gold started going up. The narrative started getting started getting out of control. And everyone's like, "Wait a second. Bitcoin lost its way." And and why did those guys not buy Bitcoin? And why do they go right for gold? because they're 70 and 80s 80 years old, right? That's what they're going to do. They're, you know, those are the guys who run governments and central banks and mostly guys.

And so now that that narrative started spinning, retail's like, "Oh, Bitcoin's not working." They pour in hop all the money and then of course, you know, every time we see this, it's great till it's not. And then the market settles. I think fundamentally, there's something to precious metal still. I think that the narrative is real. I think there's a desire for real real world assets, hard assets. Look what Tether's been doing and diversifying into gold. I think that's part of a longer term trend. I just think it got in front of itself a little bit.

I don't think it's time to write Bitcoin's obituary either to be honest with you. Again, that was an older demographic. It seems like it's pushing back to the 80k level. I still feel good about the setup. Want to get into some of the reg some of the good things that we're seeing as well coming down the pike. I think with crypto we need to talk about wars and how it all comes together. But I want to pause there.

Oh, last thing on margin requirements. So this is how it works. People don't really understand this. But you have an exchange and you have a clearing house in traditional markets. Those are two different things. The exchange is where you trade. The clearing house is what manages the risk. And what people don't realize is that the clearing houses are like the sun. They're the most powerful parts of market structure. They're fully centralized and they have incredible power.

They have emergency powers. They can essentially wake up and say, "Hey, I want to do this." And everyone's got to do it. And in fact, they have all their members you know, by the back of the neck. They whatever they say, the rules apply and their members are bound. And so it's not uncommon for them to raise margin when assets, particularly commodity derivatives, get a little bit volatile. Why? because they're trying to manage that systemic risk.

The good news is that these markets that we're talking about today are regulated despite, you know, some of that maybe too much discretion that these CCPs have. But there's an entire trunch of waterfalls and and resources and regulation that pro that prevents what we saw in 1010. On 1010, they had none of this stuff. And it, you know, we're still going through it. I think we should really talk about, we're going to talk later maybe about Star and Binance. But the good news is is that it's again proving that though painful and though, you know, sometimes you don't love trusting them, we haven't had a systemic risk issue after we centralized everything after the global financial crisis.

So, I'll pause there. Love to hear Cosmos take.

Look, I mean, I think there are a lot of reasons, but as a marketer participant, I try to simplify things into AAM's razor. And the way I see it is it's clear that, you know, there there are real fundamental reasons why gold and silver were rallying like Chris said into the late last last year. But, uh, it's very clear that retail got in in a very big way. retail, including a lot of crypto retail that's moved their capital away from tokens to a tradition trad um you know whenever retail gets involved in the last leg things often end poorly.

And that's what we saw happen. And uh you know we're just seeing that you know things clearly got a little ran off too hard and now they're pulling back really hard and as because a lot of the last last buyers were retail and and and they're facing losses. that's also bleeding into what I'm sure we're going to talk about next, you know, crypto prices being down because all the same buyers that that bought that last leg and are now lo now losing money again.

One one thing I wanted to add though um that I thought was fascinating coming out of this was hyperlquid and you saw for the first time right you saw precious metals derivatives on purpose on precious metals start really seeing product market fit where to your point Cosmo the line between crypto and and like regular markets is starting to blend even in the retail space. So watching that price action on Hyperlquid to me was like a fascinating probably very positive um step where you're seeing DeFi and and real world assets coming together in the derivative space that albeit it's unregulated but but seeing seeing retail focus on deriv on commodities exposure in hyperlquid fascinating and a positive step forward I think for our markets.

What's your take Cosmo?

Yeah I I have a few thoughts there. I think on the on the point about uh you know onchain capital markets or internet capital markets taking over, we are absolutely seeing that play out, right? The the fact that hyperlquid volumes on on on silver and gold are are exploding right now just as retail attention is is is coming onto them really speaks to the idea that you know the the reason why hyperlid is amazing is is because it is a permissionless system where anyone can open a market. So someone said one day, "Hey, I think gold is going to get traded. let me make sure that market's available on there. Everyone found that market and started trading that on hyperlquid without some centralized entity stepping in to make sure that's the case."

Uh and now you know on weekends famously uh traditional markets don't trade. Saturday and Sundays they don't trade but they do trade on uh open permissionless blockchains like Hyperlid and there was a there's a really great um chart uh that came out over the weekend but basically you saw the price of of silver over the weekend. It seems like Hyperlink would actually, you know, there was reasonable depth uh which you wouldn't see otherwise in a in a normal macro market there so that people could trade silver in and out. And by the way, by the time futures markets opened or when CME silver opened at 6 p.m. Eastern, Hyperlink's price actually was only 50 cents off or like, you know, within percentage points off of of that eventual opening price, which is, you know, within the margin of error for S&P futures opening.

So clearly the price discovery is actually happening on internet capital markets now which is truly truly incredible and exciting. I've even had funds you know there are lots of funds primarily cryptoreated but increasingly that we're going to see a lot of them choose to trade the silver and gold on hyperlquid instead of on CME because they can risk manage on the weekends now and because they can react on the weekends what they can in traditional markets. That's really the crossing the chasm that we're going to see soon. It's simply a better product, right? Just like we talk about it all the time, equity tokenization, tokenized equities are better products. You can trade them on the weekend and guess what? Markets move on the weekend.

Totally agree. So that's HIPP3, right? But we just we're hearing now that HIPP4 is coming out, which is also pretty interesting because now that's going to we're going to start seeing prediction markets. So not only are you seeing like real world assets coming together, but this everything app concept seems to be consolidating too. So like really really interesting trends uh that we're that we're witnessing.

I would hop in on that one Chris to emphasize and Cosmo you just said this like money is going to go where the liquidity is, right? Traders want to be able to trade. People want access to prices and information and liquidity 24/7, right? And the call it market convention of stocks only being open part of the time, right? has historically permeated into these markets, but actually gold's a great example of a market that trades 24/7 in spot, right? Like nobody is stopping people from exchanging gold on the weekend, right? When we're talking about physical delivery, we just shut down the futures markets. And so sort of making these into roundthe-clock markets, I also have this view that as these take off on places like Hyperlid, you're going to start having a pull effect from traditional finance.

Cosmo exactly as you said is funds are going to move away from the CME and people are going to start using hyperlquid because you can manage your exposure 247 without this bizarro jump risk and once people see that for like gold next thing like Chris here's a shout back to 2008 for you how about CDS right like moving these markets to 247 I think creates aformational change people are not pricing in I think there's something more to it than than just 247 do and what we're seeing now is a world where trust is being lost in many cases and people want to and people are very concerned.

So, like we talked about this narrative of, oh, I'm going to couple from the dollar. I can't depend on the US anymore. I'm going to buy gold. Gold's really hard to buy like storage costs. Um, you know, we talked about the discombobulator. If somebody wants your gold, they can come in and apparently take it. And so, that that puts you back into the derivatives markets, which tend to have more liquidity. The problem is now if you go to the centralized derivatives markets particularly on shore CME ICE whatever you have you're reintroducing that trust because they're absolutely governed and regulated and there's a benefit to that there's an absolute benefit to that you don't have the 1010s of the world but there's a drawback too because if you're you know a guy who's trying to decouple from the United States that's not how you do it so I do think that could be a really interesting tailwind for more of the defi the the defi the the per dexes of world if you have that liquidity.

I just don't know if they'll it's going to take a while for them to get institutional size is is is my concern. Uh but hey, you got to start somewhere. C counterpoint. I think over the weekend Hyperlid did what percentage points of CME volume already in silver? Like that's a pretty decent product launch out of nowhere.

Yeah. So, all right. Then I want to bring this back a little bit to where we had started with some of the gold narrative and like the V shock that is propagating through there. You know, exactly. It's too bad Rob's not here today because he had sort of called, hey, I'd be a seller of gold right now. This is looking pretty toppy. We're seeing a lot of like call it retail type stories of people say walking into stores in size and amounts that has not been seen in decades that indicate tops. But an interesting part of that is that We're sort of now with these markets being able to see the V shock and like retail interest moving through different asset sectors.

So I want to come back to something that Chris we were saying about metals and markets and sort of like the omni concept. Do you think there's any validity to the critique that letting these trade 247 and putting them all together is just going to cause like v shocks propagating through all assets?

Um it could be a near-term issue like by the way people around the world trade. We just get focused on US market hours sometimes because that's how liquidity accumulates. One of the biggest concerns around autoquidating markets and and I heard this when I was in front of the CFTC you know back in 21 was that oh low liquidity everyone the farmer's going to wake up and he's going to get liquidated and and that doesn't work. It doesn't work. So I I think it you need to have a gradual roll out, but like let's also not forget what happened in the last few days with Claudebot or or Moltbook or whatever else you want to call it. Like people are going to be trading less and less as we move into the future.

The bots are going to trade around the clock. They don't get tired. They don't care what time it is. And so they're they're going to want to trade 247 markets. And so like I I think this interim challenge of of hey low liquidity on a on a on a Saturday night is fleeting because liquidity is going to be driven by the market and I think less so by human biology. My two cents but it's something that we have to be careful of in the me in the meantime. That's why we're not going to like race and start autoliquidating you know farmers which if you know I I just don't I I think there's room for both.

All right. So, speaking of regulators, auto liquidations, and policy, we probably should get to the WSH nomination as well. So, Donald Trump nominated his successor to succeed Jerome Powell as Fed chair, uh, which is coming up in May. Some would say this is triggering a reassessment of Fed independence in the path of rate cuts. Marsh has widely been perceived as more hawkish, expecting increased real rates, and it may have hit gold to some extent. Some have said the hedge here is to diversify internationally, such as McQuary, global rates and currency strategist Tierry Whisman. Stay with US growth, but you hedge out your dollar exposure.

Neil Duta was pretty blunt saying, "I don't like the pick." Um, the Fed is bigger than any one person at the margin. Marsh represents a bit of uncertainty, but the dollar index strengthened roughly 8% since Thursday. So, I'll just go to the group here, like what do you guys think of this nomination?

Is that Cosmo is transformed into a robot? I think I said bot and you transformed. I think you're having an audio problem. Got him. You might want to log back in. All right. So, while that happens, Chris Wsh, what are we doing?

I think the I think the crypto markets in particular have been a little bit harsh on on the Worsh nomination. That's my two cents. Uh if you look back, this is not the first time he's been in the seat, right? I think he was 35 years old, one of the youngest, so he has experience. He's coming in here knowing what he's doing. The thing that astounds me about his nomination and why things make sense to me is how often, Austin, have we seen somebody get nominated to a position of incredible power and say, "You know what? I want to make my agency smaller." It's very, very rare. Usually you see them say, "No, no, no. I want to be bigger. I got this big ego. I want I want power and control."

And it's not dissimilar to what we're seeing over at the SEC where Paul Atkins is saying, "Well, wait a second. You know what, guys? These commodities, they're not securities. I don't need them. Let's let's let them sit where they need to where they belong." Right? So, in both cases, and so like you have this Celig and and Atkins thing going on where they're like, "Hey, listen. Let's put the egos aside and let's just get it right and let's work together. You have the same thing going on with Wars and Besson, right? Where you're saying, "Okay, listen. We think a smaller Fed, a more focused Fed makes sense. The Fed got over its skis. It's outside its remmit. I'm going to bring it back down. You know, contrary to, like I said, like I'm not looking to expand power. I'm looking to shrink and focus and get back to my mission."

Um, smaller government deregulation. And I think there's going to be a new form of Treasury and Fed accord. What does this mean? This means in certain cases, the balance of power is going to shift to the Treasury. What does that mean? That means the Fed is going to stay independent just like it always has been. Its mission will be more focused. They're probably going to get out of the QEQT game. Um and then Bessant who's controlling debt issuance um who's really in love with stable coins and sees it as an important future for the power of the US dollar is going to export stable coins throughout the world and he's going to have more control over the balance sheet.

So it's a shift in power. Now what does that mean? You're introducing a degree of politics in certain cases. But again like is that a bad thing? Um independence is important for certain things. Maybe it's not important for others because as you elect governments, they're going to make decisions and their voters are going to hold them to account. So, it's going to be interesting to see where this balance of power plays out. But what makes me happy is it doesn't seem to be driven by egos. It seems to be driven by people that are ideologically aligned. You know, used to work with the same guy. Um, and I I I think it's I I I honestly believe that the market the crypto markets have maybe gotten this off.

Cosmo, are you back, man? Oh, I sound Am I Clawbot? Good, man. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, you're good. You are no longer an agent. I wish I wish I was as effective as a clawbot. I'll tell you that. So, all right. So, I'll I'll go next to give you time to gather your thoughts on the WASH thing and say this. Um, I think there's sort of three competing elements here and that's why the reaction has been jumbled. One that's interesting to me is this has not cut across traditional ideological lines with this nomination.

Like you did not see the reaction of Republicans uniformly love it, Democratic people uniformly hate it. Like this was more like oh no, right? And confusion across the group. I'll steal man the arguments against by saying I think people have looked at his views from 2008 where he was late on the crisis and then wanted to pull back liquidity early and has consistently been raising concerns about shrinking the size of the Fed balance sheet is saying this guy's legitimately a hawk on the other hand Chris to your point on the ideological alignment this might just be a recognition of reality that in a world of a debt to GDP of over 100% we have sort of fiscal dominance and that Treasury may be playing a more important role in some ways than the Fed right now as relates to how things work and that things should probably recognize that similarly the whole I want to shrink the Fed's balance sheet the other side of the equation is of course interest rates so if you shrink the balance sheet but also cut rates that's probably netneutral right as we look about what's happening if you balance those forces.

So I think looking only at one variable here is what's producing this sort of dispersion as we try to evaluate this pick. I think the strongest counterargument against has been he seems to have flipped his viewpoint on things back and forth based on political expediency. But maybe the strongest argument for is with Treasury and like fiscal policy dominating things, you might not want an ideologically rigid Fed chairman. So I think people are looking at the same set of facts and seeing two different potential outcomes depending on their model of the world.

Yeah. I mean I was going to say that just uh I think you guys really covered it pretty extensively. I I would just say he is the I think the sober pick that um at the very least you know calms the market. I think the, you know, there's there's certainly concerns about how co-opted by by President Trump he has become, but I think for the large part, the financial establishment really supports him because he's been around the block. He knows how things these things work and he's not going he's some of his views are are pretty out there, but at least people know that they're well-intentioned, well thought out, and therefore uh you know something that you can plan against.

So, here's my hot take. And I could be totally totally wrong, but I tweeted at this this out earlier today, and I'm actually shifting Austin my take. I think Clarity Act gets done. Okay. And and here's why. Um the worst check, the worst appointment um has obviously set crypto markets back, like it or not. Again, I don't think it's as bad as people think, but crypto's hurting. And some of it was probably well I don't want to say it's our own doing because 1010 to me was an effect of pushing everything overseas in the last administration but a lot of crypto's been hurting and and I think we're we're uh that's the truth of the matter and so now with this additional layer of of pain in certain cases um I think the president wants a win.

He he he really wants the crypto he really wants a crypto win and to me that's the market structure bill. And so today they've assembled u you know a bunch of folks from the crypto space and the banks to to bang out the final policy agendas items. Somebody yelled at me and said no they're not going to solve them. They're just going to like start talking again. Whatever. I think I think the policy items are solvable. I've always said this like we can figure out you know let them pay a little bit of interest to retail. Okay banks we're going to lower your capital levels. Everyone's happy. Whatever.

But the big question is the political side. And as we marched towards midterms, you got Fairshake with their hundred and something million dollar war chest, right? And you got you got the administration with a bunch of chips, right? They can spend those chips in a number of different places. I think they're going to start spending them to get the crypto build, to get the market structure build, to get clarity done. Uh because I think it's very important for them. You know, they've Trump has said from day one, I want to make the US the crypto capital of the planet. It doesn't feel good being on that planet right now, but I think he's gonna I think now is the time that they're gonna spend the chips to do it.

So, really freaking hard to do, right, Austin? But I feel like the stars are aligning and that could be the next leg up. My two cents. Come at me.

All right, I'll I'll I'll take the other side of that one, which is I don't think it's going to happen. Um, and I think there are two problems with what's going on right now. one of which I think is solvable. So let's start there. So on the yield thing, I think most of what's going on here, if I'm being honest, is insufficient understanding by the majority of banks on what is happening. And I think it is a call it education problem.

One thing that you see a lot of when you talk about stable coins is banks, especially smaller banks, community banks, having their lobby run around saying this is going to destroy us, right? Like we're going to lose all of our deposits, etc., etc. But I'm going to remind people of like some factual statements here that there is no way to contest. Like everything I'm saying here is a truth. One, community banks have been systematically losing deposits since 2009 and having it flow into call it the top 20 banks. They've gone from about 55% of total deposits to like 70% of total deposits over that time frame. That is over a trillion dollars of deposits.

There are mechanically not enough stable coins to be responsible for that. And most of it occurred before 2023, before stable coins got big. What's killing them is technology, right? Like the number one growing bank in Michigan is SoFi. Two, when you create a stable coin, banking deposits don't change, right? Like Cosmo, if you at Panta buy a stable coin from Circle, you have a bank deposit. Circle gets the bank deposit, you get the stable coin. There is no net change on deposits. And in fact, some of the banks that have gathered deposits best have banked the stable coins. And it's because of that onetoone swap relationship, right? like go look at historically silvergate signature now like customers lead dart bank people of that sort are actually gaining significant amounts of deposits understanding this problem three most of the buyers in the first place came from outside of the United States right so what we're doing is reshoring funding from FX markets with increased demand for dollar deposits and finally the stable coins hold primarily bank deposits an overnight reverse repo, which is more funding for banks, right? Which is why it's hilarious for me to see like JP Morgan fighting about this and like Jamie Diamond dropping the fbomb on Brian Armstrong.

Like Jamie, I used to work for your bank. If anybody shows you this, your bank benefits more than anybody else in the world from stable coins because of your rates, franchise, and repo trading desk. Don't this up. I still own a lot of your stock. So punchline, right? like the banks are actually on the wrong side of the issue. I think you can get them on sides because it's foreign banks that should be upset and US banks that should want US dollar stable coins. This is good for us. So, I've said all of that. I think that problem's solvable. Hopefully, the meeting today goes well. Chris, I know you and I have talked about that.

Here's the thing I don't see a solution to. How do you get any Democratic votes for this if their one sticking point is the epics? Like the bill. That's a tough one and that's why chips are going to come on the table. Fair shake's going to do what fairshake does best. But if Fairshake Okay, so here's a question for Fairshake. If you have all of the Senate Democrats who voted for genius saying we are a yes on clarity and we'll vote for it so long as you attach the ethics amendment, are you going to go after them in the general election or the primaries on that basis?

Well, I think we all know the right thing to do and that's to address ethics holistically. And so the answer is, you know, you don't go after them for that. You push them to put it out as part of the deal holistically across every single asset class. That's the, you know, whatever. Cosmo, do you have a view?

I think the market structure legislation I'm very hope I think I've uh Yeah, I'm very hopeful that it it passes through. I think it's going to be really important. Um but I also don't harbor any any um doubt that this this struggle the fact is this this this you know blockchain is just one of many things that the that the um that the government needs to focus on right and the fact that we got to be front this year is pretty incredible. Um, at some point uh at some point it's uh and you know the fact that we got staple legislation in 6 months is like truly truly incredible given how uh you know how dysfunctional our government can be. at some point they need to move on to other things like blockchain is one part of the economy and they've got you know thousands of other other things to do and unfortunately the recent um uh as we got so close to the finish line the recent friction that that erupted I think has put us back on the on the back burner again and and dep prioritized it for the for the administration just they've got too many other fires to burn before the midterms that said and I think I think a big signal of that was when uh the you know Paul the SEC and SCFTC chairs just came out last week to say that hey like if legislation doesn't happen we're going to start with rulemaking and I think that's a very tacit acknowledgement that legislation's kind of far so maybe the maybe the regulators are going to step ahead and take uh take charge yeah we might still get the benefits of it but to be honest it doesn't seem like the legislation is coming

I I think we're going to be fine either way right I've always said that because even if there's like a Gary Gendzer gets reappointed in three years from now it's awfully hard to unwind three years of precedent. So, like the regulators are going to do their job. Um, they're going to do God's work. It's going to be awesome. Um, but I do think if you do have that enshrined law, it's going to it's going to push the throttle down. It's going to accelerate this cycle. And this is the institutional adoption cycle. I think they're going to go faster if there's a law in place because then there's no turning back. Uh I think they may hedge a little bit or move a little bit slower without that law, but net net substance perspective, we're going to be in a great place.

I I will counter that and say I actually am not certain the best path forward isn't clarity not passing right now, Chris, because that's a lot of double negatives, man.

All right, I'll say I'll say it. It might be good if clarity doesn't happen. And the reason is if you give a competent SEC and CFTC time to write rules and you see those rules happen in the wild and you see things occurring, some of the things that are currently grinding the gears of Congress like say the AML KYC thing might just go away when they see things operating in practice. And like the SEC is actually a great example here. I was very critical of Gensler's leadership at the SEC partially because they kind of let the unelected non- lawyers in policy run the shop. Some of the best staffers who kind of understood these things are not new. It's just stuff on a different ledger.

And some of the enforcement people who wanted to go after the actual scammers were all sidelined right under that regime. Now those people are being brought to the forefront and allowed to do their work. And as you said, if they go through rulem, right, it's very hard to undo that because now you've got to like go through rulem again just to unmake the rules you made and then go through rulemaking yet again to make new rules. It also eliminates a lot of the arguments the SEC was making under Gensler of like, oh well, we haven't put forward rules. They have to No, you had rules and they could rely on those. You kind of get no back seats on that. So I I am not 100% certain it ends up being a bad thing.

And because here's the counterpoint that I want to put to you and I want to see whether you agree or disagree given that genius happened and is law and can't essentially be undone. I feel like the regulators now have to grapple with blockchain. Like the ability to just ignore it is gone because whoever you are, your regulated entities will be touching stable coins. Spoken like a true stable coin maxi, right? We got a good law of stable coins. Let's not ruin a good thing with let's not roll it back with market structure. I hear you. Um but you're right. There there is some credit there