For important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley Research Disclosure website, www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. The taking of photographs and the use of recording devices is not allowed. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales representative. I've also been asked to remind you that during today's chat, Paul may make forward-looking statements. Actual results may vary materially from today's statements. Information concerning risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could cause these results to differ are described in the company's SEC filings. Our discussion today may include reference to non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliation to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures are readily available in the company's latest shareholder letter on its investor relations website. Non-GAAP financial measures should be considered in addition to, and not substitution, for GAAP measures. Wow, that's a mouthful.
I'm impressed. I'm very impressed.
All right. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us at Morgan Stanley's Financials Conference. I'm Mike Cyprys, Equity Analyst covering brokers, asset managers, and exchanges for Morgan Stanley Research. We are thrilled to have with us here today, Paul Grewal, the Chief Legal Officer at Coinbase. As many of you know, Coinbase is the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the U.S., with over $130 billion of assets on the platform and $145 billion of quarterly volume traded. Paul, thank you. Thanks for joining us.
Thanks for having me, Mike.
Welcome.
Great to be here.
Great. Well, why don't we dive right in?
Sure.
There's a lot happening in the crypto markets and the regulatory backdrop, but, I believe this is your first conference appearance.
It is.
Why don't we kick off with a little bit of a quick intro on your background, which actually, I think is quite interesting. You've practiced law. You were a judge?
I was, yeah, for nearly six years.
Okay. Well, I'd like to hear a little bit about that. You've also worked on the corporate side. What attracted you to the crypto industry and to Coinbase? Talk about your current responsibilities and how you're spending most of your time today.
Yeah. Well, it's great to be here with all of you this morning. My introduction to crypto is a little different than many. It actually goes back to either 2012 or perhaps as far back as 2011, when, as you suggested, Mike, or alluded to, I was serving as a federal magistrate judge in the Federal District Court in Northern California. I was sitting in my chambers one morning when my law clerks brought in a very unusual Rule 41 search warrant application for something called Bitcoin. The FBI was looking to seize this thing, that referenced a white paper. Like a good judge, not knowing anything about what I was reading, I immediately turned to the internet to learn more. Remember the white paper?
You Googled it?
I Googled it. Yeah. I'm not too proud to admit that. From there, down the rabbit hole, I went, not knowing, of course, that a handful of years later, when I decided to return to private practice, this would be my career.
How would you say you're spending most of your time today and some of your priorities?
Yeah. Well, today, and certainly at this point in time, I'm spending a lot of my waking hours managing the regulatory landscape for not just Bitcoin, but all digital assets. You know, there are certainly no shortage of debates happening right now in Washington, active litigations involving the SEC, as well as a lot of interesting discussions happening with state regulators, I think often get overlooked. It's a pretty complicated landscape right now in terms of regulation.
Why don't we set the stage, take a step back, and talk about Coinbase's approach to regulation and how that has evolved, as you're journeying as a public company?
Yeah. Well, one of the things that really attracted me to Coinbase, roughly three years ago, was the fact that the company really took a very different approach to regulation than just about anybody else I was aware of in crypto. Which was to really, you know, be grounded principally in two concepts, two principles, that I think continue to guide how we think about regulation today. One is security. We really think offer a differentiated experience for our customers in terms of the safety of their assets and the safety of their experience on the platform. The second is really trust.
You know, as the Chief Legal officer, you know, commitment to a trusted relationship, not just with our customers, but also with regulators, policymakers, and others, was something that was very, very important to me, and particularly coming out of my previous career in public service.
Let's dive right into, I guess, the core topic.
Yeah, let's do it.
... du jour. In late March, Coinbase received a Wells notice from the SEC, and just last week, you were just mentioning, SEC announced it was suing Coinbase over its registration status and the sale of staking as a service program. Can you talk about your reaction to this litigation here?
My reaction is that as disappointed as we were to see the SEC choose to file suit last week, we were hardly surprised. Any of you who have been following crypto or Coinbase over the last several months were likely not surprised either, because we took a very different approach to sharing our conversations with the SEC, and that we were very public and very transparent about the fact that we received a Wells notice in the first place. I have to tell you, Mike, they do not teach you that in general counsel school that when you're served with a Wells notice, you immediately share it with the world, allow others to assess for themselves whether or not the commission has been as clear and transparent on what its issues and concerns were.
At the same time, given the response as part of the Wells process, or the opportunity for a response, rather, as part of the Wells process, we thought it equally important to be transparent in sharing our brief, and even a video Brian and I had made, explaining why we believe that a case against Coinbase would not just be misguided, but in fact contrary to law.
What outcomes do you see that could come from this? You know, what could the impacts be for Coinbase and implications for other crypto firms as a result?
Well, I think the outcome and implications really are best understood in the broader context of sort of where we see regulation going here in the United States. The fact of the matter is, court cases can often take a lot longer than any of us would like. In many ways, the litigation is just one part of the broader conversation. We were just talking earlier, Mike, last week, I testified before the House Agriculture Committee on draft legislation that is being introduced, not only by that committee, but by the House Financial Services Committee, I believe tomorrow.
You know, we're very excited that Washington is finally waking up to the need for some sensible rules that will allow us all to understand what a path to registration could look like for not just Coinbase, but for others in the industry. Critically important for issuers of digital assets, who, from all the conversations I've been having, are quite eager to operate inside of the registration and regulatory perimeter, but at present, really don't have a practical way to do that. I think the court case will play out over time, but more importantly, I think it has underscored the need for legislation and regulation in a way that we have been calling attention to for many months.
Even before the case, even long before the legislation was proposed, last year, Coinbase actually petitioned the SEC for rules in crypto and laid out what we think is a sensible approach that will inform a lot of how what we think the legislation will ultimately look like.
We'll come back to the legislation, but just on the case itself-
Yeah.
What's the process around that? Like, what are some of the steps? What's the next step from here?
The court case, just for, again, for those of you less familiar, includes charges that Coinbase has listed a number of unregistered digital assets on its platform, and provided to our customers certain products and services that, in the SEC's view, also qualify as unregistered securities. As a result, is seeking to hold Coinbase accountable for a failure to register as a national securities exchange. The key to understand all of this is to understand that the SEC's entire case is predicated on an understanding of what is a security, and a particular type of security and investment contract, that we think plainly does not cover the types of tokens that we list or the products and services that we offer.
Just one other point I'll just offer on that, again, it can be, I think, confusing, to put it gently, for some to look at the couple of 100 of tokens or assets that we list on our platform, Mike, and assume that there must be certain securities list included among them. What often gets overlooked is that Coinbase actually reviews thousands of assets, and so we reject well over 90% of them, largely because we agree, there could be securities laws concerns, and we have no interest in listing securities because we are not registered. The reason we are not registered is currently we don't have a path to registration. The court case will have to resolve all those issues in due course.
We think we've got the better of it on the law. We think that some of the SEC's statements and comments around this only confirm that their view of the law was very much in line with ours until quite recently. That will play out over time. To come back to your specific question, now that a case has been filed, we will have an opportunity to respond to the complaint that was filed here in New York. Once that response is filed, there will then be, I think, a number of legal questions that the court will have to resolve over the months that follow. Depending on how the court rules, we think the court could and should rule that the case lacks legal merit, and that would be the end of it.
If the court disagrees or concludes that there needs to be further discovery of facts in order to inform that ultimate question, the case would then proceed through discovery and potentially to a trial. Now, district judges in federal court have a lot of autonomy in setting schedules, so I can't say for sure whether this is a six-month, 12-month or 18-month process. There really is a lot of discretion afforded. In the meantime, you know, business continues as usual at Coinbase, and even as we're managing the litigation, we are equally eager and engaged in pressing the legislative solutions that we think are important. The last thing, I'm just in terms of filling out the litigation landscape for you, Mike, and for everyone, it's important to call out.
I mentioned that last July, last summer, we filed a petition for rules with the SEC. Of course, now 10 or 11 months have passed, and we haven't received any response. Just last month, we went to court ourselves and asked the court to order the SEC to respond to that petition that we had filed and make a decision on whether new rules would come. That case is proceeding, and we expect that case to actually be resolved in the next several weeks, if we're lucky. So lots of different moving pieces here, but that's at least a comprehensive view of the landscape in terms of litigation.
Could that have any sort of impact or bearing on the case that was just filed?
It could. It could. Now, strictly speaking, could it bar or preclude the SEC from pursuing its enforcement case? I don't think that's likely. However, it is absolutely the case that the clarity or lack of clarity in terms of rules for crypto is a key issue in the enforcement case. You know, the idea that somehow the industry was put on fair notice, we think is belied by the fact that the SEC has been stalling on rules now for some time. If and when, we hope and believe, the court orders the SEC to finally answer our petition, we think that will have a material impact on some of those questions about fair notice and the fairness of the proceeding overall.
The SEC also filed suit against Binance last week.
Yes.
I think it was the day before.
It was the day before.
Okay, before yours. Okay, maybe talk about the differences and similarities between the two. There's probably more differences than there are similarities.
Yeah.
Maybe you could just walk through.
There are some overlapping issues, to be sure. The timing, of course, was not coincidental either. There are very important differences between the two. Binance is also accused of listing a number of unregistered securities, and therefore operating an unregistered exchange. Critically, the case against Binance also includes very serious charges involving everything from wash- trading to operating a proprietary fund without adequate disclosures to customers, to generally commingling or abusing customer funds more in a variety of contexts, in ways that carry, I think, much more serious implications for the company. There's also charges against the CEO in that case, personally. That is not the case again, in terms of Coinbase.
Critically, the government in that case, the SEC, is seeking to seize a bunch of assets from Binance, as before the case even is allowed to proceed, and there's no such request for immediate relief against Coinbase. Some pretty important differences there.
So, no commingling accusations or any-
No. We really have. It's interesting, Mike, we really have a fundamental question of law in our case, about what is a security, that sort of undergirds the entire case. For Binance, that's also true, but there are also these rather, I think, much more serious questions of how the business was operated, how the company was run.
Would you guys rule out registering as a broker-dealer or an exchange?
I want to register. We want to register. For many months now, we have been banging on the SEC's door, asking for a path to registration or a way to register, not just for Coinbase, but for the entire industry. Going back to last September, a few months after we filed our public petition for rules, we entered into private conversations with the Commission, laying out our ideas on what registration could look like. There are some very technical differences that matter when it comes to blockchains and how they operate. What it means to settle trades, for example, this audience would appreciate, I think, more than most. It just works differently when it comes to crypto. Unfortunately, the conversations were not ultimately productive.
When we finally reached the point, Mike, where it was time for us to stop talking, for us to take down our slides and our nine different ideas for how this could work, and hear from the SEC, that was the point where they thanked us for our time and invited us to have a nice day.
You want to register as a broker-dealer, but it's not like you could just fill out a form and submit it over?
No.
Why, why is it so different?
It's been suggested it's a matter of going to the website and downloading a form. I encourage all of you, who are curious, to try that. You'll see this is not like, you know, running a Google search. It is impossible to do today. That said, like, we'd like to be able to offer digital asset securities in the future. As I mentioned, we reject some 90%+ of proposed assets for that reason, in large part. We'd like to get to a place where we could offer securities, that are in tokenized form. We just can't do it at present.
What about registering as a securities exchange?
That's also on the table. Initially, we had proposed to the SEC in those private discussions I mentioned, a framework that would involve an alternative trading system and a broker-dealer attached to it. The commission was very insistent that we step forward ideas for an NSE, a national securities exchange, as you suggest. Although it wasn't our first choice, we were flexible around that, too, because the fact of the matter is, like, you know, there are great opportunities for us if we can get to a place where we can offer digital asset securities. So we've tried to be as flexible as we could be. Unfortunately, up until this point, there hasn't been a lot of flexibility in return.
Why don't we shift and talk about the legislation?
Sure.
The House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Agriculture recently came out with a digital asset market structure discussion draft. You had the opportunity last week, as you mentioned, to testify.
I appreciate you characterizing my invitation to testify as an opportunity. It was actually, in all seriousness, it was, and I was grateful for the chance to do it.
Well, they're taking feedback-
They are taking feedback.
Which is great. We'll talk about the international in a moment. Just on the U.S., you had the opportunity to testify about the draft and the future of digital assets. What are your thoughts on the draft that they put forward?
I was very impressed, and I shared during my testimony, our view that the discussion draft represents a very important first step towards legislation that can work. There are several features of that I think are critically important, and the approach that the draft took was, I think, extremely productive in resolving some of the key uncertainties that we all face in this particular market. First and foremost, the discussion draft or proposal would, for the first time, confer on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, spot market authority over digital commodities. That's critically important, even if you agree on nothing with the industry, because even the chair and the SEC have acknowledged that Bitcoin, for example, is a commodity.
Today, at the federal level, we don't have spot market authority, yet CFTC's ability to effectively monitor and police that market is limited to fraud and market manipulation, and a lot of backwards-looking, after-the-fact assessments. We think having a comprehensive registration and oversight authority at the CFTC would be terrific and much more effective. The other thing that the bill does that I think is tremendously important, is that it would recognize for the first time that digital assets can and often do change character over time, as these networks and projects evolve. There would be an opportunity for an asset that initially perhaps was appropriately treated as a security, subject to oversight by the SEC to be certified as a digital commodity as ownership and distribution decentralized.
As it became clear that, for investors, you know, the information asymmetry that you normally focus on when you're regulating securities, no longer really was true, and it made sense to treat this much more like other commodities that we're very familiar with.
What areas do you feel the draft doesn't address or maybe could address things maybe a bit differently?
Yeah, it's not perfect. You know, the bill in markup, I have no doubt will be adjusted in several important ways. One example where I think there's room for improvement for instance, is that I mentioned this idea that an asset can change character over time, that it could be certified as having essentially a transition from a security into commodity. Right now, that's a call that only the SEC has an opportunity to make, in that the assets are self-certified, the SEC, under the current draft, has the right to essentially jump in within 30 days and raise objections.
I think that because these assets are being jointly regulated by the SEC and the CFTC, there's an opportunity there for the CFTC to also weigh in as part of that certification review. That may sound like a technical issue, but I think it's actually quite important. And I also think that, as the bill, as the draft currently recognizes, there are open questions about DeFi. As the draft currently is structured, there's a call for further study and essentially a parking of the issue to allow that study to take place. I think eventually we're gonna have to reach, you know, some stronger consensus on how to manage and think about DeFi within the regulatory framework, and so, that's something else we're very eager to engage in.
Where does the draft go from here? How does this sort of play out, you think, from a timeline perspective?
It's real interesting, Mike. It's a very kind of peculiar legislation, in that it has been introduced not just by one committee, but by actually two committees. House Ag' went first last week. House Financial Services goes later this week. Once each committee has formally introduced the bill, there will be a markup period, then both chairs of both committees have committed publicly to moving this forward quickly. We're hopeful this means that we will see an actual bill pass through each committee and go to the House floor by the end of the summer. That could delay because, of course, Washington has other things to worry about on a given day. We're optimistic that we're gonna see legislation go through the House this year, which would be, I think, pretty remarkable.
After it goes through the House, I imagine it then goes to the Senate. What's that process like, and any sort of views on how it may be received?
Yeah. No, this is like going back to Schoolhouse Rock, right?
Yeah.
You go over to the Senate side, and Senate Banking and the Senate Agriculture Committee are gonna also have a process to work through. You know, to be very clear, the politics in the Senate are different and perhaps more challenging than they are in the House. One of the things, though, that I was particularly encouraged by, Mike, that suggests that there is a strong support out there in the Senate to be had, is that it wasn't just a Republican bill only. It was introduced by the House Republicans, the Democrats in the House Ag' Committee last week were asking very serious, thoughtful questions.
I had a chance to meet with a number of them as part of my testimony, and I was encouraged that, we're gonna see Democratic support coming out of the House. I think depending on how strong that support is, I think that will encourage a number of Senate Democrats to join as well, which, of course, will increase the odds that we'll see, that legislation pass and then ultimately go to the President's desk for signature.
All right. Why don't we go overseas? Talk about international markets.
Sure.
You have mentioned in the past that you've seen good progress overseas.
We have.
Maybe talk a bit about that. What are you seeing in other markets that keeps you optimistic?
Well, there's a lot to be optimistic outside the United States, even as regulators in Europe, in the U.K., Australia, you name it, are just as focused on investor protections and consumer protection issues as anyone here in the United States. MiCA, in the European Union, I think, is proving to be a watershed moment in terms of legislation now being passed, that will impact all 27 member states, and create a framework for digital assets that, you know, gets past this sort of silly turf battle we have in America over, is it a commodity? Is it a security? Does it go to the SEC? Does it go to the CFTC?
Europe, I think, has a much more sensible approach of treating this as an asset, period and stop, and then imposing you know, strict requirements for disclosures, managing conflicts, all the other issues that you might have concerns about. I think we're gonna see in the coming year that regulatory framework enacted and fully online in a way that will encourage and incent developments. The same is happening in the U.K. by the way. The current government, I think has been very public in declaring its support for digital assets. I saw just late last night, the Prime Minister himself, you know, welcoming a16z as they open up their first international office in London.
It's a very different attitude than the one I confronted in Washington last week and we have been dealing with for some time. You're just seeing a much more, I think, mature recognition in other markets that, yes, the investor protection issues are important, but this is an asset class that's here to stay. Crypto isn't going anywhere, let's stop talking about it as some sort of boogeyman, and rather, recognize it for what it is, an opportunity for economic development, innovation, that needs to be properly regulated, but that is very important for any aspiring economy to embrace if it wants to be part of the financial system future.
G iven that, sort of backdrop internationally, how do you think about new product launches internationally, particularly as you await clarity in the U.S.? Maybe remind us what portion of Coinbase's business is overseas today.
Yeah. You know, Coinbase has operated as an international business for some time now. It's not unusual that, or shouldn't be terribly surprising that we would continue to look for opportunities in overseas markets. I think in a recent quarter, something like 20% of our top line revenue came from markets outside the United States. This is a significant part of who we are and how we operate.
That said, between, you know, the clarity and certainty we're seeing in some of these other markets outside the U.S. and, you know, the continued questions we have here stateside, you know, we're looking for ways in which to, you know, invest in new opportunities overseas and in overseas markets, whether it is in doubling down in markets where we've had a licensure or registration for some time, Germany, for example, the U.K., Australia, or in serving other markets through our international exchange that we just announced and are quickly bringing online in Bermuda. There's a lot of exciting stuff happening outside the United States, and we're not giving up on America.
We're very much committed to reforming the broken process we have here, but the rest of the world isn't waiting, and we feel very strongly, we can't afford to wait either, to be part of that, a part of that progress.
Speaking of new opportunities, let's talk about derivatives.
Sure.
Maybe just give us an update where we are with the build-out of Coinbase's derivatives platform and the ability to offer leverage and access customers directly. What's the journey for that in the U.S., and how do you think about that overseas?
Yeah, we're very excited. We have been pleased with the progress we have made in securing our full license to operate a derivatives market. The CFTC and the NFA have been, I think, very positive and productive in reviewing our applications and, you know, we're not yet ready to announce we've got everything in hand, but that progress is quite good. Again, more importantly or equally important from my perspective, the tenor and tone is how do we solve for the problems that we need to solve to make sure that these markets are efficiently operated and overseen?
The line of travel, the direction of sight is quite positive, we're eager to see that all come to a head very, very soon, in a way that would allow us to move forward here in the U.S. In the meantime, outside the United States, again, we're seeing, you know, a very positive embrace of leverage and derivatives opportunities, you know, through our exchange, that we will operate out of Bermuda and perhaps elsewhere at some point in the future.
The fact of the matter is that, you know, I think in order to operate a global business and participate, you know, in market opportunities to the degree that we want to on behalf of our shareholders, we need to be able to offer derivatives. We need to be able to offer leverage products and services, and that remains a top priority for the company.
Just to clarify for everyone, what portion would you say is operating today versus what's still to come on the derivative front?
I don't have exact percentages-
Okay.
I'm hesitant to be terribly precise. What I can say is that, you know, the main challenge we've had here in the U.S. has been just achieving full licensure from the CFTC and from the NFA. In both cases, we have received very positive feedback as our application has proceeded, so very encouraged by that. Of course, that will open up some significant opportunities here in the U.S.
Still in the process of obtaining licenses is where you're at. Okay. Maybe just last question from me before I open it up to the audience.
Sure.
Get your questions ready, and then we'll open it up. Clearly the industry has been through a lot, whether it's from Terra Luna to the FTX, most recently, the bankruptcy of Genesis, and this has led some to be concerned around the parent of the Digital Currency Group, its sister company, Grayscale, just on and on. A lot of risk out there. Just curious how you think about, you know, your take on why people are concerned, what risks do you see, and how do you protect Coinbase?
Well, I think people are concerned because the fact of the matter is that even if you have a strong appetite for volatility and understand that in emerging markets, you're going to see successes and failures, over a relatively short, you know, life cycle. You know, the failures in the last 12 or 18 months in crypto have been somewhat spectacular, right? There's just, there's been a lot of dramatic developments, a number of dramatic developments that, I think, you know, only a Hollywood scriptwriter could have, could have imagined in certain cases.
The line of sight, again, the direction of travel, I think should give all of us a lot of confidence that this is just part of the maturation, and these are growing pains that we have to go through in order to get to a better place. You know, the way I think about it, Mike, is that, you know, we look at peaks and troughs, and as, you know, one cycle ends and another cycle begins, the reality is that, you know, yesterday's peak is tomorrow's trough, and we see this over- and- over again in a number of different assets. That gives me a lot of confidence. The other thing that gives me a lot of confidence, as I said, is that, you know, crypto has remained a largely bipartisan issue.
There are partisan elements to the conversation in Washington. We still see Democrats and Republicans engaging with, you know, proposals for sensible rules. There's not a lot that they engage in, you know, collectively, these days. I think that says something about the long-term potential and future. The last thing I will say is that, you know, I think that the fact of the matter is that, you know, the use cases that we're seeing emerge in crypto, even in the midst of all this uncertainty and tumult on the regulatory front, suggests that there are real, you know, there are real needs that crypto can and will solve for people, whether it's digital health ID, whether it's digital health records, whether it's decentralized ID, very interesting gaming applications.
The fact that developers continue to pour time, energy, creativity, and resources into building interesting use cases with all of this tumult around us, suggests that once and when we get this resolved on the regulatory front and the legislative front, there are tremendous opportunities that lie ahead.
All right. I'll see if there are any questions here from the audience. There is? Sure. Sorry, do you mind just waiting for the microphone? Right behind you. Yeah.
Two-part question. Thanks for setting this up, Michael. First of all, do you think the SEC has jurisdiction over crypto? Because there's a lot of debate. Do you think Congress needs to authorize that? That's my first question. Second of all, there's thousands and thousands of registered broker-dealers, and almost every one of them has a smaller legal department than you and less financial resources. If we splice through what you're saying and what they're saying, are you trying to register as a traditional broker-dealer, or are you looking for some type of special crypto broker-dealer that is not available?
On the last point, I'll say that. I'll take them in reverse order. The broker-dealer application or structure that we would ideally want, would accommodate just some certain unique features of the way the technology operates. For example, you know, settlement just works very differently, and the blockchain offers a settlement layer. It strikes me as somewhat unproductive and perhaps unnecessary to have the same requirements for settlement agents and transfer agents that would apply in a traditional broker-dealer model. We're very flexible around this. I think the main point is, yes, we need to accommodate some structural elements that are unique to crypto, the other thing that I think is equally important is that issuers need to have a clear path to registration as well.
You know, for example, Coinbase has had now for some time, two broker-dealers register with the SEC, but they're dormant. We can't really do anything with them because no issuer can effectively list or meet the current disclosure requirements in ways that would allow us to list them. I do think there does need to be some accommodation. The fundamental point, you know, we have made to the SEC, and even in the midst of all this current challenge, we remain open-minded and are keeping an open door. We're flexible on how we can meet some of the obligations. The point is, we do need there to be some framework in place for this to make sense.
I believe your first question, if I remember correctly, is just around the role of the SEC. Of course, the SEC has a role to play. As I mentioned, many or most of the digital assets that we reject for listing today are rejected because they are securities. We would love to have a world where the SEC had complete oversight over digital asset securities, but that allowed for a registration framework and disclosure standards that would allow those assets to come out from the cold and into a perimeter that, inside the perimeter in a way that allows us to list them subject to full SEC oversight.
We're just about out on time here, so maybe just in the last six-.
Sure
-seconds that we have remaining, what keeps you optimistic in the midst of all these legal and regulatory challenges?
Oh, for more than anything else, it's just talking to developers. I mean, you know, I think if you spend a lot of time talking to policymakers and regulators, it's easy to get sort of sad, or at least discouraged. You know, lots of good people and people operating in good faith, are struggling in the government, I think, to understand the right way to regulate. When you actually go out and see, like, the creativity and the energy in the ecosystem, the fact that you've got, you know, these young, energetic, or companies and groups of developers pushing forward with new use cases, that tells me that, like, crypto is going to happen. The only question is, are we gonna be part of it here in the U.S., or are we gonna let it all move overseas?
Well, let's hope we're part of it.
I hope so, too.
Great.
I think we will be.
Yeah, let's leave it there.
All right.
Thank you very much, Paul.
Thank you, Mike. Appreciate it.