The digital asset transition - Stablecoins, CBDCs, and a regulatory crossroads - S7E5

Hi everyone and welcome to PWC's risk and regulation rundown podcast. This is where we unpack the latest in financial regulation and what it means for firms. I'm your guest host for today's episode, Laura Dalvidia, and in my work at PWC I focus on digital assets, risk and regulation. Today we are looking at stablecoins and central bank digital currencies. In the US, the Genius Act brings a federal framework for dollar-packed stablecoins. In the UK, the FCA is developing its own framework, but the regulatory tone remains more cautious. To help us make sense of the policy's market shifts and what it all means for the future of digital money, I'm joined virtually by two Praline guests. Elise Susie Watts, executive director at Global Digital Finance and Amanda Wick, founder of the Association for Women in Cryptocurrency and author of her new book, The Catalyst. So let's start with the basics first. I've noticed in discussions, even with those in financial services, that many confuse stablecoins with tokenized deposits and the other way round. Both seem to be everywhere right now, but still not the same. So in short, Elise, can you go through the basic differences please? Happy to, and I should say I'm going to try to take a relatively neutral definition because many of the emerging regulatory regimes we see around the world obviously are going to have their specific one. But in general, stablecoins refer to a token designed to maintain stable value, par value, and that is with regards to an underlying fiat currency. They tend to need to be backed one-to-one, so we're not talking about algorithmic stablecoins, but those that are backed one-to-one by a mix of cash and cash equivalent reserves or other high-quality liquid assets. Also really important to mention here that they are bearer instruments as well. On the other hand, tokenized deposits are digital representations of traditional bank deposits that are recorded on DLT or a blockchain network, obviously, and noting here that deposits are not bearer instruments because obviously they're linked to that underlying deposit there as opposed to the underlying assets in the case of stablecoins. And you could wrap yourself in circles getting out of all kinds of hybrids or things that might fall in between, and I think we certainly may see evolutions of that kind in the future, but that's my very broad definition for both of those, acknowledging of course that there's going to be jurisdictional nuances or indeed firm specific nuances as well in how they approach these products. Brilliant, thank you. We've cleared that up. So we'll cover stablecoin regulation in a bit, but aside of that, why has stablecoin market uptake increased so sharply since early 2024? We've got traditional FS firms, crypto natives and global tech firms looking to issue their own stablecoins or have already done so. What's driving the shift in both demand and supply? I guess I could start with that one, and then Elise if you disagree or agree, try them in, but I think probably one of the things that's driven stablecoin demand the greatest has been to Elise's point, the whole idea of stablecoins was to create stable value. So for people in hyperinflationary countries or countries with volatile governments or currencies that they don't trust, stablecoins have been an incredible facilitator of international dollar demand. So like people in countries like Venezuela, Argentina, Nigeria, when they don't want their own hyperinflationary currency, their entire markets that have developed where they're using stablecoins that are usually backed by US dollars to operate to have living income where they know that if they make $20 today, it's worth $20 tomorrow as opposed to their local currency where they can make $20 today and it could be worthless the next day, which is terrifying right from an economic perspective. So I think that's one of the things that we were seeing and it's one of the reasons why I think US dollar backed stablecoins have been predominantly like the largest market driver of the stablecoin market is the facilitation of that global dollar demand, especially particularly in the retail sphere. I think what I would add to that is that I think as well, stablecoins main very powerful use case, which Amanda was getting at is that they have this amazing cross border potential and that they can be used in a way that is truly global in a way that you can't with not, you know, not only just physical cash, but also with various bank cards that you might have, for example, which are not always going to work in every country or for every payment that you might need to make. There's this idea that we can facilitate more efficient cross border payments, more efficient remittances, of course, but even for things, you know, that are really powerful use cases obviously in the shipping industry as well, where you can unlock trapped capital much faster across the whole of the value chain at each step in the journey. And so I think that cross border element for stablecoins is really important, but you know, I think you also can't leave out, you know, talked about why we're seeing so much market uptake. And I think that that's also because we're seeing a lot more regulatory clarity as well. So before it was kind of like, you know, they weren't very clearly defined. We hadn't coalesced around these common definitions, we were seeing algorithmic stablecoins floating around and then, you know, being pushed out when people realized they weren't actually as stable as they purported to be. Now we're seeing much clearer guardrails and regulation about what a stablecoin could be, how they could be integrated in the payment systems of our future. And so I think that also, once you get that regulatory clarity and comfort gives the institutions in particular, a chance to get involved when they see that there's a clear regulatory path. And do you see stablecoins gaining more attraction and wholesale space as well? Definitely. I think so. There's absolutely a case for wholesale use cases of stablecoins. And I think, for example, obviously, I know we can have a whole other discussion about CBDCs, but, you know, central bank money, as mandated by the PFMI principles, that you should settle in central bank money where practical and available. Now if you don't have digital central bank money in the form of a CBDC available, you could settle in stablecoins instead. And it's definitely another powerful use for stablecoins. I think we'll see a lot more interest in that. But also I want to be clear here, because I obviously mentioned tokenized deposits at the beginning, too, that I don't think that any of these are an either or option. My personal view, and I think to be fair, the view of a lot of people in industry is that we're working towards a multi-digital currency future where tokenized deposits, stablecoins, and CBDCs should all be able to coexist and interoperate as the next evolution of financial services. So I'm very excited for that as well. Yeah, definitely. And you mentioned, at least, regulation, then if we start with the U.S., the Genius Act passed in the U.S. earlier in July 25, so, Amanda, what does that mean in practice? And why is the U.S. moving so decisively here? Well, I think it helps, right, like if you know much about the American political system, when one party kind of rules all three houses, things tend to move a lot faster. So because the Republicans have the presidency, the Senate, and the House, even without a supermajority, they were able to get, you know, the statutes passed here. Now, I will say, I think it's really worth noting that I think over 100 Democrats signed on to Genius in recognition of kind of like the need for stablecoin legislation. So that was actually heartening to a lot of us who in the past had not seen Democrats kind of like as forward-thinking and as forward-moving as some of their colleagues across the aisle. I think the biggest thing, and at least kind of alluded to it or even downright said it, is that Genius finally gives everyone clear, unified, regulatory pathway for offering stablecoin products and services in the U.S., right? And before that, there was this like terrible patchwork of kind of state-level federal rules, like it was a bit of a mess. And so now banks, fintechs, international companies, they can extend or even expand operations in the U.S. market, which is really what Genius was all about, right? And so I think it basically created the certainty that people needed to get involved, which was essential. I think what was really interesting is that, you know, Elise and I spend tons of time out on the road speaking at conferences. And for us, like stablecoins have been the obvious use case, like for years, right? Like it's a modernization of payments, it had so many things going for it. What has been shocking to me is the number of massively large companies who have not been looking at this and were seemingly completely flat-footed and have kind of like had no plan for digital assets. And all of a sudden, Genius went from like zero to a hundred. But in reality, stablecoin legislation had been in discussion. People had been talking about this. So it's an interesting thing where it feels like to some people it's everything everywhere all at once, but I can tell you, for friends of mine who've been working on stablecoin legislation for years, it's the culmination of a very, very long path that lots of people I think just ignored and were trying to pretend was a fad. So it's a very weird dynamic right now where I think those companies that have been talking about this, listening to people like Elise and you, right, like for people who have been listening and wanting to stay ahead of it, I think it's like the next logical step. But for a lot of people who were burying their heads in the sand or thought that this would just go away, now all of a sudden it's everything everywhere all at once. And I'm kind of like, well, but we've been trying to tell you that this was coming for years. So it's a very interesting dynamic where you kind of feel like very, I don't know what the word is not like Jekyll and Hyde, but very much like, I don't know what rock you were living under. If you didn't know about stablecoins prior to the passage of genius, I'm not, I'm not sure what your emerging tech policy was either as a regulator, as a policymaker, or as corporations trying to future proof your payments mechanisms. Yeah, no, agreed. If we then bring it back to the UK, the FCA ran a consultation earlier this year. And how does the UK's proposed framework compare and how has the market responded on this side? Yeah, so really interesting, because actually, I think that in this, in some ways, the US and the UK have taken a similar approach to producing their regulatory frameworks, which is in the EU, Mika was done everything, everywhere, all at once. It was a big framework that covered everything, except for DeFi, and really tried to hit the whole of the market and stablecoins fall in one piece of legislation. Like the US, the UK has set out a roadmap where they're going through piece by piece and consulting on briefing from market structure to stablecoins, to prudential, to custody. So the specific stablecoin consultation, if we're doing a comparison to genius, is pretty interesting from the UK and quite comprehensive consultation closes on July 31, after which the FCA will then do a review and put out a policy statement based on any kind of changes they'll make to that proposal from feedback they received from industry. I think notably a few differences that we see in the UK, as opposed to not only genius, but also jurisdictions like Singapore and Abu Dhabi, is that the UK has different redemption requirements. So while in genius, for example, it says that you need to have timely redemption, and you obviously have to disclose what your redemption policy is very clearly. In the UK, we're proposing a one day time horizon. That's quite punchy and short, especially if you're not in a dollar market because let's remember that the guilt market is not open seven days a week, 24 hours. And so that one day redemption is going to be pretty tight. And I think we're going to see a lot of industry feedback on that point because it will be likely quite difficult from an operational perspective. We're also seeing some slightly different proposals when it comes from backing assets coming out of the UK as well. Now notably here earlier, and this was in 2024, we saw two early approaches not in consultation form yet, but in discussion from Bank of England and FCA that proposed to have basically two different regimes, one for systemic stablecoins from the Bank of England, and one for regular everyday stablecoins from the FCA. And basically the systemic ones meant those that were widely widely used for retail purposes, not on the bank to find them. Now we haven't seen an update from the bank yet, but interestingly on backing assets that regime had proposed 100% backing in central bank reserves, which frankly is not a very common model that we're seeing from any stablecoin issuer in the market. Most might have between 5% to 10% central bank reserves and then quite a high percentage, usually around 95% of HQLA. So that was very interesting. And I think we have seen some potential changes from the bank in that stance, which might be coming down the pipeline and from the FCA in their regime, they did say that they would allow a wide range of backing assets, but now it's important to remember the other consultation I mentioned, which is the prudential one. That one though did apply risk add-ons for different types of backing assets and quite specifically a 5% risk add-on for money market funds as backing assets, which you wouldn't really use them then would you if you had that large risk add-on. And so coming to the conclusion of where I'm drawing this differentiation between the UK and genius, the genius does allow for a wide range of backing assets and a high percentage. It also has a much more proportionate and flexible time horizon when it comes to redemption. I think we're going to see a lot of strong pushback when these consultation responses are published to the FCA that really advocates for something that's more aligned to genius, particularly because people are going to want to see the UK take advantage of the reciprocity provisions that are ingenious, because given that 99% of the world's stablecoins are dollar-backed, the UK can lock in a reciprocal agreement with the US, will automatically become a much more attractive jurisdiction for stablecoins to grow and to issue within the UK. So that's my probably slightly small rant about the differences between the UK and the US at the moment comes to stablecoin regulation. Now, that's a really good point and a really good bridge to my next question, which was to talk about more the policy side as well and what's going on between the Treasury and the Bank of England and maybe the FCA. So, in July 2025, we got the mansion house speech from the Treasury and the Chancellor called out digital assets, including stablecoins as one of the key priorities. But the bank and maybe other authorities sound a lot more cautious in their public speeches. So, why does there seem to be this tension between the Treasury and the authorities on stablecoins or do you even agree, am I just reading the room wrong? No, I think you're right. I think there is always going to be a little bit of tension, right? Because if you think about what the mandates of these bodies are, the Treasury is executing on the plans that the government has, their government function, whereas really the Bank of England and the FCA have different remits and the FCA is independent regulator. And so, I think for the Bank of England, what are they concerned about? Financial stability. That's like their main thing. They want to make sure that the UK's financial markets are stable. And so, that is how they're approaching it. And it is going to be a much more risk cautious approach when they think about new technologies and stablecoins. That being said, the bank has done a lot of great research. They do have the digital security sandbox and we did see commitment to that from the Chancellor. And we did see an acknowledgement from the Bank of England as well during that out of mansion house week on stablecoins and their potential as long as risks were appropriately mitigated. So, I would say actually that this is the time for industry to really step up and demonstrate to the Bank of England and the FCA how those risks can be mitigated to give them that comfort and to help them fulfill the vision that government has for the UK. So, I think there's definitely still potential there, but I would agree with you. I do think that there's always going to be that inherent tension, right, between how much risk do you add in and how do you make sure consumers are protected, how do you make sure markets remain stable while still pushing a growth agenda and there are always going to be trade offs. So, I empathize because it's a very difficult job, but I think it's one where we in industry can definitely step in and try to provide them with the right information as well as the risk mitigations that can actually take place to provide them with that comfort. I totally agree with that. I think if I could add one thing, because 100% could not footstomp that enough that this is industry's moment to basically prove that it is now more suit than hoodie, whereas when it started, it was definitely more hoodies than suits, and that scares everyone when the concept of the future of financial services looks like it's in the hands of a bunch of stupid crypto bros who are just running around with Wen Lambeau, right, and those cultures kind of collide in weird ways, but I do think it's worth noting that you have to understand that there is a little bit of hypocrisy on the banking side in the sense that what we've seen, especially over the last few years, are major banks, representatives of major banks who are crapping on the crypto industry as a whole, which definitely includes stable coins and don't get me wrong, included some companies that deserve to be crapped on. But it kind of like pretending that banking was doing it perfectly as if they weren't responsible for the 2008 financial crisis, as if the system was perfect and crypto came in and was just doing it terribly, right? And I think it's like the nature of any competitor model, nobody was surprised when the CD industry hated Napster, right? It was their downfall. There is an aspect, as Elise mentioned earlier, there's an aspect of stable coins in particular when you're talking about cross-border payments and you're talking about the speed of payment movement. There is absolutely an aspect of crypto that directly competes with banks and very antiquated technology that they cannot update easily without kind of like adopting almost like, I forget what you call it when AI and humans mash together, but this idea that like eventually humans will be part robot, right? This is essentially what will happen to banks because they can't rip out all of their rails that are built in. Like some of them are still running on cobalt technology. You can't just like rip that out. So like you have this tension where banks are basically publicly now, right? Saying like, oh yeah, this is valid technology. Some of them have been spending millions and millions and millions of dollars on their own internal blockchain technology and distributed ledger technology blockchains in recognition of the need for their tech to improve. So I think it's a very interesting dynamic where publicly they're acknowledging the need for this technology because obviously people want lower fees and faster payments while simultaneously trying to ensure that crypto does not eat their lunch and swallow their business model. And so there's kind of like this like push and pull where the banks are trying to make they say like, oh, it's unstable that you have to regulate it, but fine. But then there's also this, but you're also just trying to keep your foot on its neck so that it doesn't swallow your business whole, which is understandable, right? #capitalism. Better late than never, I guess that they are adapting now. It will hopefully make the whole industry better. Yeah, I hope so. And to Elise's point, I really think industry is starting to understand this is your moment. Do not screw it up. And I think, you know, I don't want to speak for Elise, but I know there's a bunch of us that the hope is, is that the more serious voices, the companies that have been doing it right, like historically, some of the loudest voices in crypto have not necessarily been the ones that you want being the flagbearers of the entire industry. I think stablecoins and what we're seeing here is kind of like the maturation of that. And so I think, you know, my hope is you're going to see kind of like mature crypto step forward and the conversations in the industry, like really moving and propounding things and to Elise's point, suggesting really forward looking things to say, we are the future of digital finance. We are no longer running around saying stupid things like you can't regulate math or we should have the anonymous free flow of money or things that would basically make any policymaker or regulator turn and run, right? And so I think those, we have come a long, long way, but I do think there's a recognition by industry that this is a moment that you don't want to lose and you don't want to blow it. So if the use of stablecoins continues to increase, do we need central bank digital currencies anymore? In the US, we know that it's not going to happen for a while. The EU has a more positive view. Some say they're even using a ZPDC as a tool against the stablecoin uptake. In the UK, it's somewhere in the middle for now, at least. Do you guys agree? I don't know if I would say that the EU is using ZPDC as a tool against stablecoins. I personally would not take that view. I think that there are some issues with stablecoin scaling in the EU, but those are actually related to slight kind of crossing in regulation between what's happening with Minka and what's happening with the money regulation. However, that being said, we do still see major stablecoin issuances in the EU from some of the biggest stablecoin issuers. So I don't think we would be seeing that if the EU didn't want stablecoins. Whereas, I really don't like to hate on the UK, but we don't have any GBP-backed stablecoins. We do have Euro-backed stablecoins, so I think it's important that we think about that. However, that being said, the EU has been very pro-ZPDC. From the conversations that I've had with the public sector on this, they see this as a monetary sovereignty issue, and they make it clear, and the conversations that I've had with any EU central banker, they make it clear that they do not plan for EU ZPDCs or digital Euros to be the only option for people. They just want it to be an option. And you know what? I don't really have a massive problem with that. I think it comes back to what I was saying earlier, which is that I do think that these types of currencies can coincide. My very personal view is that in a lot of massively developed economies that have pretty efficient payment networks, do we have a massive need or a use case for a retail ZPDC? Probably not. I think the wholesale use case is more powerful. However, that being said, if it is an option for people, if governments are doing experimentation on how to modernize their technology, if they're looking at how they can integrate DLT within their payment systems. I actually think that that's a good thing. And I do think that there is a little bit of a danger in closing oneself off from doing any experimentation whatsoever. You might do the experimentation and say, yeah, actually, we don't need it, or maybe we need a wholesale one instead. But I actually may be a little bit more pro-EU on this one than a lot of the market commentary I see. And I think that monetary sovereignty is something that every jurisdiction has to grapple with and think about how they manage. And it's becoming even more complex in an era of digital currencies. And Amanda has thoughts on this from a geopolitical perspective as well. However, I will say that I actually think that that ZPDC experimentation and research from, you know, a jurisdictional perspective is probably net good because of the education that we'll do for the public sector and helping them to understand and get comfortable with these technologies, so long as it's only an option and it's not being forced upon citizens for years. I 100% agree with like every word of that. I think one of the like tragic things that we're seeing in the United States is the politicization and the misinformation around this because it's been turned into kind of like a political issue, which is really tragic. Because I think, you know, and at least correct me if I'm wrong, but like, I think in addition to the monetary sovereignty issue, one of the things that the EU is looking at is the concept of payment as a public good or payment as a right. Right? Like we don't actually think about this, but people don't really think about the fact that when they go into a restaurant or to a store and they go to make a payment, which most people now are using some form of bank card, tap to pay, like especially in the UK, tap to pay is huge. But you actually pay quite a bit as a merchant for tap to pay. Right? Like people don't realize the fees that go on in that system. But if you're looking at a central bank, a central bank digital currency and you're looking at payments as a public good, merchants in those countries that put into place a CBDC could theoretically have low to no fees because it's a, it's a publicly provided good. I think the fascinating thing here that I'm watching is Wyoming, one of the states in the US is going, is building its own stable token, which is kind of like the state equivalent of a CBDC. It's obviously not a central bank. It's just a state backed token, but it's basically a public stable coin, if you will. And the fascinating thing about that model is that if you think about the average Wyoming merchant, they're going to get a sales system that has extremely, probably low to no fees. Right? Wyoming's going to take in lots of dollars from, from residents of the state who want, who want to use the payment system, they will actually make the money instead of like a for profit company, like stable coin issuers. And then all the profits made by the state of Wyoming, instead of going to a private company can go to roads, to schools, et cetera, which is probably similar to the EU model for CBDCs, because when a country brings in money to the public fisk, what it uses it for is vastly different than what a private company does, right? And I think what's going to be tragic is to Elise's point earlier, we are seeing like all these different types of digital currencies, like growing at different rates. I think there are so many countries that are working on CBDC projects that either already have them, are in the process, are discussing interoperability. And when you think of that technological advancement, when you think of America and countries that are so far behind, that they're not even researching, they're not even working, they're just shutting it down in the interest of politics, that's a really horrifying thing. If you think about cutting off an arm and then just hoping that your right arm is strong enough to keep swinging in the global macroeconomic space. So I think that's the, I'm hoping, my fear is that Wyoming is too small a market. But if it does, if it shows signs of doing well in California, New York, or even Texas did it, probably not Texas, but like any of the states that are leaning towards pro-crypto objective conversations, but if any of the other states did it and started making real money and started showing like the concept of payment as a public good, it would break through the misinformation campaigns that the right has propounded on CBDCs. But I think it's going to be really interesting when other companies start plugging in together and the benefits of interoperable CBDCs are seen, what happens when you're far behind and you were just banking on private stablecoin companies. But this is like, you kind of have to take a 360 view. And I just think some people look at this in very siloed ways. And I love that the EU is thinking not just a monetary sovereignty, but as payments as a public good, and that kind of social safety net of people deserve to be able to pay for things. And that, I think, is a part of the discussion in financial inclusion that we could do a better job of. Because everybody loves to say how financial inclusion crypto is better for that. The payments as a public good is the discussion where that is truly financial inclusion. Brilliant point, both of you. But especially Amanda, I had no idea about the CBDC or their state backed coin project in the US. So I'm sure many of the listeners didn't either. But sorry, I need to move on to, definitely need to move on to your first book, which you published recently, The Catalyst. Amanda, you talk about the dominance and potential decline of the US dollar. And there's an argument that strong USD stable coins could help the US maintain that dominance. Do you think that will be enough in the long term to keep things as they have been or are? You know, it's funny, I'm getting this question, obviously, more and more since July 17 and the passage of the Genius Act. It's an interesting question of whether there is enough retail dollar demand and purchase and stable coins tend to purchase T bills in order to meet the reserve requirements. But the issue is, the stable coin market right now, the US dollar backed stable coin market, I think is somewhere around like the 16th largest holder of treasury bills combined. And I think one of the companies, like the largest in the market is the 19th largest. So ahead of some governments. And I think that people are really not thinking about the issue there. I remember being on a panel in London, actually, where I said something to the effect of, look, that company could sell a significant number of T bills tomorrow and swing the entire global markets and somebody on the panel who had a relationship with that company, like denied it. But then Yesha Yadav from a brilliant law professor from Vanderbilt Law School, who spend all day studying these markets. It's like, no, they could absolutely liquidate tomorrow. There is currently no rule or regulation. They're based in a foreign country. I think people, one of the reasons I wrote the book is because I think people don't look at like the interconnectedness of all of this. It's called the catalyst because there were these eight catalysts that interplay together and America's political and economic dysfunction goes much further than not having stablecoin regulation. Right. I think the question, if you talk to economists is even if you pass stablecoin legislation and you create a pathway for shoring up dollar dominance using stablecoins to satisfy retail dollar demand globally. We are still in a spiraling debt crisis as a country. And the question is, can you bring in enough revenue? Can you pay down the debt fast enough? And I don't think stablecoins really address that. Now, obviously the hope is that we can bring enough business and enough investment into the country. But I just think people are kind of not hopeful because when you combine genius with the ironically named big, beautiful bill, and you look at the addition to spending that's going to add, it's just basic math, the concept of I don't know that you're going to bring in enough to counter additional spiraling debt. And if you think about the fact that you haven't really done anything to prevent companies that now hold a massive amount of that debt from doing whatever they want with it, like it's just a very fundamental, it's a very fraught place to be in. And I think the response from the American government reminds me of that meme, that dog that sits in the burning house and says, this is fine, everything is fine. Like American exceptionalism, whether it's unmerited and unbridled, but particularly unbridled, unmerited American exceptionalism is one of the strongest forces in the world. If you were to take the description of America, like where the status of the country is and take out the word America and read it to somebody, they would think it was 1920s Germany. They would think it's a economy on the brink collapse. But when you say it's America, well now it's, it's of course a ship that'll turn around. And I just think people aren't ready to admit that that's an aircraft carrier that does not move, it does not turn quickly, let alone at all. And so no, I sadly think it's, it's not going to be enough to save us from kind of like the economic crisis that we're headed towards genius is great, we're all happy about it. But then if you turn and look around the other way, there's just a lot of other terrible things happening. I don't think stable coins solve the US's problems. Thanks Amanda. We are almost out of time, but we have to finish this with something positive quickly. Say something positive about stable coins or where the world is going. I think the positive thing about stable coins, you know, going back to something Elise said, I think people are starting, anyone who's looking at this objectively is, is acknowledging that we're going to end up with a basket full of digital currencies, right? Whether it's different types of cryptocurrencies, stable coins, tokenization of assets, CBDCs, and if there are people out there who don't know those terms, I would hope that if you take one thing away from this discussion, it's sweet baby Jesus start learning now because you're way behind, right? Like, and it's not a fad and it's not going away and you should learn about the future of digital finance. But I think that stable coins are an interesting thing because at a minimum, they are going to massively improve speed and cost of payments. And it's, you know, I think all of us debate, I mentioned Napster earlier. I don't know whether we're at the, whether we're at the line wire, a Caza stage right now, digital finance, if you are making an analogy and maybe we're closer to Apple music and Spotify than we think, but we're on that path and not knowing about this is wildly behind and irresponsible at this point. I think regulators and policymakers know that and the good ones that me and Elise deal with are really, really trying. They're learning this stuff as fast as they can, but I think people really need to learn. That's why I wrote the book. The goal was to provide objective education at a very straightforward, understandable way that doesn't use a lot of jargon. So if you, it's not a crypto book, there's literally only one chapter about crypto, but if you want to understand where crypto fits in the world, then get the book and read it and you'll understand why Elise, me and Laura are so passionate about this because it's the future of digital finance. It's not just about crap, you know, park coins and, and, you know, speculation. And my positive note that I would add, Don, it is actually, you know, picking up maybe something that's not at the beginning, which is that policy and regulation are going mainstream as well. And I think that's a really good thing as someone who's probably been like a backroom spoffin for most of my life, like hiding away, cheering about regulation. It's so exciting to see people getting really excited about genius and learning about the legislative process and figuring out the difference between a discussion paper and a consultation paper and a policy statement. And so my encouragement would be that like, yes, pay attention to this because we are going through as Amanda said, a major shift in financial services. This is determining the infrastructure of our future financial system. And so it's a really exciting time to get involved in policy because that's how we build the foundation of how the markets will operate in the future. So that's my positive note to end on. Thank you. That was the positive ending I was looking for. That's all for this episode. A big thank you to my guests, Elise and Amanda for their insights today. And if you're listening and found this helpful, please subscribe and follow the show wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for listening. [MUSIC PLAYING]