Speaker 1: Hello everyone, and welcome to the latest episode from the
Speaker 1: midweek edition of the coin Bureau podcast. Every week, I
Speaker 1: pick out two of my favorite videos from coin Bureau's
Speaker 1: YouTube channel to present to you in podcast form. The
Speaker 1: audio you're about to hear is from those videos I've
Speaker 1: chosen this week. Many of you have been in touch
Speaker 1: to ask whether it's possible to listen to our videos
Speaker 1: in podcast format, and so your wish is my command.
Speaker 1: This week I've selected our videos on weather modification and
Speaker 1: the White House's efforts to crack down on cryptocurrency. Now,
Speaker 1: every so often we like to go a bit off
Speaker 1: piece here at coin Bureau and look into something removed
Speaker 1: from crypto. It could be a scandal from the world
Speaker 1: of traditional finance, or, as in today's case, some strange
Speaker 1: goings on that don't get nearly the amount of media
Speaker 1: coverage they should. Humans have been trying to control the
Speaker 1: weather for millennia, but it wasn't until the twentieth century
Speaker 1: that we started getting any good at it. It's now
Speaker 1: thought that many countries around the world are involved whether
Speaker 1: modification schemes of some kind, both for benign and possibly
Speaker 1: nefarious purposes. What striking is that the technology which has
Speaker 1: been developed to make this possible is in many cases
Speaker 1: apparently extremely effective. In the first part of today's episode,
Speaker 1: I look at some of these technologies and tackle the
Speaker 1: question of why hardly anybody seems to be talking about this.
Speaker 1: Next up, a look at what's been going on with
Speaker 1: regards to crypto at six Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: You might recall that President Biden issued an executive order
Speaker 1: about cryptocurrency all the way back in March, and the
Speaker 1: deadline for US agencies to submit their responses to it
Speaker 1: fell earlier this month. Shortly afterwards, the White House released
Speaker 1: a summary of these responses as a quote comprehensive framework
Speaker 1: for responsible development of Digital assets. This report has important
Speaker 1: implications for cryptocurrency, which is why we've read and summarized
Speaker 1: it for you. I hope you enjoy are listening to
Speaker 1: these two pieces, and I'll be back talking crypto with
Speaker 1: Mike very soon, so be sure to stay tuned, and
Speaker 1: if you want even more content from coin Bureau, be
Speaker 1: sure to subscribe to our YouTube channel and visit us
Speaker 1: on social media too. Humans have been trying to control
Speaker 1: the weather since the dawn of time, and to this day,
Speaker 1: it's generally believed to be something that we can't do
Speaker 1: very well, if at all. Well, what have I told you?
Speaker 1: That almost every major country is actively modifying the weather,
Speaker 1: and that the effectiveness of such technologies has been increasing exponentially.
Speaker 1: Being British, I can't possibly pass up an opportunity to
Speaker 1: talk about the weather. So today I'm going to give
Speaker 1: you a brief history of weather modification, go over the
Speaker 1: different methods and their effectiveness, and examine whether this technology
Speaker 1: is secretly being used for nefarious purposes. As I mentioned
Speaker 1: in the introduction, humans have been trying to control the
Speaker 1: weather for thousands of years through all sorts of rituals.
Speaker 1: More often than not, these rituals were meant to try
Speaker 1: and appease a god, to cause rain, usually in response
Speaker 1: to a drought, or to try and prevent a dry season.
Speaker 1: This is actually the same reason why most governments continue
Speaker 1: to try and manipulate the weather today, at least on paper.
Speaker 1: More about that later now. Not surprisingly, none of the
Speaker 1: historic rain rituals were successful, and their perceived success was
Speaker 1: only ever due to coincidence rather than any solid science.
Speaker 1: Then again, nobody can say for sure, because it's harder
Speaker 1: to figure out what happened the further back you go.
Speaker 1: What is well documented is that many militaries around the
Speaker 1: world started to notice that rain would fall after large
Speaker 1: battles involving lots of gunfire in the seventeen and eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 1: This resulted in the United States and others trying to
Speaker 1: cause rain by shooting into the sky, but it's believed
Speaker 1: that these experiments failed. We now know that air pollution
Speaker 1: has the potential to seed clouds, and it's believed that
Speaker 1: this is the main reason why there is now less
Speaker 1: snow and ice in mountainous areas. Clouds are seeded prematurely
Speaker 1: by car pollution, causing it to rain or snow before
Speaker 1: the clouds can reach the mountains. The more you know now,
Speaker 1: it wasn't until the late eighteen hundreds that a German
Speaker 1: American inventor named Louis Gaffman proposed a scientific way of
Speaker 1: creating rain, specifically by shooting liquid carbon dioxide into clouds.
Speaker 1: It was around this time that so called rainmakers started
Speaker 1: to emerge across the United States. Now, rainmakers were basically
Speaker 1: traveling showman who would try and modify the weather using
Speaker 1: a series of chemicals, among other things, Although most rainmakers
Speaker 1: were not much better at making it rain than the
Speaker 1: ancient ritualists, there was one man who seemed to have
Speaker 1: a high success rate, and his name was Charles Hatfield.
Speaker 1: Charles became famous in nine four when he caused it
Speaker 1: to rain over Los Angeles using a series of towers
Speaker 1: spraying chemicals into the sky. When he was asked about
Speaker 1: how he did it, Charles reportedly said, quote, I do
Speaker 1: not make it rain. That would be an absurd claim.
Speaker 1: I simply attract clouds and they do the rest. This
Speaker 1: is why the city of San Diego contacted Charles at
Speaker 1: the end off in the middle of a massive drought.
Speaker 1: Charles agreed to their request to make it rain and
Speaker 1: even said the city only had to pay him if
Speaker 1: he succeeded, a deal too good for San Diego's officials
Speaker 1: to pass up. Charles's confidence didn't disappoint because in January
Speaker 1: nineteen sixteen, he made it rain so much that many
Speaker 1: parts of San Diego experience floods, something he achieved by
Speaker 1: reportedly burning chemicals in a forest outside of the city.
Speaker 1: Nineteen sixteen would go on to be the wettest year
Speaker 1: in the region's history. Now as amazing as Charles's rainmaking was,
Speaker 1: it was still more showmanship than science. It was hard
Speaker 1: to prove that Charles's chemical shenanigans were the actual cause
Speaker 1: of the rain, particularly in nineteen sixteen, when the rains
Speaker 1: continued long after his modification. This is why Charles's rainmaking
Speaker 1: is disputed to this day. This is also why the
Speaker 1: history of weather modification is more often associated with Vincent Schaefer,
Speaker 1: an American scientist who's credited with the creation of cloud
Speaker 1: seeding in nineteen forty six while he was working as
Speaker 1: a researcher at General Electric. What's wild is that Vincent
Speaker 1: reportedly discovered cloud seeding by accident. The story goes that
Speaker 1: he was working on another project related to ice formation
Speaker 1: on aircraft when he breathed into a box where he
Speaker 1: had placed dry ice, causing ice crystals to form in
Speaker 1: the air. Note that ice crystals form before rainfall. By
Speaker 1: the end of ninety six, Vincent had developed a way
Speaker 1: to consistently seed clouds using aircraft to create both rain
Speaker 1: and snow, and shortly afterwards he was contacted and contracted
Speaker 1: by the US military to continue his cloud seeding research.
Speaker 1: Note that I'm leaving out some details here for the
Speaker 1: sake of time. Now. In seven, Vincent worked with the U.
Speaker 1: S Military on Project Serrus to weaken hurricanes using cloud seeding,
Speaker 1: and their first attempt took place in October that year.
Speaker 1: Believe it or not, but the cloud seeding caused the
Speaker 1: hurricane to suddenly change direction, resulting in lots of damage
Speaker 1: in the state of Georgia. Naturally, the people of Georgia
Speaker 1: were none too happy, and they filed a lawsuit, which
Speaker 1: was dismissed after the defendants found examples of hurricanes suddenly
Speaker 1: changing course in the past, specifically in nineteen o six,
Speaker 1: around the time Charles Hatfield was active in his own
Speaker 1: weather experiments. Funny that, in all seriousness, it seems the
Speaker 1: same happened in the United Kingdom with Project Cumulus in
Speaker 1: the nineteen fifties. Many believe that a massive flood in
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty two was caused by the British military's cloud
Speaker 1: seeding operations, though this was also largely dismissed on the
Speaker 1: grounds that this region had flooded before. Now, the Georgia
Speaker 1: incident reportedly paused cloud seeding research in the United States
Speaker 1: for a decade. If true, this may be a tacit
Speaker 1: admission by the US government that Project Sirrus may in
Speaker 1: fact have caused that horror came to change course in
Speaker 1: at the very least, it means they didn't know for sure,
Speaker 1: or just didn't want to be judged in the court
Speaker 1: of public opinion. Maybe both at the same time. However,
Speaker 1: it's equally likely that the US government continued to experiment
Speaker 1: with cloud seeding in secret. And this is because of
Speaker 1: all the secret cloud seeding programs that were revealed shortly
Speaker 1: afterwards by inquisitive journalists, such as Operation Popeye in the
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties and seventies. Now, if you watched our video
Speaker 1: about the mysterious food plant disruptions, you'll know Operation Popeye
Speaker 1: involved creating severe storms over the Ho Chi Minh trail
Speaker 1: used by the viet Cong during the Vietnam War. Operation
Speaker 1: Popeye was halted in nineteen seventy two after an article
Speaker 1: in The New York Times blew the lid on it.
Speaker 1: What's odd is that the US military claimed that they
Speaker 1: stopped the operation because their attempts at weather manipulation had failed.
Speaker 1: This is despite the fact that the US and forty
Speaker 1: seven other countries signed the Environmental Modification Convention, a few
Speaker 1: years later prohibiting weather modification in warfare. Now, logically this
Speaker 1: suggested that Operation Popeye was much more effective than the U. S.
Speaker 1: Military was letting on, and this efficacy was effectively proven
Speaker 1: when countries such as Russia and China started actively modifying
Speaker 1: their weather for domestic purposes in the nighties. Beijing modifying
Speaker 1: the weather to keep the opening ceremony dry during the
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight Olympics is probably the most famous
Speaker 1: example of weather modification in recent years, and there's really
Speaker 1: no shortage of examples from all around the world. Check
Speaker 1: Wikipedia if you don't believe me. As of twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: there were over fifty countries actively engaging in weather modification
Speaker 1: to quote disperse fog, enhanced rain and snowfall, and suppress hale,
Speaker 1: according to the World Meteorological Organization. Note that the sources
Speaker 1: for everything in this video are in the description. Only
Speaker 1: facts here, no fiction. Now, the prevalence of weather modification
Speaker 1: begs the question of just how effective the process actually is.
Speaker 1: The answer ultimately depends on which kind of weather modification
Speaker 1: method we're talking about. The most common method is, of course,
Speaker 1: cloud seeding. There are actually many ways of seeding clouds,
Speaker 1: but they all follow the same principle that Vincent Schaffer
Speaker 1: discovered almost eighty years ago, and that's creating something in
Speaker 1: the cloud for the ice and rain to form around.
Speaker 1: This first way to see the cloud is to use
Speaker 1: some kind of salt, including silver iodide, potassium iodide, dry
Speaker 1: ice as Vincent did, and even standard table salt. Under
Speaker 1: the right conditions, spraying these salts into a cloud will
Speaker 1: cause ice to form around the salt, which then results
Speaker 1: in rain. This is the basic explanation. The second way
Speaker 1: to see the cloud is to shoot it with lasers,
Speaker 1: and yes, this is obviously my preferred method. This approach
Speaker 1: to seeding clouds has been around since at least twenty ten,
Speaker 1: but there doesn't seem to be much public information about it.
Speaker 1: This might have something to do with the fact that
Speaker 1: seeding clouds with lasers is apparently extremely effective. Case and Point.
Speaker 1: In a news report about laser cloud seeding, the newscaster
Speaker 1: and guest explain that this technology could allow governments to
Speaker 1: make it rain at the click of a button, and
Speaker 1: even control the trajectory and intensity of storms. The link
Speaker 1: will be in the description It's truly crazy stuff. Now,
Speaker 1: the third way to see the cloud is similarly sci fi,
Speaker 1: and that's to use electricity. Zapping clouds with electricity using
Speaker 1: drones is actually how the United Arab Emirates creates artificial
Speaker 1: rain and as far as I understand, it's a brand
Speaker 1: new approach to clouds needing that was first tried last
Speaker 1: year in Dubai. The effectiveness of seeding clouds with electricity
Speaker 1: is also unclear, but the fact it continues to be
Speaker 1: used by the UA in lieu of the other available
Speaker 1: approaches suggests that it's the most effective. For reference, the
Speaker 1: UAE is extremely wealthy, meaning that every other approach is
Speaker 1: in fact available to the country. That said, research by
Speaker 1: UA scientists suggests that standard cloud seeding, meaning with salts
Speaker 1: can quote enhanced rainfall by as much as thirty to
Speaker 1: thirty five pent in a clear atmosphere and buy up
Speaker 1: to ten to fifteen percent in a turbid atmosphere. Note
Speaker 1: that these statistics are from way back in twenty fift
Speaker 1: what's reassuring is that these statistics are consistent with a
Speaker 1: cloud seeding study by the University of Wyoming, which lasted
Speaker 1: from two thousand and eight to two thousand and thirteen
Speaker 1: and found that cloud seeding can increase precipitation buy up
Speaker 1: to fifteen percent. Note that these statistics also apply to
Speaker 1: salt based cloud seeding and are also arguably outdated. It's
Speaker 1: also important to point out that the effectiveness of cloud
Speaker 1: seeding almost always depends on pre existing weather conditions. For example,
Speaker 1: cloud seeding is believed to work much better on clouds
Speaker 1: that form over large bodies of water, such as oceans
Speaker 1: and seas. Conversely, the absence of clouds makes cloud seeding
Speaker 1: next to impossible, because well, there are no clouds to seed. Luckily,
Speaker 1: for governments looking to modify the weather, however, there are
Speaker 1: many ways to create clouds artificially. I'll leave a link
Speaker 1: in the description to a video that shows you one
Speaker 1: effective method. Now, if you're feeling overwhelmed by all these
Speaker 1: weather modification revelations, you're in for a real treat, because
Speaker 1: cloud seeding isn't the only way that governments can modify
Speaker 1: the weather. Some of you may have heard of the
Speaker 1: U government's High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program or HARP
Speaker 1: in Alaska, which lasted from to two thousand and fourteen.
Speaker 1: HARP was subsequently declassified and its facility was handed over
Speaker 1: to the University of Alaska for academic use in two
Speaker 1: thousand and fifteen. If you've heard of HARP, it's because
Speaker 1: it is famous for being the go to example given
Speaker 1: by conspiracy theorists who claim the government can control the
Speaker 1: world's whether using harp's Ionospheric Research Instrument or I s I.
Speaker 1: This mostly has to do with a bunch of patents
Speaker 1: filed by physicist Bernard Eastland, which implied that harp's I
Speaker 1: see I could do everything from disrupting military communications to
Speaker 1: influencing the moods of individuals around the world, a sort
Speaker 1: of directed energy weapon, if you will. While the HARP
Speaker 1: facility in the United States were shuttered in two thousand
Speaker 1: and fourteen, similar facilities continue to operate in other countries,
Speaker 1: notably in Norway and Russia. Some have taken this as
Speaker 1: evidence that some of the claims in Bernard's patents were true. Now,
Speaker 1: the science of HARP is outside the scope of this video,
Speaker 1: but I'll leave a link to an excellent video about
Speaker 1: the experiment by Curious Droid. In the description, He's a
Speaker 1: fellow British YouTuber whose content helped with the creation of
Speaker 1: this video, So be sure to send in my regards
Speaker 1: and subscribe to his channel now. The next frontier for
Speaker 1: weather modification is space, specifically using satellites to beam large
Speaker 1: amounts of energy into storms to make them stronger or weaker,
Speaker 1: a job for Elon Musk, if ever there was one.
Speaker 1: Not like you'd have the time, though, Speaking of billionaires,
Speaker 1: another outlandish way that we might soon modify the weather
Speaker 1: is by spraying dust into the atmosphere to block out
Speaker 1: the sun. This brilliant idea was brought to you by
Speaker 1: none other than Bill Gates, who is currently funding a
Speaker 1: company to do exactly that. There are also lots of
Speaker 1: new weather modification methods that are taking a bottom up approach.
Speaker 1: One example is pumping air into the lower waters of
Speaker 1: seas and oceans to bring cold water up to the surface.
Speaker 1: The cool air this cold water creates can be used
Speaker 1: to weaken or even eliminate hurricanes. Pumping air into lower
Speaker 1: waters is already being done in countries like Norway to
Speaker 1: bring up salty water and prevent freezing around hydroelectric power
Speaker 1: plants so they can continue operating through the winter. Another
Speaker 1: example of a novel bottom up approach is to spray
Speaker 1: salt water into the sky to reflect some of the
Speaker 1: sun's light back into space. There are actually concerns though,
Speaker 1: that this and other methods such as pumping air into
Speaker 1: lower waters, could actually cool the oceans too much and
Speaker 1: cause other unwanted weather issues. In my opinion, the most
Speaker 1: promising weather modification method was proposed in a twenty thirteen
Speaker 1: TED talk by scientist Alan's Savery titled quote how to
Speaker 1: Green the World's deserts and Reverse Climate Change. It's quite
Speaker 1: possibly one of the most amazing videos you will ever watch,
Speaker 1: and I'll leave a link in the description. In short,
Speaker 1: the world is slowly turning into a desert, and this
Speaker 1: trend will continue regardless of whether all the mainstream climate
Speaker 1: action targets are met, namely eliminating emissions and fossil fuels
Speaker 1: of all kinds. Note that deserts create lots of heat,
Speaker 1: which causes the kinds of extreme weather we've seen lately.
Speaker 1: Alan's solution is so simple that it's almost stupid. This
Speaker 1: is to guide animals to graze around the land without
Speaker 1: interference the way they did historically. With this simple solution,
Speaker 1: Alan has managed to turn literal deserts into green and
Speaker 1: watery oases around the world. Just look at this comparison image. Now,
Speaker 1: if that wasn't incredible enough, Alan thinks this solution could
Speaker 1: solve climate change in a matter of years while simultaneously
Speaker 1: enriching developing countries through all the animal product production and exports.
Speaker 1: The availability of meat in developing countries would also significantly
Speaker 1: improve nutrition as a cherry on top, all the emission reductions,
Speaker 1: limits on energy use, and other such policies would not
Speaker 1: be needed since all the additional greenery would absorb all
Speaker 1: the CEO two while simultaneously cooling the world. Seriously, watch
Speaker 1: that video and share it with your friends and family
Speaker 1: while you're at it. Now, given all these facts, stats,
Speaker 1: and solutions, you might be wondering why weather modification is
Speaker 1: seldom discussed in the context of climate change, or even
Speaker 1: just extreme weather events like droughts, floods, and fires that
Speaker 1: have recently been ravaging the planet. As far as I
Speaker 1: can tell, this is because governments admitting to widespread weather
Speaker 1: modification is likely to raise more questions than answers, namely
Speaker 1: why governments aren't using this technology to combat climate change
Speaker 1: or extreme weather events, especially revolutionary solutions like Alan's guided grazing.
Speaker 1: To be clear, there have been some reports of countries
Speaker 1: using weather modification methods to address whether extremes, such as China,
Speaker 1: which tried to end its record breaking droughts with cloud
Speaker 1: seeding over the summer. What doesn't make sense, however, is
Speaker 1: that these countermeasures always seem to be less effective than
Speaker 1: the proactive ones. This is where a bit of science
Speaker 1: based speculation comes in. As I mentioned earlier, forty eight
Speaker 1: countries signed the Environmental Modification Convention in the nine seventies
Speaker 1: to prevent the use of weather modification in warfare. As
Speaker 1: of two there are seventy eight countries which have joined
Speaker 1: the convention. Even so, that doesn't guarantee that these countries
Speaker 1: aren't still using weather modification as a form of warfare.
Speaker 1: It just may not be as avert as say, creating
Speaker 1: abnorm William massive storms over Vietnam. Here's a great example
Speaker 1: to illustrate what I mean that I also mentioned in
Speaker 1: our food plant disruptions video. In the the Soviet Union
Speaker 1: used cloud seeding after the Chernobyl nuclear plant meltdown to
Speaker 1: ensure that radioactive rain fell on Belarus instead of Moscow. Now,
Speaker 1: riddle me this, did the Soviet Union use whether for
Speaker 1: military purposes in this scenario? The answer is not that clear,
Speaker 1: and it would be hard to prove either way, because
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union could claim the rainfalls natural, whereas Belarus
Speaker 1: could claim it was not, assuming it even new at all.
Speaker 1: This is simply because WHETHER modification can't always be detected,
Speaker 1: especially with the newer types of technologies. Whether also isn't
Speaker 1: contained to a single country. It crosses borders and boundaries,
Speaker 1: and this means what happens within a country could easily
Speaker 1: affect the country next door. This is why there is
Speaker 1: a lot of speculation in India that China is stealing
Speaker 1: India's rain by causing it to reign prematurely on the
Speaker 1: Chinese side of the mountain range that divides both countries.
Speaker 1: This wouldn't be surprising given that China is heavily testing
Speaker 1: weather modification in this region, including in the Pool. Now.
Speaker 1: You can sum up this speculation in a sentence from
Speaker 1: an article about China's weather modification by futurism. Quote, if
Speaker 1: one country is able to control its own weather, it could,
Speaker 1: in theory, do so elsewhere. In other words, countries might
Speaker 1: be actively trying to manipulate each other's weather. Bringing up
Speaker 1: this technology could shed light on questionable practices by domestic
Speaker 1: and foreign governments, leading to very serious domestic and foreign conflicts.
Speaker 1: This ties into the very real possibility that governments are
Speaker 1: manipulating their own weather to take more control of their
Speaker 1: own citizens. After all, you can control the weather, you
Speaker 1: can control the food supply, and that's the kind of
Speaker 1: power that the folks at the World Economic Forum are
Speaker 1: explicitly seeking. More about that using the link in the
Speaker 1: description anecdotes aside, The fact of the matter is that
Speaker 1: governments have the technology to make extreme weather events better
Speaker 1: or worse, or rarer or more frequent. This is terrifying
Speaker 1: given how governments have been acting lately, and it's something
Speaker 1: that must therefore be part of any environmental discussions. So
Speaker 1: I'll leave you with this thought. Once upon a time,
Speaker 1: humans engaged in rituals to appease the gods to influence
Speaker 1: the weather. It looks like we're starting to see history repeat,
Speaker 1: except it's other humans with powerful technologies playing god, demanding
Speaker 1: compliance in exchange for better weather. This may not be
Speaker 1: the case today, but mark my words, at the rate
Speaker 1: that whether modification technology is advancing, it will almost certainly
Speaker 1: be the case tomorrow, and in some places it probably
Speaker 1: is already be on the lookout and remember to question
Speaker 1: the weather and don't just complain about it like US
Speaker 1: Brits do. Back in March, US President Joe Biden signed
Speaker 1: an executive Order about Cryptocurrency, which instructed all relevant government
Speaker 1: agencies to produce reports about crypto and how to regulate it.
Speaker 1: The deadline for these reports was earlier this month, and
Speaker 1: last week the White House put together a summary of
Speaker 1: these reports, as well as their regulatory recommendations. Today, I'm
Speaker 1: going to explain what the White House's Crypto Framework says
Speaker 1: in simple terms and tell you exactly what it could
Speaker 1: mean for the crypto market. The document I'll be discussing
Speaker 1: today is titled quote fact sheet. White House releases first
Speaker 1: ever comprehensive Framework for Responsible Development of Digital Assets. It
Speaker 1: was published on the sixteen September, and I'll leave a
Speaker 1: link to the full text in the description if you're interested. Now,
Speaker 1: the White House's Crypto Framework begins with a juicy statistic,
Speaker 1: and that's that around sixteen percent of Americans hold crypto
Speaker 1: as part of their personal portfolios. This is a few
Speaker 1: percentage points shy of the of Americans who have ever
Speaker 1: held crypto, according to research by NBC News. Respect to
Speaker 1: the Hoddlers. The authors go on to explain that crypto
Speaker 1: has the potential to quote reinforce US leadership in the
Speaker 1: global financial system. However, they caution that these potential benefits
Speaker 1: come with risks and cite terrors collapse in May as
Speaker 1: an example, without naming any names. What's odd is the
Speaker 1: author's claim that terrorist collapse caused six hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: of damage to the crypto market in the months that followed.
Speaker 1: This is highly debatable, as there were other macro factors
Speaker 1: that caused the crypto market to go lower, namely the
Speaker 1: stock market, which was also crashing around that time. In
Speaker 1: any case, the authors touch on Biden's Executive Order about
Speaker 1: cryptocurrency from back in March and explain that all the
Speaker 1: relevant agencies have spent six months putting together their respective reports.
Speaker 1: The result is a series of policy recommendations related to
Speaker 1: six areas of focus in the Executive Order. These are
Speaker 1: quote consumer and investor protection, promoting financial stability, countering illicit finance,
Speaker 1: US leadership in the global financial system, financial inclusion, and
Speaker 1: responsible innovation. The authors revealed that a total of nine
Speaker 1: reports were provided to the White House by US agencies.
Speaker 1: We summarized one of them last weekend, and you can
Speaker 1: find out what crazy things that report said using the
Speaker 1: link in the description. Now, the authors also revealed that
Speaker 1: these nine reports quote reflect the input and expertise of
Speaker 1: diverse stakeholders across government, industry, academia, and civil society. Obviously,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of loaded terms here, and it
Speaker 1: certainly begs the question of exactly which personnel they consulted.
Speaker 1: What's particularly questionable is that these reports focus on quote,
Speaker 1: helping cutting edge US firms find footholds in global markets. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure who needs to hear this, but crypto
Speaker 1: isn't about private companies establishing global dominance. It's about competition
Speaker 1: between decentralized developers. Naturally. The authors also single out crypto
Speaker 1: mining as an area of concern and call for quote
Speaker 1: common sense efficiency standards. I reckon what counts as common
Speaker 1: sense depends on who you ask, and as the saying goes,
Speaker 1: common sense is not that common If that isn't spooky enough,
Speaker 1: the authors say. The reports call on the Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: and the Treasury Department to accelerate the development of a
Speaker 1: central bank digital currency or CBDC. They even call for
Speaker 1: the creation of a quote inter Agency working group to
Speaker 1: develop a digital dollar. This is more significant than you think,
Speaker 1: because it suggests that the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department
Speaker 1: could eventually become one and the same. In fact, some
Speaker 1: would say this is inevitable given the trend towards hyper
Speaker 1: centralization in the financial system. Spooky stuff, indeed. Now, the
Speaker 1: rest of the Crypto Framework gives a summary of the
Speaker 1: policy recommendations for the six areas of focus I mentioned earlier.
Speaker 1: You'll recall I hope that one of these is quote
Speaker 1: consumer and investor protection, which has been used to justify
Speaker 1: all kinds of things in recent years. In this case,
Speaker 1: the authors go straight for the jugular quote digital assets
Speaker 1: pose meaningful risks for consumers, investors, and businesses. Not surprisingly,
Speaker 1: there is absolutely no mention of the rewards that come
Speaker 1: with greater risks, nor the benefits of cryptocurrency. Instead, the
Speaker 1: author's focus on the negatives, including cryptos volatility and the
Speaker 1: lack of transparency around cryptocurrency. Interestingly, they cite a study
Speaker 1: by the Wall Street Journal from eighteen which found that
Speaker 1: a quarter of cryptocurrency I c o s had transparency issues.
Speaker 1: That's actually not as bad as I thought. In all, seriousness.
Speaker 1: The authors take it one step too far when they
Speaker 1: claim that quote outright, fraud scams and theft in digital
Speaker 1: asset markets are on the rise. According to FBI statistics,
Speaker 1: reported monetary losses from digital assets scams were nearly six
Speaker 1: higher in one than the year before. Now, there seems
Speaker 1: to be some sleight of hand going on here, because
Speaker 1: crypto price is were much higher in one than they
Speaker 1: were in As such, it's to be expected that the
Speaker 1: monetary losses from crypto scams would be much higher in
Speaker 1: Fiat terms while staying the same in terms of frequency.
Speaker 1: Very sneaky indeed. Unfortunately, the real facts and stats are
Speaker 1: not of much concern to the authors, and they reveal
Speaker 1: the steps the current administration will take to address consumer
Speaker 1: and investor protection in cryptocurrency. First, it will instruct the
Speaker 1: Securities and Exchange Commission or SEC and the Commodities Futures
Speaker 1: Trading Commission or CFTC to quote aggressively pursue investigations and
Speaker 1: enforcement actions against crypto projects and companies. Looks like the
Speaker 1: SEC is ahead of the curve on that one. Second,
Speaker 1: it will instruct the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or CFPB
Speaker 1: and Federal Trade Commission or FTC to quote, monitor consumer
Speaker 1: complaints and to enforce against unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices.
Speaker 1: If the CFPB sounds familiar, that's because it's one of
Speaker 1: the many organizations that were created as part of the
Speaker 1: Dodd Frank Act in twenty For reference, the Dodd Frank
Speaker 1: Act was put together by Michael Barr in the aftermath
Speaker 1: of the two thousand and eight financial crisis. As it
Speaker 1: so happens, Michael Barr is the current Vice Chair for
Speaker 1: Supervision at the FED. This is significant because this position
Speaker 1: was also created by the Dodd Frank Act. More about
Speaker 1: that and what it means for the crypto market using
Speaker 1: the link in the description. Now, the third step the
Speaker 1: current administration will take to protect consumers and investors will
Speaker 1: be to instruct various agencies to quote address current and
Speaker 1: emergent risks in cryptocurrency. I couldn't help, but notice that
Speaker 1: the authors don't clarify what kinds of risks the administration
Speaker 1: is concerned about. Finally, the current administration will instruct the
Speaker 1: Financial Literacy Education Commission or FLECK to quote help consumers
Speaker 1: understand the risks involved. Call me crazy, but I don't
Speaker 1: think they'll be talking very much about the benefits of crypto.
Speaker 1: It also reminds me of the International Monetary Fund or
Speaker 1: i MFS campaign to educate about that is, promote c
Speaker 1: b d c s and educate about a k A
Speaker 1: discredit cryptocurrency in countries around the world. What would we
Speaker 1: do without these unaccountable international organizations, eh Now. The second
Speaker 1: set of crypto policy recommendations relates to financial conclusion, and
Speaker 1: this is where the authors drop some more juicy statistics. Quote,
Speaker 1: roughly seven million Americans have no bank account another twenty
Speaker 1: four million rely on costly non bank services. As a
Speaker 1: random fact, I first heard this statistic when listening to
Speaker 1: the testimony of Cryptoca see CEOs earlier this year, which
Speaker 1: we also summarized by the Way. Believe it or not,
Speaker 1: but around five percent of Americans are unbanked and another
Speaker 1: fourteen percent are underbanked, meaning they use non bank services
Speaker 1: for finance. Rather than leaning into these efficient non bank
Speaker 1: services provided by the private sector. The author's focus on
Speaker 1: the fed's upcoming fed NOW Fast Payment service as the solution.
Speaker 1: Note that fast payment services are a precursor to CBDCs.
Speaker 1: According to the Bank for International Settlements or b I
Speaker 1: s NOW to the author's credit. They do admit that
Speaker 1: some cryptocurrencies can make financial services more accessible, but also
Speaker 1: note that there's still lots of work to be done
Speaker 1: on that front. This is a valid point, but it
Speaker 1: again begs the question of which cryptocurrencies the authors are
Speaker 1: referring to, probably stable coins. Regardless, the current administration is
Speaker 1: clearly dead set on the fed now payment service. This
Speaker 1: is because it's the first step to addressing financial inclusion,
Speaker 1: which will be to quote encourage the adoption of the
Speaker 1: fed now service in the U S economy. What's particularly
Speaker 1: scary is that this step includes using fed now payments
Speaker 1: quote in the context of distribution of disaster, emergency or
Speaker 1: other government to consumer payments. Note that taxation and emergency
Speaker 1: relief is how governments around the world will likely achieve
Speaker 1: the adoption of CBDCs, and because there can't be any
Speaker 1: competition to the CBDCs, the second step the administration will
Speaker 1: take is to instruct regulators to crack down on non
Speaker 1: banking entities. This presumably includes cryptocurrency exchanges, as many of
Speaker 1: them offer services similar to banks. In addition, the administration
Speaker 1: will quote align global payments practices, regulations, and supervision protocols.
Speaker 1: This means that there will be no escape from these
Speaker 1: dystopian systems once they're implemented, or at least that's the idea.
Speaker 1: To ensure that these dystopian systems are adopted at all,
Speaker 1: the administration will instruct the National Science Foundation or NSF.
Speaker 1: Plenty of acronyms in today's video, aren't there to research
Speaker 1: quote behavioral economics in the context of fast payments basically
Speaker 1: figure out how you can convince Americans to adopt the
Speaker 1: fed's dystopian technology. As a fun fact, the b i
Speaker 1: S estimates that between four and twelve percent of people
Speaker 1: will voluntarily adopt CBDCs in developed countries. The question then
Speaker 1: is how they'll convince those who will not voluntarily adopt CBDCs.
Speaker 1: Knowing governments, the answer will probably involve a lot of
Speaker 1: force and financial censorship. Anyways. The third set of crypto
Speaker 1: policy recommendations relates to financial stability. Here, the authors highlight
Speaker 1: the fact that the crypto market and the existing financial
Speaker 1: system are becoming more intertwined. They specify that stable coins
Speaker 1: is where most of these connections are. On that note,
Speaker 1: I should explain why regulators aren't so concerned about stable coins.
Speaker 1: In short, it's because most stable coins are backed by
Speaker 1: US government debt. If stable coins become too big and
Speaker 1: there is a run on their stable coin issuer, they
Speaker 1: could dump these treasuries assets on the open market. This
Speaker 1: is why it's a bit silly to use the collapse
Speaker 1: of Terror's US T stable coin as an example of
Speaker 1: how much damage crypto could do to the existing financial system.
Speaker 1: I suppose the authors don't want to reveal that centralized
Speaker 1: stable coins are a way of subsidizing US government spending.
Speaker 1: What the authors do reveal is that the Financial Stability
Speaker 1: Oversight Council or f SOCK, will be publishing a report
Speaker 1: about the risk crypto pose it's to financial stability in October.
Speaker 1: This report will be more significant than you think, and
Speaker 1: that's for two reasons. First, the FSOCK was also created
Speaker 1: by the Dodd Frank Act. If you watched our aforementioned
Speaker 1: video about Michael Barr, it really looks like he's eager
Speaker 1: to use his powers and the powers of these agencies
Speaker 1: to crack down on crypto when the next financial crisis
Speaker 1: comes around. This ties into the second reason why the
Speaker 1: fsck's upcoming report is so important, and that's because it
Speaker 1: will be released around the time the crypto market will
Speaker 1: likely be seeing its bear market lows. This would make
Speaker 1: it the perfect time for Michael and co. To exercise
Speaker 1: their powers. More about that in the description now. The
Speaker 1: authors go on to reference the stable Coin Report put
Speaker 1: together by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets last
Speaker 1: year as a place for policymakers to start. We actually
Speaker 1: summarize that report too, and I recommend checking that video
Speaker 1: out sooner rather than later. Link is also in the description.
Speaker 1: Funnily enough, the current administration only identifies two steps it
Speaker 1: is planning to take to address the financial stability risks
Speaker 1: supposedly posed by cryptocurrency. The first is quote, the Treasury
Speaker 1: will work with financial institutions to bolster their capacity to
Speaker 1: identify and mitigate cyber vulnerabilities. The second step is similarly strange,
Speaker 1: and that's to quote, identify, track, and analyze emerging strategic
Speaker 1: risks in cryptocurrencies. The fact that the authors couldn't identify
Speaker 1: any concrete financial stability risks caused by cryptocurrencies in these
Speaker 1: two steps suggests that there aren't any, at least not
Speaker 1: yet now. The fourth set of crypto policy recommendations relate
Speaker 1: to advancing quote responsible innovation. The authors start with another statistic,
Speaker 1: and that's that around half of the most valuable tech
Speaker 1: companies in the world are based in the United States.
Speaker 1: This might have something to do with all the back
Speaker 1: door deals these tech companies have with U S intelligence agencies,
Speaker 1: but hey, let's not go there. Ironically, the authors underscore
Speaker 1: the US government's role in facilitating technological innovation in the
Speaker 1: private sector. If you're wondering just how innovative the government
Speaker 1: can be, check out our recent video about whether modification
Speaker 1: link will be in the description of course, now fact
Speaker 1: short conspiracies aside, the authors jump straight to the steps
Speaker 1: that the administration will take to preserve the peculiar dynamic
Speaker 1: between the public and private sectors. The first step will
Speaker 1: be to instruct the Office of Science and Technology Policy
Speaker 1: or o s t P to quote develop a digital
Speaker 1: assets research and development agenda. If you watched our aforementioned
Speaker 1: video about one of the White House's reports, you'll know
Speaker 1: that the os TP isn't all that scientific. Meanwhile, the
Speaker 1: aforementioned NSF will quote back social science and education research
Speaker 1: that develops methods of informing, educating, and training diverse groups
Speaker 1: of stakeholders. Sounds good on the surface, but there always
Speaker 1: seems to be something bad lurking down below with these
Speaker 1: crypto initiatives. Now, the second step will be to instruct
Speaker 1: the Treasury Department and other financial regulators to quote provide
Speaker 1: innovative u S firms developing new financial technologies with regulatory guidance,
Speaker 1: best practices, sharing, and technical assistance. This could actually be
Speaker 1: a very good thing if done right, because institutional investors
Speaker 1: have been itching for the regulatory clarity they need to
Speaker 1: invest in cryptocurrency. The regulatory uncertainty caused by ethereums transition
Speaker 1: to proof of steak is particularly concerning to both retail
Speaker 1: and institutions alike. The third step will be to instruct
Speaker 1: various environmental regulators to you guessed it, quote track digital
Speaker 1: assets environmental impacts, develop performance standards as appropriate, and provide
Speaker 1: local authorities with the tools, resources, and expertise to mitigate
Speaker 1: environmental harms. The author's add that quote, opportunities exist to
Speaker 1: align the development of digital assets with transitioning to a
Speaker 1: net zero emissions economy and improving environmental justice. This makes
Speaker 1: me wonder if they really will ban proof of work
Speaker 1: and whether they'll use some unscientific justification to do so. Now,
Speaker 1: the fourth and final step is interesting as it involves
Speaker 1: quote establishing a standing forum to convene federal agencies, industry, academics,
Speaker 1: and civil society to exchange knowledge and ideas that could
Speaker 1: inform federal regulation standards, coordinating activities, technical assistance, and research support.
Speaker 1: If the getting of all hands on deck to address
Speaker 1: cryptocurrency is not a sign that the government are threatened
Speaker 1: by crypto adoption, I don't know what is any who.
Speaker 1: The fifth set of crypto policy recommendations relate to the
Speaker 1: status of the United States as a leader of the
Speaker 1: status quo of global finance, as well as the country's
Speaker 1: financial competitiveness. Incredibly, the author's commenced by saying the quiet
Speaker 1: part out loud. Quote. Today, global standard setting bodies are
Speaker 1: establishing policies, guidance, and regulatory recommendations for digital assets. The
Speaker 1: United States is working actively with its partners to set
Speaker 1: out these policies in line with our goals. In other words,
Speaker 1: unelected international organizations such as the Financial Action Task Force
Speaker 1: or fat F ACT in accordance with the interests of
Speaker 1: the United States. What's even more telling is that the
Speaker 1: authors explained that the United States has a quote valuable
Speaker 1: opportunity to partner with countries still developing their digital asset ecosystems.
Speaker 1: In other words, the US is positioned to ensure that
Speaker 1: its dominance of the global financial system continues. To ensure
Speaker 1: all of the above, the administration will take the following steps. First,
Speaker 1: it will leverage the power of international organizations like the
Speaker 1: fat F to ensure quote US values find their way
Speaker 1: into cryptocurrency. Note this is code for financial control and
Speaker 1: financial surveillance, not freedom and liberty. Second, the Administration will
Speaker 1: instruct various government agencies to partner with similar government agencies
Speaker 1: around the world. Oddly enough, this step does not include
Speaker 1: any mention of cryptocurrency, so maybe it's just a way
Speaker 1: of sneaking in some more global governance stuff. Third, the
Speaker 1: Administration will help developing countries develop their digital asset infrastructure.
Speaker 1: If the i m f's help is anything to go by,
Speaker 1: this aid will come with lots of strings attached. Fourth,
Speaker 1: the Administration will quote help cutting edge US financial technology
Speaker 1: and digital asset firms find a foothold in global markets
Speaker 1: for their products. This step also doesn't mention crypto, but
Speaker 1: I have a feeling this is a reference to regulated
Speaker 1: stable coin issuers like Circle. If you missed the memo.
Speaker 1: Circle has started releasing stable coins for other fiat currencies,
Speaker 1: notably the euro. I reckon it would be in the
Speaker 1: interest of the United States for Circle to provide its
Speaker 1: digital currency infrastructure two countries in Europe. It's certainly in
Speaker 1: the interests of black Rock, which backs Circle. More about
Speaker 1: black Rock in the description anyhow, The sixth set of
Speaker 1: policy recommendations relate to the favorite topic of anti crypto critics,
Speaker 1: and that's illicit activity in cryptocurrency. The authors begin by
Speaker 1: revealing that the United States has been the entity pushing
Speaker 1: for k y C around the world. The authors then
Speaker 1: say something extremely concerning, and that's quote, while our efforts
Speaker 1: have strengthened the US financial system, digital assets, some of
Speaker 1: which are sud mus and can be transferred without a
Speaker 1: financial intermediary, have been exploited by bad actors. If you
Speaker 1: don't understand why this is so concerning, consider that every
Speaker 1: single cryptocurrency is pseudonymous, and that every single cryptocurrency can
Speaker 1: be transferred without a financial intermediary. They're not talking about
Speaker 1: privacy coins here, They're talking about all cryptos. This rhetoric
Speaker 1: is consistent with the fat f's endgame of killing crypto
Speaker 1: by labeling any crypto transaction or activity that doesn't involve
Speaker 1: a regulated intermediary as high risk, and over time, the
Speaker 1: fat F will pressure countries to cease providing services to
Speaker 1: individuals and institutions who are high risk. As expected, the
Speaker 1: authors go on to give examples of crypto being used
Speaker 1: by bad actors for illicit purposes, and I couldn't help
Speaker 1: but notice that they didn't provide any statistics as concrete evidence.
Speaker 1: That's probably because they know that only zero point one
Speaker 1: of all crypto transactions are related to illicit activity. For context,
Speaker 1: between two and five percent of all THEAT transactions are
Speaker 1: related to illicit activity. This is despite all the extensive
Speaker 1: k y C and a m L that's been enforced
Speaker 1: around the world by the fat F. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, it seems that the fat f's so called
Speaker 1: recommendations have done next to nothing to reduce illicit finance
Speaker 1: over the last thirty years. All they've done is create
Speaker 1: a multibillion dollar industry of compliance companies and justified lots
Speaker 1: of government overreach. More about all that in the description now,
Speaker 1: when it comes to the steps the current US administration
Speaker 1: will take to combat illicit activity in cryptocurrency. The first
Speaker 1: will be to call on US politicians to expand the
Speaker 1: Bank Secrecy Act to all of crypto. The authors explicitly
Speaker 1: stayed that this coverage will include Defy and n f
Speaker 1: t s. This means that every crypto transaction worth more
Speaker 1: than ten thousand U S dollars would have to be
Speaker 1: reported to the authorities, including peer to peer crypto transactions,
Speaker 1: which will recall the authorities want to get rid of
Speaker 1: case and point. The administration will also push politicians to
Speaker 1: quote raise the penalties for unlicensed money transmitting, which presumably
Speaker 1: means going after Defy protocols and possibly even crypto wallets.
Speaker 1: It will also push politicians to let the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice quote prosecute digital asset crimes in any jurisdiction where
Speaker 1: a victim of those crimes is found. To my understanding,
Speaker 1: this means the U. S Government could go after crypto
Speaker 1: crimes anywhere in the world now. The second step the
Speaker 1: administration will take is to instruct the Treasury Department to
Speaker 1: publish two reports about the illicit finance risks of Defy
Speaker 1: and n f T s. These reports will be released
Speaker 1: by the end of February and by July next year, respectively.
Speaker 1: Will be sure to cover those when they come out. Now.
Speaker 1: The third step the administration will take is to quote
Speaker 1: continue to expose and disrupt illicit actors and address the
Speaker 1: abuse of digital assets. The details of this step suggest
Speaker 1: we will see more sanctions against crypto projects and protocols
Speaker 1: like Tornado Cash. The fourth step the administration will take
Speaker 1: is to work with the private sector to make sure
Speaker 1: it understands the illicit financing risks of cryptocurrency. I suspect
Speaker 1: this will include labeling certain crypto activities as high risk,
Speaker 1: as per the fat f's game plan. I also couldn't
Speaker 1: help but notice that the authors revealed that quote the CFPB,
Speaker 1: an independent agency, also voluntarily provided information to the Administration
Speaker 1: as too risks arising from digital assets. This is suspicious,
Speaker 1: as you'll recall that the CFPB was created by the
Speaker 1: Dodd Frank Act, which was written by an individual who
Speaker 1: seems to be out to kill cryptocurrency. Watch out now.
Speaker 1: The final part of the White House's crypto policy recommendations
Speaker 1: relate to a digital dollar CBDC. It seems that this
Speaker 1: was snuck in as well, since it wasn't exactly emphasized
Speaker 1: at the beginning. Of the fact sheet. The authors start
Speaker 1: by talking about all the benefits that are digital dollar
Speaker 1: would bring benefits that could just as easily be achieved
Speaker 1: by an existing non bank entity or cryptocurrency. These include
Speaker 1: financial inclusion, cross border payments, you know, the usual talking points.
Speaker 1: It's towards the end of the first paragraph where the
Speaker 1: authors reveal the real reason why the US government wants
Speaker 1: a digital dollar, and that's because it could quote help
Speaker 1: preserve US global financial leadership and support the effectiveness of sanctions,
Speaker 1: as the recent sanctions against Russia's central bank shown. However,
Speaker 1: these two goals seem to be mutually exclusive. No same
Speaker 1: country would adopt a digital dollar if it meant the
Speaker 1: US government could effectively turn off its economy at the
Speaker 1: flick of a switch. This degree of power would be
Speaker 1: possible if the us D maintains its reserve currency status
Speaker 1: in a digital form. Hence why the two goals are
Speaker 1: mutually exclusive. Either the us D remains neutral to be
Speaker 1: the world's reserve currency, or it is weaponized at the
Speaker 1: expense of this status. The more you know now, the
Speaker 1: authors reveal that quote, the Administration has developed policy objectives
Speaker 1: for a US CBDC system which reflect the federal government's
Speaker 1: priorities for a potential US CBDC. Put differently, the ball
Speaker 1: is already rolling towards the creation of a digital dollar.
Speaker 1: The authors reiterate that the Treasury Department will work hand
Speaker 1: in hand with the Federal Reserve to develop a digital dollar,
Speaker 1: again for shadowing the possibility of these two entities merging
Speaker 1: as many have predicted. And of course, there was no
Speaker 1: mention of all the down sides of a CBDC. If
Speaker 1: you've watched any of our videos about CBDCs, you'll know
Speaker 1: that they will give governments the power to decide how
Speaker 1: you spend, where you spend, and what you spend your
Speaker 1: money on, and even how much you can save. That's
Speaker 1: just on the individual level. At the economic level, CBDCs
Speaker 1: will make borrowing extremely expensive due to their effects on
Speaker 1: bank lending and profitability. Good luck getting a mortgage. It
Speaker 1: will also mean that the stock market itself will be manipulated.
Speaker 1: Think Robin Hood blocking trades during the game Stop Saga,
Speaker 1: but on steroids. So this brings me to the big question,
Speaker 1: and that's what the White House's crypto framework means. For
Speaker 1: the crypto market to be blunt. It's not good, it's
Speaker 1: clear that the current administration wants to crush cryptocurrency. If
Speaker 1: you've seen any of our summaries of crypto related testimonies,
Speaker 1: this should not come as a surprise. Logically, then it
Speaker 1: means that the success of the crypto policy recommendations laid
Speaker 1: out in the framework ultimately depends on what happens during
Speaker 1: the next election cycles in the United States. It looks
Speaker 1: like pro crypto politicians will gain ground in the upcoming
Speaker 1: mid terms, but at this point it's anyone's guest as
Speaker 1: to what the outcome of the four election will be.
Speaker 1: That's going to be the more significant election, since it's
Speaker 1: around the time the next crypto bull run should come.
Speaker 1: Take note. If pro crypto politicians do gain ground in
Speaker 1: the upcoming midterms, then I reckon most of these anti
Speaker 1: crypto policies will never be pursued. Then again, so many
Speaker 1: of them are being undertaken by unelected officials that have
Speaker 1: been appointed by anti crypto politicians, so it's uncertain. One
Speaker 1: thing is for sure, however, and that's that a wave
Speaker 1: of regulation is coming to the crypto industry. Some of
Speaker 1: it will be reasonable, and we could see large institutional
Speaker 1: inflows as a result. It's the unreasonable regulation that we
Speaker 1: must be on the lookout for. This includes labeling of
Speaker 1: all crypto related activities as high risk as a way
Speaker 1: of choking off and eventually killing the industry. Given that
Speaker 1: the United States is behind the international organizations engaging in
Speaker 1: this kind of guerrilla regulation, American voters might be the
Speaker 1: ones who decide what comes next for crypto at the
Speaker 1: end of the day. As such, I strongly suggest that
Speaker 1: any American viewers inform themselves about pro crypto candidates in
Speaker 1: their areas. You'll notice that pro crypto politicians sit on
Speaker 1: both sides of the aisle, so you should be able
Speaker 1: to find one you can support, regardless of your political stripes.
Speaker 1: I'll leave a link to coin bases crypto politician tool
Speaker 1: in the description you need it, and I'll leave you
Speaker 1: with this thought. The crypto world is counting on you
Speaker 1: to make sure financial freedom continues. Financial freedom is required
Speaker 1: for everything else. Last I checked, freedom is an American value,
Speaker 1: so let's see it ring. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: listening to the Coin Bureau podcast. If you'd like to
Speaker 1: learn more about cryptocurrency, you can visit our YouTube channel
Speaker 1: at YouTube dot com forward slash coin Bureau. You can
Speaker 1: also go to coin bureau dot com for loads more
Speaker 1: information about all things crypto. You can follow me on
Speaker 1: Twitter at at coin bureau or one word, and I'm
Speaker 1: also active on TikTok and Instagram too