Skip to content

Podcast

Rewriting the Rules- The SEC & CFTC on Crypto, IPOs & the Future of American Markets

All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

Source ↗ ← All highlights
  • Private Markets Have Reallocated IPO Returns
    • US public markets have shrunk as private capital grew, shifting outsized returns to insiders and VCs rather than public IPO investors.
    • Paul Atkins contrasted 1980s IPO-era outcomes where public buyers captured large ROI with today’s mature companies staying private longer. Transcript: Paul Atkins Well, thanks. It’s great to be here and see both of you all today. Well, so I started out as a young lawyer in New York City doing corporation finance work, you know, new offerings and that sort of thing in the mid 80s. And it’s there, you know, to be a startup company and to build your products and do R&D and all that, you had to go public in order to. So Apple and Microsoft, advanced micro devices, all of those companies started off as, you know, IPOs. Has a really, I think, a really good bar chart where they compare the companies of the early and mid to late 80s to today, where, I mean, it just basically demonstrates through the ROI That insiders versus the buyers of the public stock, you know, enjoyed from those early companies, the insiders being, you know, there’s not much private equity or venture capital Back then. But the insiders, meaning the officers, directors and whatnot, they had a relatively thin slice of the entire pie. I mean, everyone made out well, obviously. But the public purchasers in the IPO, you know, out very well over the years and had the lion’s share of that. You look at today, the current situation where we have robust private capital markets, and we have fully today half the number of public companies as we had 30 years ago, and it’s completely Reversed. The return on investment is mainly to the insiders, private equity, venture capital, the corporate officers and employees versus the public because they’re mature companies when They actually go public. So that’s a huge change. The private markets are very robust and strong. (Time 0:01:03)
  • Spring Clean The SEC Rulebook
    • Do a comprehensive SEC rulebook “spring cleaning” focused on materiality to reduce compliance cost that deters IPOs.
    • Paul Atkins plans targeted reviews on disclosure burdens, litigation exposure, and corporate governance frictions to revive listings. Transcript: Paul Atkins May want these rules? Oh, sure. I mean, they’re vested interests in everything, but that is part of my program for this year and going into next is to go through our rulebook. We need a spring cleaning. We need cleaning out the attic, the basement and the garage and to really look at things unlike the agency has ever done before with a real focus on materiality. So that’s one. The second to make IPOs great again is to focus on litigation. And so that is another thing that is a key inhibition, I think, for people to go from the private markets to public, the threats of class action lawsuits and vexatious litigation with Every dip in the stocks. You have issues like mandatory arbitration, fee shifting, loser pays, that sort of thing, both of which Delaware has recently outlawed for public companies, but there are other states Out there. And then the third is the weaponization of corporate governance around shareholder proposals, that sort of thing. So it becomes a pain to deal with the annual general shareholder meeting and that sort of thing. (Time 0:05:10)
  • Autonomous Agents Create New Market Risks
    • Autonomous agent trading and 24/7 tokenized markets create novel liquidity, best-bid/offer and fraud challenges regulators haven’t faced.
    • Michael Selig urged study-first, then light-touch rules and guardrails rather than blanket bans to allow innovation. Transcript: Chamath Palihapitiya Me ask both of you guys a question. So this sits at the intersection of tokenization, crypto, and what I would call systemic risk. So if everything becomes tokenized and digitized and 24 by seven, what do you think needs to happen to make sure that the systemic risks to the system are managed? And here’s what I mean. If you go on X, I’ve gone down the automated trading rabbit hole. So I don’t know if you guys know, but there are these incredible, young, vibrant projects that are basically replacing a Citadel, replacing a Millennium. And they’re building these automated agent-based hedge funds that are transacting across all kinds of markets all the time. And on the one hand, I’m completely attracted to it. I think it’s totally democratic. It’s the free market. It’s like, let’s figure out what’s going on there. And on the other hand, I asked myself the question, where’s the kill switch? Or where’s the circuit breaker, if you will? And I just want to give you both a chance to talk about how you see these markets converge, and both the positives and the negatives of it. Michael S. Selig Absolutely. We need to be considering these risks as we’re developing rules. And this, to me, is the whole reason we need to have a purpose fit regulatory framework for these products and autonomous agents and all of that. Up until now, I think the approach has always been, let’s apply the old rules and regulations, and that’s going to work out and make sure that nobody can actually innovate and create Something new. So we are embracing these opportunities in the markets. We need to study them and make sure that we understand the risks, but we can develop rules that accommodate that. So having a regime in place that says, go build, don’t ask us for permission, but we need to study that work with the market participants, understand the risks. And on our end, we need to set up guardrails. So I do think there are unique risks when you have the ability for an agent to go out and deploy capital on basically an autonomous basis. And that’s going to be something that our markets we’ve really never seen before as regulators. But that doesn’t mean we have to stand in the way and block it. I think we need to really understand the risks, make sure that we have the right guardrails, whether that is us operating nodes on blockchains or really having technologists that are Studying the contracts and the code. (Time 0:08:16)
  • Tokenization Demands Purpose Fit Rules
    • Tokenization can enable T0 delivery and immediate on‑chain DVP but requires purpose‑fit rules because legacy forms (S‑1) don’t map to decentralized protocols.
    • Paul Atkins highlighted need to adapt securities law application to tokenized governance-less structures. Transcript: Paul Atkins In America. I agree with that. And from my point of view, there are so many benefits to come from distributed ledger technology for the financial services industry, where we’re right at the cusp of achieving T0, Basically, immediate delivery versus payment, receipt versus payment on chain by digital assets. And so that’s pretty exciting. May even have to build in speed bumps to prevent fraud and things like that. But for many and for some instruments, it might not be possible. But your discussion there 24-7 and all that, I think, is really an exciting prospect. But there are challenges from the liquidity perspective, having the whole concept of best bid and offer, what does that mean? So that’s one that we will be wrestling with. But ultimately, at least our approaches and what Mike and I are striving to do in harmonizing the approach of our two agencies is to, and hopefully we’ll get a statute out of the whole Clarity Act discussions going on on the Hill right now, that’s really necessary to future-proof what we’re doing so there is no backsliding in the future. But we need to focus on, you know, if it’s a security underneath and it’s tokenized, it still is a security and it’s still the securities laws still apply. But it’s up to us to make sure that our rules are fit for purpose. And as the whole purpose changes and as the delivery mechanism changes, we need to accommodate that. Unfortunately, in the previous administration, it was said, oh, come in and talk to us. We have a simple form for you to fill out. It’s on our website. Well, ha ha, it’s called an S1. And it takes lots of lawyers and accountants to try to figure out how to do it for an existing company, much less for a new digital asset, a crypto sort of asset where the form is completely Inapposite. There’s no board of directors. There are no offices around the country, around the world or whatever. It’s, you know, just the thing needs to be adjusted so that it is fit for purpose. (Time 0:10:40)
  • Tailor Leverage Controls To Market Type
    • Monitor leverage by market type and adapt margin, transparency, and exchange controls rather than a one-size-fits-all cap.
    • Paul Atkins recommended using existing broker, futures and Fed tools while tailoring controls for new crypto/prediction markets. Transcript: Paul Atkins Well, so I think it depends on the marketplace and on the type, because obviously you have banks and they’re all about fractional deposits and all of that and lending. So, you know, so we’ve gone through that back in 2008 and 2009 and the financial crisis and going all the way back to 1929. And then even in 1800s, obviously, all the repeated problems with, you know, financial disruption and financial markets. So we have to be careful about that. There are all sorts of rules for broker dealers, for banks, for in the futures markets, for margin and all of that to like put a lid on some of this and to have some controls around it and Transparency. You know, in the futures markets, the exchanges have a lot of power, you know, over their members and over margin and, you know, closing things down. We saw that even in the COVID time and whatnot when the markets got hairy there. So, you know, those things are constantly looked at. The Fed plays a role as well, you know, with margining and the securities market. So all that has to be adjusted. And now we need to look carefully at these new markets and then see what’s analogous and see what authority we have. (Time 0:14:03)
  • Ending The SEC–CFTC Turf War
    • SEC and CFTC historically fought over jurisdiction, killing products in no‑man’s‑land; chairs now prioritize harmonization and substituted compliance.
    • Paul Atkins and Michael Selig pursue MOUs, coordination and a “super app” vision to reduce dual registration friction. Transcript: Paul Atkins Having been around the two agencies now for 30 some years, I can really say that unfortunately, the two, and not necessarily at the commissioner level, but certainly at the staff, there Was a lot of sniping back and forth. So I compare it to two fortresses with no man’s land in between. And so the no man’s land is littered with the bodies of would-be products that people were unsure, like, it CFTC? Is it SEC? And the crossfire between the two just killed the products. They never went to market. Single stock futures, portfolio margining, which has so much potential benefits for making the financial markets safer and more efficient. But Mike and I are setting out to change that and I’ll let you go forth on that one, Mike. Michael S. Selig Absolutely. The two agencies have unfortunately rarely worked well together and we’re really moving forward in a new direction with our harmonization efforts. We have a memorandum of understanding that the two agencies are working on hammering out and getting in place that will allow us to share information, coordinate on specific issues, And make sure that we don’t have this turf battle between the two agencies going forward. And part of that starts, of course, at the top. Chairman Atkins and I work very closely together to make sure that we’re coordinated on policy, but also at the staff level. So when exchanges and brokers and market participants are coming in to register or to offer a new product, we need to make sure that there’s not this fighting over where they’re supposed To be registered and what they’re able to offer. Some of these products cross jurisdictions. A great example are some of the prediction markets products. Some of them involve public companies and securities and others are related to things like sports and politics. And that crosses jurisdictions, so we need to make sure that we have clear lines and that our market participants aren’t subject to duplicative regulatory frameworks. And Chairman Atkins and I have talked about substituted compliance regimes where you have a primary regulator at the SEC or the CFTC, but we work together to figure out the cross-jurisdictional Products so that you don’t get stuck with duplicative regulation and registration. Another area is crypto, where we’ve got blockchain networks, we’ve got smart contracts, we’ve got protocols that have both securities and non-securities trading on them cross-jurisdictionally, And we need to make sure that the standards are consistent because it won’t work if we’ve got one blockchain for securities and another blockchain for commodities and nothing in between. So I think this is really critical that the agencies bury the hatchet and move forward with a harmonized and coordinated approach. Paul Atkins As we look towards the future, I mean, to build on, yeah, there are two separate regimes and there are differences in approaches based on the statutes that govern us. But we also, in speaking for the SEC, we have a lot of flexibility with respect to exemptive authority and whatnot. So my dream is one day that, and I hope we can achieve that here in the next couple of years, to have like a super app approach where, you know, there is, okay, blurred lines between the two, But we’ve coordinated our approach. We’ve coordinated, you know, to reduce the friction between dually registered companies and to make everything work very efficiently. (Time 0:15:57)
  • Require Exchange Certification For Prediction Contracts
    • Exchanges must certify prediction‑market contracts aren’t readily susceptible to insider trading or manipulation before listing.
    • Michael Selig stressed exchange self‑certification and enforcement when insiders exploit event‑tied contracts, citing Kalshi and MrBeast examples. Transcript: Chamath Palihapitiya Let me try to set this up the way that I think about it. So I think that there is this inexorable tension that’s always existed and will always exist between the investor protection that has to happen when you have publicly traded securities Or commodities or derivatives, but then the capital formation process that on behalf of the company or whatever that wants to get access to this. And there’s always been this kind of back and forth tension. The best example of this is Reg FD, where we said at some point, hey, let’s hold the trains. If one person knows something, every person needs to know that thing makes a ton of sense. When you get into prediction markets, I think that this is going to stress test this assumption to the nth degree. And the reason is that there are just certain things that some people know. And we see it now every other day, there’s an article about some prediction market that turned out to be right, or a bunch of other markets that were almost manipulated. It seems like it’s right for this question to come up all over again. The corollary to this is Brian Armstrong tweeted something which I thought was quite an interesting comment about prediction markets, which is that certain prediction markets only Thrive on insider information, which is to say that they know a secret. And so that’s how the market can exist and actually conform to an outcome. And that creates these two sides. I just want to get your thoughts on prediction markets, what role do they play? How do we balance the capital formation that the market creates versus the investor protection, the insider trading that may be happening? It’s a very complicated space. I’m not going to hold you to any of it. I just want to think out loud. Well, these markets aren’t new. We’ve had them since the 90s. Michael S. Selig They started off with the electronic market in Iowa, where folks were predicting the political outcomes on elections. We’ve been surveilling and monitoring and policing fraud and manipulation in these markets for a very long time. And to the extent that there are contracts in certain markets, for example, what color Gatorade is going to be dunked on the coach at the Super Bowl, some of this stuff is potentially At risk of being manipulated. And there’s a risk that somebody on the team is able to go trade because they have special information about the Gatorade they put in the cooler. We have standards to make sure that those contracts should not be listed. And it’s on the exchanges as the first line of defense, as self-regulatory organizations to evaluate each contract and certify to us, the regulator, the CFTC, that those contracts Are not readily susceptible to insider trading, manipulation, fraud, and the like. And we saw actually recently, a call sheet, one of the prediction markets, brought two enforcement actions against participants. Involved a contract related to Mr. Beast’s YouTube channel, where one of his employees insider traded based on information of when a video was going to launch or what was in the video. And the same sort of authority that you have at the SEC around a duty of care to your employer is prevalent in our markets. So to the extent somebody insider trades on information, we police that. And it’s really important for folks to know. It’s not just securities insider trading. We’ve got it in the commodities world as well. And the exchanges are policing that. We’re policing that. And to the extent folks are listing contracts that are susceptible to manipulation, there’s consequences to that. (Time 0:19:19)
  • Reassessing Quarterly Reporting Cadence
    • The SEC will seek comment on reporting cadence; historical precedent shows shifts from annual to quarterly and back to semiannual.
    • Paul Atkins is agnostic but flags smaller companies and analyst coverage as factors in deciding cadence changes. Transcript: Paul Atkins Well, that’s a great point. And I just wanted to add one kind of a little note to the previous discussion there that, you know, if something is a tokenized security, you know, the federal securities laws apply. And so that goes for insider trading, you know, with respect to trading securities, wherever they may be, you know, on the online or on an exchange floor or wherever. So anyway, to your point about the cadence of reporting, I think that’s an important one. And we are going to come out with a proposed rule and seek comment on it. And I frankly am a bit agnostic myself personally, because if you look at things, we haven’t always had quarterly reporting. In fact, when the SEC was formed back in 1934, it basically codified the New York Stock Exchange rulebook, which at the time called for annual reports. So annual reports prevailed until 1955, and the SEC went to semi-annual reporting. And by the way, the UK did the same thing around the same time. And then in 1970, only did things go to quarterly. And then the UK parted way, they did quarterly as well. But then in 2014 or so, they changed to go back to semiannual. But if you wanted to still report quarterly, you know, God bless you and go ahead and do that. So, we’re still at quarterly and so the president did send out, you know, electronic message about that. And so, but our staff was looking at, we’re looking at what we call filer status. There are all sorts of different categories of filers with different rules like large accelerated filers, accelerated filers, emerging growth companies, and so forth. So we’re looking to kind of simplify all of this. And part of that also is perhaps smaller companies could benefit from reduced cadence of reporting, but maybe not. They have trouble finding analysts to follow their stock. That’s another thing that might be an inhibition to go public for small companies. And maybe analysts want quarterly, maybe they don’t, maybe they would prefer semi-annual too. So I think this is a great debate to have right now. (Time 0:27:37)
  • Create A Knowledge Based Accredited Standard
    • Redefine accredited investor using knowledge or testing (e.g., a lighter Series exam or CFA/CPA recognition) to democratize private market access.
    • Paul Atkins plans a proposed rule to replace wealth‑only tests with knowledge/sophistication measures. Transcript: Paul Atkins Here’s one chairman who is going to tackle that issue. And so we intend to do that, the accredited investor definition. And so interestingly, I mean, to your point in the statute, in the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, I believe, or Investment Companies Act of 1940, there’s a definition of that. Includes knowledge, not just, you know, wherewithal or sort of assets that you have, but it has the word knowledge in it. So to your point, why can’t we have, and people have suggested this over time, an equivalent of a driver’s test or something like that, or recognize somebody who has a CPA or, you know, A CFA or whatever. But, you know, maybe a type of Series 7, but not so complicated as that that FINRA administers. So part of the thing is like, who’s going to make the test, who’s going to administer it, and how do you get there? But anyway, those are issues that we want to tackle. And I remember when this issue came up when I was a commissioner back the aughts, there was one comment letter that came in that really struck me. And it said, today I am able to, this is the comment letter, the commenter speaking, today I am able to buy a hedge fund, a private asset or whatnot. But tomorrow, once you raise the standard of, you know, I have to have X amount of money of assets or income or whatever, I won’t be able to. So what’s changed? Why are you going to take that away from me? So why does a finance professor who makes $100,000 and lives in an apartment and doesn’t have any other assets, why is he not able, to your point, to invest in some of these types of securities, Whereas an heiress who just came into $10 million or something like that suddenly is? Now, she can hire people to advise her, but they could be dummies, too. I mean, who knows what they are. But so anyway, so I think we have to take a fresh look at all this and we are going to do that here this year and with a proposed rule to address that. (Time 0:32:40)
  • HFTs Fit Within Hedgers Speculators Market Makers
    • Futures markets rely on hedgers, speculators and market makers; HFTs contribute liquidity but exchanges and regulators must police manipulation risks.
    • Michael Selig described exchange surveillance, trader information requests, and enforcement to protect market integrity. Transcript: Michael S. Selig Our markets have three core types of participants. We’ve got the hedgers, we’ve got speculators, and we’ve got market makers. And liquidity is really the result of all three. So there’s going to be market participants that really rely on, whether it’s a cattle contract or a credit default swap product, they need to enter into these agreements to hedge key Risks in their business. And then you’ve got folks that are willing to provide liquidity, whether they’re speculating and taking another position on that for their proprietary basis, or they’re doing so To make markets and earn a spread. And that’s right, we’re regulating these markets, we’re making sure that the trades that are going through have integrity and that folks aren’t watch trading and trying to manipulate Markets. There are some strategies that raise particular risk of manipulation or fraud, and we police that. We’ve taken actions in the past to make sure that the exchanges are not subject to illicit behavior and trading. And the exchanges similar to my point earlier related to prediction markets are a first line of defense here as well. They surveil their markets and we’re in constant communication with them, as well as the traders. We’re oftentimes sending information requests to traders about their activity. (Time 0:35:45)
  • Use Self Certification To Speed Product Launches
    • Adopt CFTC‑style self‑certification for repetitive product listings to streamline innovation while keeping guardrails.
    • Paul Atkins noted ETF exemptive frameworks as similar steps the SEC already uses to delegate product conformity to markets. Transcript: Paul Atkins They can do that you cannot, that you would love to also be able to do? From my perspective, one thing for new products that the CFTC has is called self-certification. So for repetitive products that, you know, once you go ahead and approve the general type of framework for it, then it’s self-certification by the markets and by the people who are, Of course, coming forward with the products. Thing. We do for some things, like for ETFs and whatnot, where we’ve come up with rules that then, you know, then it’s up to the market participants to abide by the rules and have their product Conform. (Time 0:39:10)
  • Broaden Fund Access Through Exemptive Authority
    • Use SEC exemptive authority and coordinate with DoL/Treasury to broaden private fund access for retail and retirement accounts with guardrails.
    • Paul Atkins suggested tailored exemptions, qualified purchaser tiers, and 401k avenues to democratize venture access safely. Transcript: Paul Atkins Raise a great point. But a lot of that that you’re talking about with funds is statutorily mandated. And so there are two big exemptions in the Investment Company Act of 1940 that are pertinent here. And so those were adopted by Congress with a lot of debate and whatnot. And so that is more difficult to change, and there are certain ways that we can change them. And so we are going to look at this. And there you have a lot of different types of accredited investors. You have qualified purchasers. You have also qualified institutional purchasers and whatnot, or buyers, rather. And so all of these things need to be, I think, looked at anew and where we have the authority through our exemptive power under the various statutes, we’ll be able to use that. Of funds or private types of products to a broader range of people, including to 401k plans and whatnot. We’re working with the Department of Labor and the Treasury Department to address this. And we all feel very strongly that here you have to have good guardrails. You just can’t open up the barn door wide open, that we have to have standards for what can go into these sorts of, you know, plans, 401k plans, pension plans. But retail investors are already exposed to the private markets through their pension funds, insurance companies, and all that. So all of this needs to have a, you know, fresh look and, you know, come up with good new ideas to basically provide, democratize it. (Time 0:41:56)
  • US Rule Of Law Attracts Onshore Capital
    • Foreign markets envy US rule‑of‑law, contract enforceability and equity culture; regulatory flexibility remains US advantage to attract onshore capital.
    • Paul Atkins argued fixing accreditation, product rules and harmonization will keep innovation and trillions onshore. Transcript: Paul Atkins Well, first of all, I think, you know, our capital markets are the envy of the world. I mean, it really is amazing. When I travel through Europe or Japan and the UK and Middle East and whatnot, people really envy our huge capital markets and how robust they are, how fair they are. And it goes back to our rule of law and enforceability of contract. And that’s the essence of what is the foundation of our freedom and our ability to, you know, do innovate and have all these new products. I guess what they also really envy is our risk appetite here in the United States, where people have an equity investment culture, and that is really largely absent in Japan and in Europe. Of ways they can’t get out of their own way because through their regulatory system and whatnot, I mean, ours is bad enough, but they, in many ways, take it to a different extreme with A very narrowly constructed code that really hamstrings them and is not very flexible in the future. So that’s as far as if we can open up our markets as far as some of the things that we’ve been talking about here, as far as new products allow innovation to take place here onshore and then Also to fix some of the things like the accredited investor standard and that sort of thing. I think we can then, to your point, turbocharge it to continue our growth. (Time 0:46:21)
  • Classify Tokens By Function And Harmonize Oversight
    • Treat tokens as either securities or commodities based on function; apply securities laws to tokenized securities and CFTC rules to digital commodities.
    • Paul Atkins and Michael Selig urged clear classification and harmonized oversight to prevent fraud and offshore flight. Transcript: Paul Atkins That’s a great question. I think the real problem has been, uh, definitionally. And so the, the kind of the very vague lines, and so people weren’t sure they were. And as Mike was talking about, you know, people pay paid lawyers a lot of money to try to do it. Some lawyers just gave happy talk and then people got in trouble with the SEC and other lawyers just said, forget it, go offshore. You know, there’s no use to even trying here in the United States. So that’s part of what, you know, Mike and I are trying to do as far as harmonize. So where if it’s a tokenized security, then that’s one thing under the SEC’s rulebook. But if it’s things like tokenized, so digital coin, a digital token, sorry, or digital tools or digital collectibles, then those sorts of things fall under the CFTC’s oversight. And their rulebook is really more apposite for these sorts of things than ours is. But you have to have a logical oversight over things like that to prevent fraud. Because the one thing that really, you know, attracts people to our markets from overseas is that they perceive that there is, you know, that fraudsters do get caught. And, you know, we have protections around, as we’ve been talking about inside trading and things like that, trading on material, non-public information by insiders. (Time 0:49:14)
  • Keeping Innovation Onshore While Preventing Frauds
    • Top regulator worries are innovation moving offshore and systemic fraud/manipulation; balance enabling builders with strong custody and surveillance to prevent another FTX.
    • Michael Selig emphasized setting rules to keep entrepreneurs in the US while preventing major fraud losses. Transcript: Chamath Palihapitiya Two big things concern me. Michael S. Selig The first has been this push of innovation offshore. We’ve got to get it back here in the United States. That’s really what’s built this country over the years. Thomas Edison didn’t have to go ask for permission to go innovate. We need to make sure that our builders our visionaries our entrepreneurs have the courage and the confidence to come and develop new things and build here in our financial markets and That means blockchain that means artificial intelligence that means prediction markets we’ll set the rules for it make sure that it’s possible to do it but we don’t want everyone fleeing To the Islands and the Bahamas and Russia to go do this stuff. So that’s really concerning to me. I want to make sure that the folks are back here in the US. The second piece, of course, is the risk to our system. If we’ve got too much manipulation and center trading fraud, I mean, why not trade elsewhere? And there’s real risks to our investors. And so making sure that we have the right controls, customer protections, we can’t have another FTX in the United States where funds are lost and there’s an absolute fraud on our American People. So that’s a really critical concern, balancing innovation with our financial system, the integrity of our markets, and we’re going to do it, but it’s definitely hard work ahead of Us. (Time 0:53:08)
  • Combine Education With Platform Controls For Young Traders
    • Implement education and platform suitability checks to protect young or vulnerable traders, like broker wizards before complex options trades.
    • Michael Selig and Paul Atkins recommended exchange/broker controls plus parental and school awareness to reduce gambling‑style harms. Transcript: Michael S. Selig Think education is critical here. We need to make sure that our market participants are providing information to participants, and we don’t regulate the casinos and the gambling and all of that, but I do believe that That is a key piece of their initiative as well, to make sure that folks are informed when they’re coming into the casinos. We should do the same at the federal level, make sure that our participants voluntarily, of course, this isn’t necessarily something that we mandate on our derivatives exchanges, But I do think it’s an important thing to be informing the public. And of course, we’ve got really robust standards on brokers and on our exchanges, and they’re making sure that the persons that are participating in the markets have the ability to Participate, that they’re suitable to invest and participate in our markets. And I think those controls combined with some education are really going to be important here. Jason Calacanis I agree with that. Paul Atkins But it’s not just education of the, in many cases, children or adult young men and women too, but it’s also their parents, especially for the children, where I think there is a large ignorance On the parents’ part as to what their kids are doing and with their phones or elsewhere and getting involved in these things. So, you know, I hear that from a lot of my friends. So just, you know, apocryphally there. But so that’s we shouldn’t forget that the schools are important as well. But the signs of, you know, that sort of addiction, you know, are really, you know, important to recognize that and then take action. (Time 0:57:29)