Ed Ludlow

That is still under consideration in the Senate.

So that has not moved as quickly as those of us in the industry had hoped.

And I think that's causing a little uncertainty around what the guardrails around Bitcoin and other crypto assets are going to be.

Well, the philosophical part, and I've been invested in the sector since 2013, is in the early days, you had a lot of long-term holders, people who believed in the self-sovereign currency, the self-sovereign asset that was not controlled by any government and was particularly useful to those people in hyperinflationary environments.

So that's where that digital gold narrative came, where it would be a hedge.

And what we see now, and as Isabel said, it could be a victim of its own success.

I don't quite say it's a victim quite yet, but we're seeing more institutional holding.

And so the institutions have determined that this will be more of a risk asset.

It will trade more

in tune with assets like the tech stocks, not commodities.

And so that's where that philosophical divide has happened.

It's great that we have more institutions, we have more acceptance of the sector of Bitcoin as an asset class, but it may not hold as that digital narrative, or it may hold as that narrative in emerging markets and not in developed markets.

Janak, does that matter to your investments?

Were you building on Bitcoin as the OG and as rails to future infrastructure?

Are you broader thinking, actually, we don't need Bitcoin in and of itself to remain a buy and hold asset?

I'm more interested in the underlying technology, to use an overused phrase.

I'm more interested in the stable coin side of the equation.

When I first saw Bitcoin, I was really interested in it as a self-sovereign currency, having been raised in emerging markets.

However, I was even more excited by blockchain technology.

So this concept of having data or assets on chain that could create more efficiency in the trading of data.