Leister

That's right.

It's just numbers on a chain to me.

I have no problem trying to deal with bad actors, but I understand that the vast majority of bad actors are not in the United States.

So one way to deal with that, I think without violating privacy is to simply introduce the cryptocurrency equivalent of the FDIC.

They won't do that because taxpayers don't want to pay for gamblers, but that would mitigate it.

It's like, okay, we'll let you do it, but we'll put some insurance at least, but we know we can't deal with these bad actors overseas.

Taxpayers don't want to pay for that.

I get it.

I wouldn't, I don't necessarily, but I would rather that than a law that has no teeth that won't do anything to solve the problem.

In summary and in closing, I understand people's excitement about the clarity act.

I do.

I'm not suggesting we need nothing.

I'm not suggesting we do nothing.

I'm saying that it feels like a solution to a non-issue.

It feels like we're just reacting to people getting ripped off instead of properly understanding when and why they get ripped off.

If somebody chose to give their credit card to something, yes, there should be some protections.

I don't agree that it should be at the detriment of everybody else either.

If somebody puts a presale,

And some influencer misleads people as to the nature of the presale.

I think that's, that's going out to the influencer, not the issuer.