Travis Hoium

Let's go there.

Okay.

For all of the issues we have with our US banking system, and it's not perfect, it does work.

And it is the model the rest of the world bases itself on.

We have a good thing here.

Just like in medicine, the first rule should be do no harm.

And to the extent that these stable coins are a threat to that core system, I think regulators should be aware and trying to avoid harm to this system that serves us well.

I keep saying this about FinTech, but it is so true.

The house always wins.

Regulators are risk adverse.

That's a feature in the system.

It's not a flaw.

If you want to come up with something better, it has to be significantly better than the status quo.

Because again, the status quo for all of our complaints about it works really, really well.

And most of the world wishes they had the problems we had.

I've been following stablecoins for quite a while, but the efficiency of moving money with stablecoins, if you own a business and you're paying 3% for credit cards,

Having an alternative, which a company like Stripe does, they charge about half of the fee to take stable coins as they do to take credit cards.

So that would be the disruptive angle.

Is Lewis saying it's good that we're not enabling some of this disruption from stable coins, which is going to just entrench companies like Visa and MasterCard?

I guess, what are your thoughts looking at that?