Fighting consumes energy and brings people to the breaking point. This is part of the condition of life. Do I feel good when I hear people from crypto twitter and VC firms telling me that PvP KOL degen casino that's money-losing for >99% of its own users is the best product market fit that crypto is going to get, and it's "condescending and elitist" to wish for something better? Or when people with no understanding of the ethereum foundation internals tell me exactly whom I should rip out of the organization and whom I should throw in, and on top of that expect it all to get done within 2 weeks? No, I do not feel good at all hearing these things. There are even times when they make me feel emotional desire to quit. But each time that happens, I always see a sign from the world, something that reminds me that we are fighting for something valuable, that is worth fighting for. If you look inside yourself, you will find things worth fighting for too. Don't cancel yourself. Become uncancellable. Milady

Just finished going over the proposed Hagerty stablecoin bill. Let me say this is really well drafted to ensure we actually get stablecoins in the US, as it internalized checks and balances, learning from the hostile regulatory environment faced during recent years. The good: - Allows banks and non-banks to issue stablecoins. This enables more competition. - Mirrors the 2-tier banking system. You can be regulated by federal or state regulators (until 10B in issuance). More competition is better and I'm all for lowering barriers of entry. - Provides clear outcomes for insolvency. This is good but could be better. - Reserves are held on pristine assets that we know work (Tbills, insured bank deposits, repos). No risk to users. Shout out to recognizing risk of uninsured deposits. - No banning yield-bearing stablecoins - let issuers compete on distribution and features, doesn't make sense to ban yield if it does not add risk to the stablecoin (paying yield to distributors vs holders does not make a stablecoin riskier) - Clarifications on non-security, non-commodity - needed. - Study on inter operability - large stablecoins that have moats enter friction on redemption (USDT/USDC have 10bps redemption fees). This is the equivalent of a 10bps fee to take money from BOFA to JPM. Noting this issue and ensuring there is work here is very important. - Ensuring communications from regulators are in writing to avoid an OCP 3.0 - Checks and balances to ensure issuers are issued licenses fairly: default approved if no reply in 120 days after complete submission ackowledge, detailed reasoning for declines (grounds of denial, explanation required), delayed applications need to answer to congress, ability to appeal via hearing, judicial review for officers impacted by final actions (there are many other good actions, but these were notable) Things that could be improved: - Bankruptcy remoteness is not done via orphan SPV. This means that insolvent stablecoin holders could face unclear timelines to recover funds in case of insolvency. - Capital requirements were left open. Regulators could use this to kill stablecoins by making them unprofitable, just like MICA in the EU requiring 2% equity. This is a key item. - Commingling rules are not clear. - HOST STATE LAW: This regulation might kill state paths, as home state laws could mirror the MTL model, where companies take 4 years to get 50 MTL licenses. If the federal regulators allow state laws to become too different (or too aggresive on minor details) requiring multiple registrations, issuers will just go thrtough the Federal path, removing the lower barrier to entry intended in the law. The real unlock for this bill is it gives regulatory certainty to institutions. Hope we can support this bill as and industry and make sure we address the pitfalls to make this an industry with trillions of dollars.