Series 7 Episode 5: The digital assets transition. Stablecoins, CBCDs, and regulatory crossroads

Transcript

Laura Talvitie: Hi everyone and welcome to PwC's Risk and Regulation Rundown podcast. This is where we unpack the latest in financial regulation and what it means for firms. I'm your guest host for today's episode, Laura Talvitie, and in my work at PwC I focus on digital assets risk and regulation. Today, we are looking at stablecoins and central bank digital currencies. In the US, the GENIUS Act brings a federal framework for dollar-backed stablecoins. In the UK, the FCA is developing its own framework, but the regulatory tone remains more cautious. To help us make sense of the policies, market shifts, and what it all means for the future of digital money, I'm joined virtually by two brilliant guests, Elise Soucie Watts, Executive Director at Global Digital Finance, and Amanda Wick, Founder of the Association for Women in Cryptocurrency, and author of her new book, The Catalyst. Let's start with the basics first. I've noticed in discussions, even with those in financial services, that many confuse stablecoins with tokenised deposits, and the other way round. Both seem to be everywhere right now, but still not the same. In short Elise, can you go through the basic differences.

Elise Soucie Watts: Happy to, and I should say, I'm going to try to take a relatively neutral definition, because many of the emerging regulatory regimes we see around the world are going to have their specific one, but in general stablecoins refer to a token designed to maintain a stable value, par value, and that is with regards to an underlying fiat currency. They tend to need to be backed one-to-one. We're not talking about algorithmic stablecoins, but those that are backed one-to-one by a mix of cash and cash-equivalent reserves, or other high-quality liquid assets. Also important to mention here that they are bearer instruments as well. On the other hand, tokenised deposits are digital representations of traditional bank deposits that are recorded on DLT or a blockchain network, and noting here that deposits are not bearer instruments, because they are linked to that underlying deposit, as opposed to the underlying assets in the case of stablecoins. You could wrap yourselves in circles getting into all kinds of hybrids, or things that might fall in between, and I think we certainly may see evolutions of that kind in the future, but that's my very broad definition for both of those. Acknowledging, of course, that there are going to be jurisdictional nuances, or indeed, firm-specific nuances as well, in how they approach these products.

Laura: Brilliant, thank you. We've cleared that up. We'll cover stablecoin regulation in a bit, but aside of that, why has stablecoin market uptake increased so sharply since early 2024? We've got traditional FS firms, crypto natives, and global tech firms looking to issue their own stablecoins, or have already done so. What's driving the shift in both demand and supply?

Amanda Wick: I guess I could start with that one, and then Elise, if you disagree or agree, chime in, but probably one of the things that's driven stablecoin demand the greatest has been, to Elise's point, the whole idea of stablecoins was to create stable value. For people in hyper-inflationary countries, or countries with volatile governments, or currencies that they don't trust, stablecoins have been an incredible facilitator of international dollar demand. People in countries like Venezuela, Argentina, Nigeria, when they don't want their own hyper-inflationary currency, there are entire markets that have developed where they're using stablecoins that are usually backed by US dollars, to operate to have living income, where they know that if they make $20 today, it's worth $20 tomorrow. As opposed to their local currency, where they could make $20 today, and it could be worthless the next day, which is terrifying from an economic perspective. That's one of the things that we were seeing, and it's one of the reasons why I think US dollar-backed stablecoins have been predominantly the largest market driver of the stablecoin market, is the facilitation of that global dollar demand, particularly in the retail sphere.

Elise: What I would add to that is that I think as well, stablecoins remain a very powerful use case, which Amanda was getting at, is that they have this amazing cross-border potential, and that they can be used in a way that is truly global. In a way that you can't with not only just physical cash, but also with various bank cards that you might have, for example, which are not always going to work in every country, or for every payment that you might need to make. There's this idea that we can facilitate more efficient cross-border payments, more efficient remittances of course, but even for things, and other really powerful use cases, including in the shipping industry as well, where you can unlock trapped capital much faster across the whole of the value chain at each step in the journey, and so that cross-border element for stablecoins is important. I think you also can't leave out, you talked about why we're seeing so much market uptake, and I think that's also because we're seeing a lot more regulatory clarity as well. Before they weren't very clearly defined, we hadn't coalesced around these common definitions. We were seeing algorithmic stablecoins floating around, and then being pushed out when people realised they weren't actually as stable as they purported to be. Now we're seeing much clearer guardrails and regulations around what a stablecoin could be, how they could be integrated in the payment systems of our future, and that also, once you get that regulatory clarity and comfort, gives the institutions, in particular, a chance to get involved when they see that there's a clear regulatory path.

Laura: Do you see stablecoins gaining more traction in the wholesale space as well?

Elise: Definitely, I think so. There's absolutely a case for wholesale use cases of stablecoins, for example, I know we could have a whole other discussion about CBDCs, but central bank money as mandated by the PFMI principles, say that you should settle in central bank money where practical and available. Now, if you don't have digital central bank money in the form of a CBDC available, you could settle in stablecoins instead, and it's definitely another powerful use for stablecoins. We'll see a lot more interest in that, but also, I want to be clear here, because we obviously mentioned tokenised deposits at the beginning too, but I don't think that any of these are an either/or option. My personal view, and to be fair, the view of a lot of people in industry, is that we're working towards being a multi-digital currency future, where tokenised deposits, stablecoins and CBDCs should all be able to coexist and interoperate as the next evolution of financial services. I'm very excited for that as well.

Laura: Yes, definitely. You mentioned Elise, regulation then. If we start with the US, The GENIUS Act passed in the US earlier in July '25. Amanda, what does that mean in practice, and why is the US moving so decisively here?

Amanda: I think it helps if you know much about the American political system, when one party rules all three houses, things tend to move a lot faster. Because the republicans have the presidency, the Senate, and the House, even without a super majority, they were able to get the statutes passed through. Now, I will say, it's worth noting that I think over 100 Democrats signed on to GENIUS in recognition of the need for stablecoin legislation. That was actually heartening to a lot of us, who, in the past, had not seen Democrats as forward-thinking and as forward-moving as some of their colleagues across the aisle. The biggest thing, and Elise eluded to it, or even downright said it, is that GENIUS finally gives everyone a clear, unified, regulatory pathway for offering stablecoin products and services in the US. Before that there was this terrible patchwork of state-level federal rules. It was a bit of a mess, and so now, banks, FinTechs, international companies, they can extend, or even expand operations in the US market, which is really what GENIUS was all about. It basically created the certainty that people needed to get involved, which was essential. What was interesting is that Elise and I spend tons of time out on the road speaking at conferences, and for us, stablecoins have been the obvious use case for years. It's the modernisation of payments. It had so many things going for it. What has been shocking to me is the number of massively large companies who have not been looking at this, and were seemingly completely flat-footed, and had no plan for digital assets, and all of a sudden, GENIUS went from zero to 100, but in reality, stablecoin legislation had been in discussion, people had been talking about this. it's an interesting thing where it feels like, to some people, it's everything, everywhere, all at once, but I can tell you, from friends of mine who have been working on stablecoin legislation for years, it's the culmination of a very long path that lots of people just ignored, and were trying to pretend was a fad. It's a very weird dynamic right now, where I think those companies that have been talking about this, listening to people, like Elise and you. For people who have been listening and wanting to stay ahead of it, I think it's the next logical step, but for a lot of people who were burying their heads in the sand, or thought that this would just go away, now all of a sudden, it's everything, everywhere, all at once, and I'm like, 'Well, we've been trying to tell you that this was coming for years.' It's a very interesting dynamic, where you feel very, I don't know what the word is, not like Jekyll and Hyde, but very much, like, I don't know what rock you were living under if you didn't know stablecoins prior to the passage of GENIUS. I'm not sure what your emerging tech policy was, either as a regular, as a policymaker, or as a corporation, if you're trying to future-proof your payment mechanisms.

Laura: Agreed. If we then bring it back to the UK, the FCA ran a consultation earlier this year, and how does the UK's proposed framework compare, and how has the market responded on this side?

Elise: Yes, so really interesting, because actually, I think that in this, in some ways, the US and the UK have taken a similar approach to producing their regulatory frameworks, which in the EU, MiCA was done everything, everywhere, all at once. It was a big framework that covered everything, except for DeFi, and really tried to hit the whole of the market and stablecoins all in one piece of legislation. Like the US, the UK has set out a roadmap, where they're going through piece by piece, and consulting on everything from market structure to stablecoins, to prudential, to custody. The specific stablecoin consultation, if we're doing a comparison to GENIUS, is pretty interesting from the UK, and quite comprehensive. The consultation closes on 31 July, after which the FCA will then do a review and put out a policy statement based on any changes they'll make to that proposal from feedback they received from industry. Notably, a few differences that we see in the UK, as opposed to not only GENIUS, but also jurisdictions, like Singapore and Abu Dhabi, is that the UK has different redemption requirements. While in GENIUS, for example, it says that you need to have timely redemptions, and you obviously have to disclose what your redemption policy is very clearly. In the UK we're proposing a one-day time horizon.

That's quite punchy and short, especially if you're not in a dollar market, because let's remember that the gilt market is not open seven days a week, 24 hours, and so that one-day redemption is going to be pretty tight, and we're going to see a lot of industry feedback on that point, because it will be likely quite difficult from an operational perspective. We're also seeing some slightly different proposals when it comes from backing assets coming out of the UK as well. Notably here, earlier, and this was in 2024, we saw two early approaches, not in consultation form yet, but in discussion, from the Bank of England and FCA. They proposed to have basically two different regimes, one for systemic stablecoins from the Bank of England, and one for regular, everyday stablecoins from the FCA, and basically, the systemic ones meant those that were widely used for retail purposes. That kind of thing defines them. We haven't seen an update from the bank yet, but interestingly, on backing assets, that regime had proposed 100% backing in central bank reserves, which frankly, is not a very common model that we're seeing from any stablecoin issuer in the market. Most might have between 5% to 10% central bank reserves, and then quite a high percentage, usually 95%, of HQLA. That was very interesting, and I think we have seen some potential changes from the bank in that stance, which might be coming down the pipeline from the FCA. In their regime, they did say that they would allow a wide range of backing assets, but now it's important to remember the other consultation I mentioned, which is the prudential one. That one though, did apply risk add-ons for different types of backing assets, and quite specifically, a 5% risk add-on from money market funds as backing assets, which you wouldn't really use them, would you, if you had that large risk add-on? So coming to the conclusion of where I'm drawing this differentiation between the UK and GENIUS, the GENIUS does allow for a wide range of backing assets, and a high percentage. It also has a much more proportionate and flexible time horizon when it comes to redemption. We're going to see a lot of strong pushback when these consultation responses are published to the FCA, that really advocates for something that's more aligned to GENIUS. Particularly because people are going to want to see the UK take advantage of the reciprocity provisions that are in GENIUS, because given that 99% of the world's stablecoins are dollar-backed, if the UK can lock in a reciprocal agreement with the US, it will automatically become a much more attractive jurisdiction for stablecoins to grow and to issue within the UK. That's my probably slightly small rant about the differences between the UK and the US at the moment when it comes to stablecoin regulation.

Laura: That's a really good point, and a really good bridge to my next question, which was to talk about more the policy side as well, and what's going on between the Treasury and the Bank of England, and maybe the FCA. In July 2025, we got the Mansion House Speech from the Treasury, and the Chancellor called out digital assets including stablecoins as one of the key priorities, but the Bank and maybe other authorities sound a lot more cautious in their public speeches. Why does there seem to be this tension between the Treasury and the authorities on stablecoins, or do you even agree? Am I just reading the room wrong?

Elise: No, I think you're right. There is always going to be a little bit of tension, because if you think about what the mandate says these bodies are, the Treasury is executing on the plans that the government has, the government function, whereas the Bank of England and the FCA have different remits, and the FCA is an independent regulator. For the Bank of England, what are they concerned about? Financial stability. That is their main thing. They want to make sure that the UK's financial markets are stable, and that is how they're approaching it, and it is going to be a much more risk-cautious approach when they think about new technologies in stablecoins. That being said, the Bank has done a lot of great research. They do have the digital securities sandbox, and we did see commitment to that from the Chancellor, and we did see an acknowledgement from the Bank of England as well during that Mansion House week on stablecoins and their potential, as long as risks were appropriately mitigated. I would say that this is the time for industry to step up and demonstrate to the Bank of England and the FCA how those risks can be mitigated, to give them that comfort, and to help them fulfil the vision that the government has for the UK. There's definitely still potential there, but I would agree with you, I do think that there's always going to be that inherent tension between how much risk do you add in, and how do you make sure consumers are protected? How do you make sure markets remain stable while still pushing a growth agenda? There are always going to be trade-offs. I empathise, because it's a very difficult job, but it's one where we, and industry, can definitely step in and try to provide them with the right information as well as the risk mitigations that can actually take place to provide them with that comfort.

Amanda: I totally agree with that. If I could add one thing, because I one hundred-percent could not foot stomp that enough, that this is industry's moment to basically prove that it is now more suit than hoody, whereas when it started, it was definitely more hoodies than suits, and that scares everyone when the concept of the future of financial services looks like it's in the hands of a bunch of stupid crypto bros, who are just running around with “When Lambo?”. Those cultures collide in weird ways, but I do think it's worth noting that you have to understand that there is a little bit of hypocrisy on the banking side, in the sense that what we've seen, especially over the last few years, are major banks, representatives in major banks, who are crapping on the crypto industry as a whole, which definitely includes stablecoins. Don't get me wrong, included some companies that deserved to be crapped on, but pretending that banking was doing it perfectly, as if they weren't responsible for the 2008 financial crisis, as if the system was perfect, and crypto came in and was just doing it terribly. I think it's the nature of any competitor model. Nobody was surprised when the CD industry hated Napster. It was their downfall. There is an aspect, as Elise mentioned earlier, there's an aspect of stablecoins in particular, when you're talking about cross-border payments, and you're talking about the speed of payment movement, there's absolutely an aspect of crypto that directly competes with banks, and antiquated technology that they cannot update easily, without adopting, I forget what you call it when AI and humans mash together, but this idea that eventually humans will be part robot.

This is essentially what will happen to banks, because they can't rip out all of their rails that are built in. Some of them are still running on Cobalt technology. You can't just rip that out. So you have this tension where banks are basically publicly now saying, 'Oh, yes, this is valid technology.' Some of them have been spending millions and millions of dollars on their own internal blockchain technology and distributed ledger technology blockchains, in recognition of the need for their tech to improve. It's a very interesting dynamic where publicly they're acknowledging the need for this technology, because people want lower fees and faster payments, whilst simultaneously trying to ensure that crypto does not eat their lunch and swallow their business model. There's this push and pull, where the banks are saying 'Oh, it's unstable, you have to regulate-,' Fine, but then there's also this, but you're also just trying to keep your foot on its neck so that it doesn't swallow your business whole, which is understandable… hashtag capitalism.

Laura: Better late than never, I guess, that they are adapting now. It will hopefully make the whole industry better.

Amanda: Yes, I hope so, and to Elise's point, I think industry is starting to understand this is your moment, do not screw it up. I don't want to speak for Elise, but I know there are a bunch of us that the hope is that the more serious voices, the companies that have been doing it right. Historically, some of the loudest voices in crypto have not necessarily been the ones that you want being the flag bearers of the entire industry. I think stablecoins, and what we're seeing here is the maturation of that, and so my hope is you're going to see mature cryptos step forward, and the conversations and the industry really moving, and propounding things, and to Elise's point, suggesting really forward-looking things to say, 'We are the future of digital finance. We are no longer running around saying stupid things like ‘you can't regulate maths’, or ‘we should have the anonymous free flow of money.' Or things that would basically make any policymaker or regulator turn and run. We have come a long, long way, but I do think there's a recognition by the industry that this is a moment that you don't want to lose, and you don't want to blow it.

Laura: If the use of stablecoins continues to increase, do we need central bank digital currencies any more? In the US, we know that it's not going to happen for a while. The EU has a more positive view. Some say they are even using a CBDC as a tool against the stablecoin uptake. The UK sits somewhere in the middle for now, at least. Do you guys agree?

Elise: I don't know if I would say that the EU is using CBDC as a tool against stablecoin. I personally would not take that view. I think that there are some issues with stablecoin scaling in the EU, but those are actually related to slight crossing in regulation between what's happening with MiCA, and what's happening with the e-money regulation. However, that being said, we do still see major stablecoin issuances in the EU from some of the biggest stablecoin issuers. I don't think we would be seeing that if the EU didn't want stablecoins. Whereas, I really don't like to hate on the UK, but we don't have any GBP-backed stablecoins, but we do have euro-backed stablecoins. I think it's important that we think about that. However, that being said, the EU has been very pro-CBDC. From the conversation that I've had with the public sector on this, they see this as the monetary sovereignty issue, and they make it clear, and the conversations that I've had with any EU central banker, they make it clear that they do not plan for EU CBDCs or digital euros to be the only option for people. They just want it to be an option, and you know what? I don't really have a massive problem with that. I think it comes back to what I was saying earlier, which is that I do think that these types of currencies can coexist. My personal view is that in a lot of massively developed economies that have pretty efficient payment networks, do we have a massive need or a use case for a retail CBDC? Probably not. I think the wholesale use case is more powerful. However, that being said, if it is an option for people, if governments are doing experimentation on how to modernise their technology. If they're looking at how they can integrate DLT within their payment systems, I actually think that's a good thing, and I do think that there is a little bit of a danger in closing one's self off from doing any experimentation whatsoever. You might do the experimentation and say, 'Yes, actually, we don't need it, or maybe we need a wholesale one instead.' But I actually am maybe a little bit more pro-EU on this one than a lot of the market commentary I see, and I think that monetary sovereignty is something that every jurisdiction has to grapple with, and think about how they manage, and it's becoming even more complex in an era of digital currencies. Amanda has thoughts on this from a geopolitical perspective as well. However, I will say that I actually think that CBDC experimentation and research from a juridical perspective is probably net good, because of the education that will do for the public sector, in helping them to understand and get comfortable with these technologies. So long as it's only an option, and it's not being forced upon citizens for use.

Amanda: I one hundred percent agree with every word of that. I think one of the tragic things that we're seeing in the United States is the politicisation and the misinformation around this, because it's been turned into a political issue, which is really tragic, and Elise, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in addition to the monetary sovereignty issue, one of the things that the EU is looking at, is the concept of payment as a public good, or payment as a right. We don't actually think about this, but people don't really think about the fact that when they go into a restaurant or to a store, and they go to make a payment, which most people now are using some form of bank card tap to pay. Especially in the UK, tap to pay is huge, but you actually pay quite a bit as a merchant for tap to pay. People don't realise the fees that go on in that system, but if you're looking at a central bank digital currency, and you're looking at payments as a public good, merchants in those countries that put into place a CBDC, have theoretically low to no fees, because it's a publicly-provided good. I think the fascinating thing here that I'm watching is Wyoming, one of the states in the US, is building its own stabletoken, which is like a state equivalent of a CBDC. It's obviously not a central bank, it's just a state-backed token, but it's basically a public stablecoin, if you will. The fascinating thing about that model is that if you think about the average Wyoming merchant, they're going to get a sales system that has probably low to no fees. Wyoming is going to take in lots of dollars from residents of the state who want to use the payment system.

They will actually make the money, instead of a for-profit company, like stablecoin issuers, and then all the profits made by the state of Wyoming, instead of going to a private company, can go to roads, to schools, etc, which is probably similar to the EU model for CBDCs. Because when a country brings in money to the public fisc, what it uses it for is vastly different than what a private company does, and I think what's going to be tragic is, to Elise's point earlier, we are seeing all these different types of digital currencies growing at different rates. There are so many countries that are working on CBDC projects. They either already have them, are in the process, are discussing interoperability, and when you think of that technological advancement, when you think of America and countries that are so far behind, that they're not even researching, they're not even working, they're just shutting it down in the interest of politics. That's a really horrifying thing, if you think about cutting off an arm and then just hoping that your right arm is strong enough to keep swinging in the global macroeconomic space. My fear is that Wyoming is too small a market, but if it shows signs of doing well, and California, New York, or even Texas did it, probably not Texas, but any of the states that are leaning towards pro-crypto objective conversations. If any of the other states did it and started making real money, and started showing the concept of payment as a public good, it would break through the misinformation campaigns that the right has propounded on CBDCs, but it's going to be really interesting when other companies start plugging in together, and the benefit of interoperable CBDCs are seen. What happens when you're far behind and you were just banking on private stablecoin companies? But you have to take a 360 view, and some people look at this in very siloed ways, and I love that the EU is thinking not just as a monetary sovereignty, but as payments as a public good, and that social safety net of people deserve to be able to pay for things. That is a part of the discussion in financial inclusion that we could do a better job of, because everybody loves to say how financial inclusion, crypto is better for that. Actually, payments as a public good is the discussion where that is truly financial inclusion.

Laura: Brilliant points, both of you, but especially Amanda, I had no idea about that CBDC, or that state-backed coin project in the US. I'm sure many of the listeners didn't either, but sorry I need to move on to your first book, which you published recently, The Catalyst. Amanda, you talk about the dominance and potential decline of the US dollar, and there's an argument that strong USD stablecoins could help the US maintain that dominance. Do you think that will be enough in the long term to keep things as they have been or are?

Amanda: You know, it's funny, I'm getting this question, obviously more and more, since 17 July and the passage of the GENIUS Act. It's an interesting question of whether there is enough retail dollar demand, and stablecoins tend to purchase T-bills in order to meet the reserve requirements, but the issue is the stablecoin market right now, the US dollar-backed stablecoin market, is somewhere around the sixteenth largest holder of treasury bills combined. I think one of the companies, the largest in the market, is the nineteenth largest. So ahead of some governments, and I think that people are really not thinking about the issue there. I remember being on a panel in London, actually, where I said something to the effect of, 'Look, that company could sell a significant number of T-bills tomorrow and swing the entire global markets.' Somebody on the panel, who had a relationship with that company, denied it, but then Yesha Yadav, a brilliant law professor from Vanderbilt Law School, who spends all day studying these markets, was like, 'No, they could absolutely liquidate tomorrow. There is currently no rule or regulation. They're based in a foreign country.' One of the reasons I wrote the book is because people don't look at the interconnectedness of all of this. It's called The Catalyst because there were these eight catalysts that interplay together, and America's political and economic dysfunction goes much further than not having stablecoin regulation.

I think the question, if you talk to economists, is even if you pass stablecoin legislation, and you create a pathway for shoring up dollar dominance using stablecoins to satisfy retail dollar demand globally, we are still in a spiralling debt crisis, as a country. The question is, can you bring in enough revenue? Can you pay down the debt fast enough? I don't think stablecoins really address that. Now, obviously, the hope is that we can bring enough business and enough investment into the country, but I just think people are not hopeful, because when you combine GENIUS with the ironically-named Big Beautiful Bill, and you look at the addition to spending that's going to add, it's just basic maths. The concept of I don't know that you're going to bring in enough to counter additional spiralling debt, and if you think about the fact that you haven't really done anything to prevent companies that now hold a massive amount of that debt from doing whatever they want with it. It's a very fraught place to be in, and the response from the American government reminds me of that meme, you know that dog that sits in the burning house and says, 'This is fine, everything is fine.' American exceptionalism, whether it's unmerited and unbridled, but particularly unbridled, unmerited American exceptionalism, is one of the strongest forces in the world. If you were to take the description of America, where the status of the country is, and take out the word America and read it to somebody, they would think it was 1920s Germany. They would think it's an economy on the brink of collapse, but when you say it's America, well, now, it's, of course, a ship that will turn around, and I just think people aren't ready to admit that that's an aircraft carrier that does not move, it does not turn quickly, let alone at all. So, no, I sadly think it's not going to be enough to save us from the economic crisis that we're headed towards. GENIUS is great, we're all happy about it, but then if you turn and look around the other way, there's just a lot of other terrible things happening. I don't think stablecoins solve the US's problems.

Laura: Thanks Amanda. We are almost out of time, but we have to finish this with something positive. Quickly, say something positive about stablecoins or where the world is going.

Amanda: I think the positive thing about stablecoins, going back to something Elise said, I think people are starting-, anyone who is looking at this objectively is acknowledging that we are going to end up with a basket full of digital currencies. Whether it's different types of cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, tokenisation of assets, CBDCs, and if there are people out there who don't know those terms, I would hope that if you take one thing away from this discussion, it's sweet baby Jesus, start learning now because you're way behind. It's not a fad, and it's not going away, and you should learn about the future of digital finance, but I think that stablecoins are an interesting thing because at a minimum, they are going to massively improve speed and cost of payments. I mentioned Napster earlier. I don't know whether we're at the LimeWire, Kazaa stage right now of digital finance, if you are making an analogy, and maybe we're closer to Apple Music and Spotify than we think, but we're on that path, and not knowing about this is wildly behind and irresponsible at this point. I think regulators and policymakers know that, and the good ones that me and Elise deal with are really, really trying. They're learning this stuff at fast as they can, but I think people really need to learn. That's why I wrote the book. The goal was to provide objective education at a very straightforward, understandable way, that doesn't use a lot of jargon. It's not a crypto book. There's literally only one chapter about crypto, but if you want to understand where crypto fits in the world, then get the book and read it, and you'll understand why Elise, me and Laura are so passionate about this, because it's the future of digital finance. It's not just about Fartcoins and speculation.

Elise: My positive note that I would end on is actually picking up maybe something Amanda said at the beginning, which is that policy and regulation are going mainstream as well, and that's a good thing, as the one who has probably been a backroom boffin for most of my life, hiding away, cheering about regulation. It's so exciting to see people getting really excited about GENIUS, and learning about legislative process, and figuring out the difference between a discussion paper and a consultation paper and a policy statement. My encouragement would be that yes, pay attention to this, because we are going through, as Amanda said, a major shift in financial services. This is determining the infrastructure of our future financial system, and so it's a really exciting time to get involved in policy, because that's how we build the foundation of how the market will operate in the future. That's my positive note to end on.

Laura: Thank you. That was the positive ending I was looking for. That's all for this episode. A big thank you to my guests, Elise and Amanda for their insights today, and if you are listening and found this helpful, please subscribe and follow the show wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for listening.