What do you see as the big trigger that led us to where we are now?

Yeah, so I think definitely it was the case that we had projects that were trying to do digital money in the past.

eCash is one of the most famous examples.

And there were attempts to commercialize eCash, to turn it into a product that people could use.

The big, big, big problem with all of these services was that they relied on a centralized intermediary.

So they used cryptography, they had really interesting properties, they provided a lot of privacy, but they relied on some kind of intermediary custodying the funds and being at the center of everything to solve the double spend problem.

The real innovation behind Bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency, was that they figured out how to solve the double spend problem, not entirely, but in a decentralized way.

The question is, when we are seeing this shifting narrative and we haven't seen a use case that was fully established yet, is this a sign that things are not going as planned, that it's not as good as we thought, or maybe this is just a learning process and we are going towards a much better place in the end? So how do you see that?

What do you see as the big trigger that led us to where we are now?

Yeah, so I think definitely it was the case that we had projects that were trying to do digital money in the past.

eCash is one of the most famous examples.

And there were attempts to commercialize eCash, to turn it into a product that people could use.

The big, big, big problem with all of these services was that they relied on a centralized intermediary.

So they used cryptography, they had really interesting properties, they provided a lot of privacy, but they relied on some kind of intermediary custodying the funds and being at the center of everything to solve the double spend problem.

The real innovation behind Bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency, was that they figured out how to solve the double spend problem, not entirely, but in a decentralized way.

The question is, when we are seeing this shifting narrative and we haven't seen a use case that was fully established yet, is this a sign that things are not going as planned, that it's not as good as we thought, or maybe this is just a learning process and we are going towards a much better place in the end? So how do you see that?

We've used a lot of

things as money over the millennia, right? We've used things like rocks and seashells.

We've stamped the faces of warlords and leaders onto precious metals and formed them into coins.

The invention of double entry bookkeeping was an incredibly important moment.

The idea of like ledgers and accounting that came out of Venice eventually You know, more recently than people realize, we move to a world where nation states, countries issue their own currency, whether that's paper or coins.

And very quickly, they started to outsource that work to the private sector in the form of commercial banking.

So, you know, this is a this is a check, which many of you may not even know what it is anymore, but that represents the commercial banking.

And in it, he describes

So what, why don't you maybe summarize it for us, kinda give us the executive summary, and then we can jump into certain sections and go along from there?

Yeah.

So I think, I think I'll give the summary, and then, you know, Dan and Anders will, will chime in and on more specific parts of it.

So first I wanna set the context of what we're looking at.

So we're looking at dollar-based stablecoins under the Genius Act, and so that means something really specific.

We're talking about stablecoins that are fully backed by treasuries or bank accounts.

We are not talking about algorithmic stablecoins, and we're not talking about cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum.

Well, what happens if we reach these amazing projections of three to four trillion by the end of the decade, maybe even more than that o- you know, over the next few decades? Can stablecoin infrastructure handle this added capacity?