Appreciate that Tom. My only caveat, let’s say the insurance regulator (as an example) becomes comfortable with insurance companies holding Bitcoin on balance sheet. The regulators would assign a volatility charge to Bitcoin. This volatility charge will be greater than that of a structured hybrid debt/equity product. So even as regulatory framework improves, there will still be a larger benefit to capital allocators to hold products with different volatility metrics (i.e. bond return to the downside, equity return to the upside). For simplicity, let’s assume some capital adequacy ratio “haircuts” on assets Treasuries held on balance sheet have a 10% haircut Rated bonds: 25% haircut Unrated bonds: 40% haircut Equities: 50% haircut Bitcoin: 70% haircut (right now it’s 100%) In capital adequacy calcs, there is still LARGE benefit to holding a structured product to minimize the downside vol on Bitcoin. As opposed to holding straight Bitcoin. These calculations are in place to protect consumers from liquidity risks in downside events. Btw, it’s a much more complex calculus than a “haircut” methodology I have outlined.

At last night’s coverage of the Boston Bitcoin Meetup, I asked @FossGregfoss how he would handle President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan with Bitcoin?