Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
TACOS & CRYPTO🔥 BIG VIBES💯🎼 @MOSCIUN 76.3% SOLD OUT
Recorded: July 22, 2025 Duration: 1:19:07Space Recording
Short Summary
In a dynamic discussion, key players in the crypto space highlighted significant developments including Sharplink Gaming's massive ETH acquisition, Kato's successful fundraising, JP Morgan's lending evaluations against cryptocurrencies, and Western Union's exploration of stablecoin integration, signaling a robust trend towards mainstream adoption and innovative financial solutions.
Full Transcription
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Sean.
What?
Sean.
Sean.
What?
I done lost some Flintstones making bedrock at the Chevron.
Not the Fairmont.
To some D day County O's
on a John did check a plan Tom Cruise fuck your couch I do my own stars 36
against a bush he took a whole blood this is that type of party a hold up
the rollies in them Cartiers.
I still think a bust down fly, though I bought it plain.
On the side, it's never dry, though it barely rains.
I be looking at the flames like we can do some things.
Burn, baby, burn.
DJ table turns.
You see them bluffs in the Ashtray, that's every eye we earn.
Ass fat ain't got no panties, I ain't got no words
Gold, we Mercedes Benz way out switch and swerve
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, lazy ass ho discredit my work Word on the street, I'm the bitch with the heat You wouldn't even believe what I tried for a verse Working hard, I'm grindin'
Hey, diamonds, here and I'm shine
Gangsta bitch, for real, these hoes be on these beaches rhyme
All my ass be dyin'
All my friends be lyin'
Having flashbacks when I was just riding that dick damn near here, forget I would drive
Damn, don't ask me, but I know ho I used to fuck with, I ain't got none to say
My only regret is been too young to fuck Matthew McConaughey
Yeah, bitch, Matthew McConaughey.
Yeah, bitch, Matthew McConaughey.
Wobbly wiggly wobbly wiggly wobbly wiggly wobbly wiggly.
Ooh.
Whoa.
Whoa.
Whoa.
Swoop it down.
Wobbly wiggly wobbly wiggly wobbly wiggly wobbly wiggly wobbly wog.
Sweet.
Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. I want to know what drugs you taking I ain't wanna do it if somebody told me Sayin' my name is war
I wanna know what drugs you takin'
And what are you takin' for
Maybe you mad cause you ain't got buzz
Up in the UK no more
I heard your career the same what it was
And you don't get paid no more
If you wanna feature, nigga just say it
But you gotta pay me for it
And I thought body you own
When you ever sayin' my name anymore
But now you puttin' your flag on your back
Now you gotta carry it
If somebody holdin' it down
It shouldn't be you, it's time to be serious
I know you hate being home, you come to the States and try to be arrogant
I bet you sit in your room and secretly wish that you was American
Soon as I heard your diss, I was shaking my head, this shit was hilarious
Ain't even wanna respond, but niggas in London told me to take care of it
You keep on saying my name, you dick in the grave, but you gon' get buried in it
Everyone back in your country looking at you like you an embarrassment
I'm about to perish him, I gotta make him respect this shit.
Put that in your life.
I bet this shit.
You lyrically better than no one I know.
Not even no one in the freshman list.
I love the UK, but that's just it.
I really hope you ain't the best of his kids.
All of my life, I never heard nobody tell me to put in that skeptic shit.
When you gonna finally accept this shit?
You not on my level.
Don't test this shit.
I know that you think it is friendly fire, but I'm not one of your friends this shit.
You should have hit up your friends, little bitch.
Go call up Dave and Central, bitch.
For me, you gonna need the Avengers, bitch. Go tell him that you're not a dissentery. Nobody cares. You should've hit up your friends, lil' bitch. Go call up Dave and Central, bitch. For me, you gon' need the Avengers, bitch.
Go tell him that Jonah Decentral.
Nobody cares.
You was that nigga back in the days.
You only poppin' in the UK, but we don't play your shit in the States.
Nobody cares.
Nobody cares how many women that you played, or how many bullets that you sprayed, or who
bringing you out on stage.
Nobody cares.
Nobody cares if you sad with all the goats, or how many tags on your coats, or how many
niggas that you know.
We don't care.
Nobody cares about how you and Drizzy are close, or how you invent a UK rap, but still ain't top 10 of your coats.
What makes you think it's a bright idea to swing at a nigga with stamina?
You throwing jabs at what you're swinging for nothing, cause you never letting it.
I heard that all of a sudden you wills are fucking nobody gonna hammer the work.
If you a demon, a bitch, I'm a devil, I hope that you ready to dance.
I probably took it somewhere that's past the level of making it right
I hope that when you respond the record is hard and maybe you'll make it a fight
I bet as soon as you hear this shit you probably be thinking about taking a flight
I got fans in London but after this song they probably gonna hit me for life
Yikes
The pits too black, your face get lit, the clip is packed so make a wish
I go to your town to take a trip, I wipe you down to take your pick
My money is blue, I'm way too rich, I make too much like way too quick
Your music sucks, you make me sick, pass the plate I'm starving Where does this shit you starting, I take your pick My money is blue, I'm way too rich I make too much, like way too quick Your music sucks, you make me sick
Pass the plate, I'm starving Where does this shit you startin?
Blah, blah, blah Send niggas up in your apartment
Use your head as a target I ain't that nigga to starve
But I laugh at you in your garbage Ha ha ha, go to Tottenham, I'm marching
That's why I leave your carcass Nobody cares, you was that nigga back in the
days You only poppin' in the UK But we don't play your shit in the States
Nobody cares how many women that you played
Or how many bullets that you sprayed
Or who bringing you out on stage
Nobody cares
Nobody cares if you sad with all the goats
Or how many tags on your coats
Or how many niggas that you know
Nobody cares about how you and Drizzy are close
Or how you invented UK rap
But still ain't top ten of your coats Hey. Hey. Hey.
Hey.
Hey.
Hey.
Hey.
Hey.
Hey.
Hey.
Hey.
Hey.
Hey. Hey. 100,000 ain't enough, cause he gon' need not more than one, no Ay, turn me up, hold on, turn me down
Me just got his money up, we still doin' turnarounds
Gen 5, gotta keep it took when I'm on the town
Them two niggas died over our ounce, not even a pound
What the fuck happened to Jay? I wish you was here
It's just me and you inside the booth, I might drop a tear
Wasn't even supposed to rap for real, I'm the engineer
Gettin' lost inside the instrumental, I can't even steer
Locked until infinity, I got energy
Tryna run ten figures up and leave that shit to mini-me
These little niggas just wanna be gangster or pretend to be
Nigga, get your money up and learn something from your history
I grew around drug dealing, I'm killing, plot thrilling
Pots feeling, mob drilling, grind me ass niggas
I can't trust donkey for shit, he a slimy ass nigga
I can't furniture on no pack, cosign me ass nigga
God damn a nigga, love winning
Tell him Cody put it up because he love spending
$20,000 off a, got my thug grinning
I ain't chipping off a lot because he's still printed
Cutty's still sinning, hell no, this ain't no sad song
It's a hundred thousand in the grocery bag song
Got it off a dropper,'s till you get them bags gone
Fuck the Trauma Cash, the only thing I pass on
Pray my moment last long
See, I ain't come this far for nothing
You know you miss a hundred percent of the shots you don't take
That's why I'm here
It ain't over till it's done. Leave a million to my son.
If we pop out with them blickies, you get hit with more than one.
Me and bro can't go for nothing.
Swear this pressure, weigh a ton.
Hundred thousand ain't enough, cause he gon' need not more than one, no. Oh We got been to I say
I say tone
Eat more
What's up
Tacos
The most
That's the one
World
You ain't know it
Same old phone
Sheesh
Yo we got the
Fucking ass
Coming in
Where JP at
Somebody said
JP is live
Let's get JP live
Hold on
JP Morgan live
My boy
Is he live right now Think so so yeah i was watching them on uh
youtube commercial break
yeah them little ads and be coming up but i don't i don't think it's no commercial break
all right let me see this this time i will be right back let me see
you check the notice and saw it what they say so far
man i ain't never gonna lie i'm just getting used to that i don't know what the
they be talking about i'll be listening to people in the spaces break it down so
i thought you might know all right
all right let me see yeah and i work for the federal reserve looking at all trying to see who's live to retain it this one's not confident the one with how scott talking right now and untested then risk weightings uh and at the time
risk weighted standards only accounted for credit risk not market operational or interest rate risk
which was also an important part of thinking about bank capital but we're far along now in
the process here we are in 2025 and risk-weighted standards have evolved during this period of time.
They have since their beginning been supplemented to incorporate market risk and now incorporate
complex modeling that did not exist at the time of Basel I.
Moreover, interest rate risk is continually monitored by bank examiners as part of the supervisory framework and could be incorporated into risk-based capital if you wanted to do that.
We also have several other safeguards in the capital framework that did not exist at that time, like the stress testing regime.
So there are strong arguments that the concerns that motivated the retention of the leverage ratio have been mitigated by subsequent enhancements and refinement of the overall capital framework.
The leverage ratio is now a frequently binding requirement for the largest institutions, meaning that it requires more capital than the risk-weighted standards.
This is inconsistent with the agency's original rationale for retaining the leverage ratio,
which was that it would sort of be a backup for the insufficiency of the risk-weighted
requirements.
That boy, cell phone going live on TV, bro.
Bank capital levels, to the conclusion, Daryl, are at all-time highs now, well above
what Basel and other jurisdictions required. I think we need to step back at this point,
which is the whole purpose of this conference, and ask ourselves, with respect to the leverage
ratio, not only focus on ESLR, but whether we need it at all. Thank you.
CLR, but whether we need it at all. Thank you.
Thanks. Does anyone want to react? What about the issue of intersecting types of capital
requirements? Does that cause problems when different banks are subject to different rules
at different times? Any views on the panel? I offered two observations about the role of the leverage ratio in the broader framework.
One is just, I know this conference is primarily focused on large banks, but we do have the
community bank leverage ratio for smaller community banks.
So there can be benefits in having a leverage ratio for particular institutions.
They could have a simpler framework.
But I think also the fact that the leverage ratio is itself simple also illustrates one
of its potential benefits.
We've seen in stress periods, there's often a focus on simplified metrics.
That was certainly the case during the financial crisis.
To some extent, it was also the case during 2023.
It wasn't necessarily the leverage ratio that was the focus, but there was a focus on
things, metrics such as tangible common equity or others that are simple.
So the simplicity of the leverage ratio, if it's properly designed and calibrated, could play a complementary role both for smaller banking organizations if they
want to have a simpler framework versus the complexity of calculating risk-weighted assets,
but also more generally to have a component of the capital framework that sort of the benefit
of it is its simplicity, particularly in times of stress. There's also the issue of assets that turn out to be more risky than they are modeled to be.
And this is a backstop for that.
So the obvious example from history is AAA subprime mortgage tranches,
which weren't really AAA, but were modeled to be AAA,
and capital held against them.
And it was a disaster.
Mr. Bryan.
I should add, when you look at 2023,
leverage requirements didn't necessarily catch the buildup in what seemed to be risk-free assets at some banks
that ended up having trouble.
So I think the important thing is, as Ben said, properly calibrated.
And it's difficult to perfectly calibrate a risk-based or a leverage requirement in advance.
So I think...
Q, I say who want to co-host?
...staying on top of risk is ultimately the key.
You can't just rely purely on either of these.
There's constantly new risks emerging.
Something like CRTs certainly growing in use.
Not very well, not great disclosure around it.
It's just, I think, staying on top of those risks as they come up is as important
as where these are set.
So some support for the backstop principle.
Tiffany?
If I can add to that, the leverage ratio is one piece of the puzzle.
So banks are managing to capital, interest rate risk, liquidity, and all of those as
part of a holistic risk framework is important.
I think about stools on a table.
Each leg needs to be strong.
And so to Brian's point about interest rate risk management, that individually also needs
to be a robust leg to keep the entire table stable.
But the leverage ratio itself can't overcompensate and make up for any weaknesses in other areas of risk management.
Hal, did you want to react to anything, any of the reactions to your comments?
Okay.
I sense a degree of alignment on the panel on this.
Okay, Tiffany, you're the Treasury market expert.
And as I mentioned, there's been a big focus on the unintended consequences for the Treasury
market of this rule.
So regulators have cited, in fact, in the proposal, Treasury market functioning as a
key reason to recalibrate the leverage ratios.
But is it better to lower the leverage ratios embedded in SLR or SLR and the Tier 1 leverage
ratios?
Or would it be better to have a more targeted fix to address Treasury market functioning,
like exemptions.
Thank you, Daryl.
And let me kick off by thanking Vice Chair Bowman and the Federal Reserve for bringing
us together today on this important topic.
Let's spend a moment on treasury market functioning.
As a treasurer, that topic is so critical.
We use treasuries for liquidity management, collateral, hedging, and it's all linked to the treasury market being the biggest, deepest, most liquid bond market in
the world. Stands at close to 30 trillion today and growing. So supporting a resilient treasury
market is important for the broader financial system, which we're all invested in.
is important for the broader financial system,
which we're all invested in.
There are two key tenants to that.
One is safety and another is liquidity.
In terms of safety,
there are a range of enhancements already in flight,
including the central clearing mandate.
In terms of liquidity,
supporting and deepening the market for treasury securities,
which is growing is critical.
In our seat, knowing that a treasury security can
be converted to cash easily, quickly, and in all market environments is so important. And that's
all predicated on an ecosystem of buyers, holders, sellers, intermediaries. And the intermediation
of treasuries is particularly important in periods of stress. At BNY, we have a unique vantage point into the treasury market, and we do see elevated
treasury volumes in periods of market uncertainty or stress.
In those periods, the market...
There's an ad.
Yeah, y'all see that guy live on stage with his ringer on, bro.
Live, top volume volume right next to the
mic what's up with this guy bro more than once you just can't make this up you know trump got
something to say about that um it's looking like let's see here everybody Everybody's saying Jerome Powell should resign.
Today's a great day to fire Jerome Powell.
And his resignation speech is forthcoming.
Did you guys see that news?
Forthcoming.
Yeah, that shit just turned right off.
Holy shit.
Let's see if we can find another one.
There we go.
And it may not be there in a period of stress.
Another flavor is to specifically target...
Spending $2.5 billion on luxurious renovations at the Fed House.
Yeah, this is amazing.
...from the Fed House. Yeah, that's amazing. From the leverage requirement.
And in that case, it's a more direct support for treasury intermediation
and for banks to act as shock absorbers for cash in those periods of stress.
Now, I'll posit that leverage reform is one facet of a multifaceted approach
to support market liquidity.
It really goes in harmony with public and private solutions,
including government facilities,
such as the discount window and the standing repo facility,
as well as private solutions,
including recent innovations such as early morning repo or intraday repo.
So taken together, as I take a step back as a treasurer,
every day we're focused on resilience
and we're managing a range of risk measures. Capital, liquidity, interest rate risk, just as
I mentioned. And that's just to name a few. And we're thinking about a wide range of scenarios.
We like to say better to prepare rather than predict. If I extend that lens to reforms and having reforms
that are also supporting resilient treasury markets
in a range of scenarios,
that really leans towards taking a holistic,
proactive approach, looking at all banks
and targeting the risk at hand.
And that'll help us target a future shock
because we all know that no two stresses look exactly the same.
And so with that, that holistic and proactive approach and discussion is exactly in the spirit of this dialogue today.
Thanks, Tiffany.
exemptions for certain safe assets versus lowering
of the leverage ratio number itself came up
at our dinner table last night.
And there was a range of views,
but rather than trying to review those,
I'd like to get the views of our panel.
So how about a quick run of the panel
on whether exemptions in addition to or as an alternative to
the proposal would be beneficial overall? So I would be concerned about exempting treasuries
because of the interest rate risk that could be encouraged. Banks would be encouraged, I think, to take with just exempting treasuries entirely.
Now, I'd like the alternative in the proposal for exempting treasuries in the dealer that are on the dealer's books that are marked to market and subject to the capital, the market capital
requirements. But just a blanket exemption to treasuries, I think, would raise other issues
that need to be addressed. Brian, do you? Yeah, I would just say, while the proposal creates
significant capacity today, there could be future states of the world
where eslr became binding again at least on some banks and it would be helpful to have something
counter cyclical to offset that um the trade-offs between different solutions how i prefer i prefer
the approach that was taken rather than exemptions but i would say with respect to any of these proposals we need better
data on exactly what the impact of them would be on liquidity in the treasury market in a crisis
given the fact that the dealers only account for you know not a lion's share of this market to start
with. And Ben? In terms of specific exposure exemptions, I think it's important to think
about that in the context of the broader framework. We discussed earlier the fact that under the narrow
exclusion, there would still be the market risk capital requirements, but also there are many
other aspects of the regulatory framework. There are also many aspects of the super advisory
framework. So looking at what else is there to address the concerns if there might be exemptions
for specific exposures, more of a holistic view. Yeah, again, we haven't been able to get much disagreement.
There was an intriguing remark last night at our dinner table on the implications
of exemptions for treasury securities, which is that in the international financial
stability framework, some other countries might be tempted to also depart from the general sort of the SLR,
exempt their own government securities,
and in some cases that might have adverse implications for international financial stability.
So I'm going to turn next to Brian,
and I want to address the issue that's come up already, which Tiffany mentioned, which is resilience.
That resilience of the Treasury market to events like March 2020 have been more prominent in the interagency working group papers on Treasury market reform than everyday liquidity.
day liquidity. Do you think the proposed reduction in the ESLR is likely to improve
treasury market liquidity on normal days? Would the proposal improve treasury market liquidity
during a crisis? Is there an advantage, and I think you alluded to this a moment ago,
to waiting for crisis conditions as in March 2020 before lowering or exempting from the SLR?
Yeah, great. Thanks. Thanks, Darrell. And also thanks for having me here to speak today.
I appreciate it. So I'd say treasury market liquidity today, normal times, is generally
working fine. You could look across a lot of measures on the run, off the run, spread,
You could look across a lot of measures on the run, off the run, spread,
market depth, swap spreads, futures basis, all kind of operating fine today.
That said, banks are economic actors and to the extent there was client demand and
you had a significant increase in leverage exposure capacity under the proposal.
Then I think at least at some of the GSIBs,
there could be incremental capacity deployed
to low RWA activity,
which could on the margin improve liquidity
on a normal trading day.
I wouldn't expect banks to go out
and buy a bunch of long duration for their banking book,
but think client financing, client intermediation.
In terms of the second point around crisis, you mentioned March 2020.
I think that's a great example, right?
It seemed like balance sheet constraints were contributing to a deterioration in market liquidity.
And regulators stepped in, you know, much to their credit and provided temporary relief.
And that, you know, helped facilitate And that helps facilitate return to activity. So I think a SLR that is not regularly binding
certainly could and should help reduce the likelihood
of a dysfunctional treasury market in periods of stress.
That said, it's just one piece, Daryl,
I know you've written and testified
about a bunch of the other pieces, so it's just one piece, Darrell, I know you've written and testified about a bunch of the other pieces.
So it's not just the one silver bullet,
but I do think it would be a helpful part of that process.
And then in terms of that final part about is there
advantages to kind of acting before or waiting,
I do think it's helpful to have some countercyclical part
of it.
There's different ways to do that.
There's the narrow exemption in the proposal.
I think the Basel standard allows for exempting reserves in certain situations.
You know, both of those have some advantages and disadvantages.
You know, you're picking winners and losers between low RWA type activities,
which can cause some market distortions.
You could bucket all low RWA activity together and exempt that as a group but that could hollow out the
rules. You might need to change the requirements. There's different things to
do there. You do a counter-cycical buffer or you know just wait for the next
crisis. You know if you know generally I would say the market doesn't like
uncertainty and generally I would say it's maybe not great policy
to be working on emergency measures.
So to the extent that that path could be explained
in advance, the market could discount it in advance.
And I think it would lead to better market functioning.
How about some more views?
What about this counter-cyclical approach?
Should the agencies keep something in their back pocket
ready to bring out during a crisis,
or should they try to fix it once and for all?
Anyone have a view on that?
Tiffany.
Thanks, Daryl.
I agree with Brian,
and clarity and having the certainty
in regulations is important,
particularly as we're managing our balance sheets at banks.
We talk about looking at various different scenarios
and preparing for a range of outcomes.
In those scenarios, we're typically not assuming
that there will be any change in regulatory requirements.
And we banks may take action, reduce activity in advance of a stress,
expecting no changes. So the structural permanent changes, the advanced notice of that helps steer
and incentivize the right behaviors in advance of the stress and then reduces the need to make
any ad hoc changes during a stress period.
Don?
So I've been a fan of the counter-cyclical capital buffer applied across capital,
with Brazil's risk space and leverage.
We applied it at the Bank of England.
Actually, I can't remember whether it was applied to leverage ratio.
I'm looking over at Phil.
It was applied to leverage ratio. I'm looking over at Phil. It was applied to leverage ratio.
I think a key, and I've advocated it and been rejected by the Federal Reserve many times.
It's a familiar position.
I think the key is, it's not just a one-way street
that you have something you reduce in hard times.
You have to make sure it's adequate in the
good times that you've got the capital high enough that if you release capital
in bad times, leverage or risk-based, that the banking system is still safe. So
counter-cyclical in both directions. Other views? If not, I'm going to move on and ask Ben a question.
So Ben, the Federal Reserve Board staff
has estimated a $210 billion decline of capital
at the G-SIB depository institutions.
But does that matter for financial stability
given the much smaller $13 billion projected decline
in capital at the G-SIB holding companies?
What are your views on that?
Thank you very much.
It's also, it's great to be here today with everyone.
When considering the context
of the broader large bank prudential framework,
I think the financial stability implications
of the difference are potentially positive. This is particularly the case in light
of the G-SIB resolution planning framework and the G-SIB single point of entry resolution strategy,
as well as the design of other Dodd-Frank Act enhanced prudential standards, which focus on
the holding company. The risk-based requirements are higher for the holding company than the bank,
as you mentioned. And this reflects the fact that the G-sub surcharge and the SCB applied only at the
holding company level. That, in turn, is itself illustrative of a key structural feature of the
current large bank prudential framework, and that's a focus on the holding company. This is codified
in Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and many hallmarks of the current large bank prudential
framework are all holding company standards. Some examples would include supervisory stress testing, CCAR, and then the stress capital buffer,
internal liquidity stress testing, TLAC requirements for GSIBs,
and then the joint FDIC and Federal Reserve Resolution Planning Requirements.
The proposal explains that it would do three main things.
First, restore the ESLR to a backstop.
Second, address the level and marginal regulatory incentives regarding low risk, low return, and higher risk activities.
And third, provide the GSIBs more flexibility in the allocation of capital among their subsidiaries.
I think the proposal would actually do three things beyond that.
First, it would address the arguably anomalous role of the 6% bank ESLR requirement in the current prudential framework.
That's a bank level capital requirement that's calibrated to be higher than for the holding company, but based on the G-sub status of the parent. It's actually the exact opposite
structure of the G-sub surcharge itself, which of course applies only to the holding company.
Second, there would be more consistency in the overall design of prudential standards with a
focus on the holding company. And third, there'd be more alignment with the resolution planning framework, and in
particular, the G-SIB SPOE resolution strategy. Under that strategy, in the event of failure,
only the top tier holding company would enter insolvency proceedings. The subsidiaries would
be resolved without entering into their own separate proceedings. That strategy depends on
flexibility,
specifically flexibility for the G-SIB
to provide capital and liquidity to the subsidiaries
based on their needs and resolution
from centrally available resources.
The strategy, of course, also depends
to some degree on prepositioning,
which entails having some capital and liquidity
already at the subsidiary level.
It's a balance between the two.
So the proposal would therefore have greater consistency
with the structural focus on the holding company.
There'd be more alignment with the resolution strategy for GSIBs.
And from that perspective, there'd be the perspective
to potentially have reduced fragility and stressed,
promotion of the resolvability of GSIBs,
and therefore positive financial stability implications.
Thanks very much, Ben.
What about other reactions?
Is the fact that the dollars of reduced capital
at the holding company is small relative
to the depository institution, is that important?
Is there sufficient flexibility in capital
in the structure of a bank holding company and its subsidiaries?
What are your views? Hal, do you have a thought on this? Do you have a thought on this, Hal?
Yeah. So as you said, Darrell, the reduction of the depository level was much higher than the
reduction at the holding company level. But I think we need to keep in mind the basic framework
in which the holding company of a bank has to serve
as a source of strength for the bank's subsidiary.
This guy sounds like a sailor.
So even though you are reducing the capital level
of the depository institution's subsidiaries,
you have the holding company still with this obligation to support the subsidiaries.
So I'm not that concerned because the holding company capital is not being reduced by very much at all.
Don?
So the fact that the holding company capital is basically unchanged is reassuring.
I do wonder about the source of strength thing, though, Hal.
I mean, once the capital is upstream from the depository to the holding company downstream
to the broker-dealer, or if it's not downstream, the broker-dealer won't do any good, right?
So presumably the intent of the authorities is to have it downstream to the broker-dealer.
Then you have a crisis.
I see wait still after.
See what people are speculating.
Are they really going to take the capital back from the broker-dealer and give it to the depository institution?
Sentiment hasn't made a decision yet.
In 2008, the board was asked to vote several times on exemptions to upstream capital from the bank to the holding company to support the broker-dealer.
So I think we need to think more carefully about whether the holding company would be actually a source of strength in a crisis situation.
Tiffany? actually a source of strength in a crisis situation. Tiffany.
I think that all folds together to the fact that each bank
is managing to multiple risk measures, capital being one,
but liquidity, interest rate risk, and other measures
will also support the, both the IDI
as well as the holding company.
So all of those various constraints ultimately inform how much could potentially be upstreamed or not.
So there are additional constraints as part of a holistic risk framework that we are thinking of as well.
Thank you, Ben.
Yeah, I would just add to Ben's point.
you know, to Ben's point, the resolution framework for a single point of entry is meant to capture
sufficient liquidity and capital at the intermediate holding company to avoid the situation that Don is
talking about. Can it effectively do that? It's not clear. Disclosure is not great in that area.
So another area where it might be helpful to have more robust discussions around that to give more
confidence to more participants that that actually could work. And that's about resolution so you're in a
situation where you're managing a failure so it would be nice to prevent
the failure in the first place. That would be nice. Ben did you have a
My only observation is I did refer to reducing fragility and that's part of the
benefit of potentially having greater flexibility. I mean implicit in that reference to fragility is the
possibility of the point of non-viability is higher in 2015 than it was in 2008. So that's
again a reason why I think it's beneficial to consider the capital framework alongside the
resolution framework. Wow. Very complex topic. Don I want to I want to turn last to you and
you have been an advocate for reducing the SLR
in order to make sure that it remains a backstop,
as we've discussed,
and doesn't impede the willingness of dealers
to make markets and treasuries, as we've also discussed.
But you've also noted an important caveat,
that any adjustment does not reduce resiliency
of the banking system.
So when you look at the agency's proposals,
how does it stack up against these criteria
that you have in mind?
Thank you, Darrell.
And thank you for inviting me to be part of this panel
to the vice chair.
So you're right, I've long supported
enhancing treasury market liquidity
by making the leverage, the SLR, a backstop.
In fact, a senior Federal Reserve official told me a couple years ago I was using too much of my brain space on the leverage ratio.
So I'm grateful to have that space freed up for something else.
freed up for something else. But as you noted, my support has been couched in the context
that it not reduce overall capital requirements and resiliency. And I think I take quite a bit
of comfort from the fact that there's no reduction on the holding company level. But I do think,
as I just noted, there are things we need to think about. And I still have a few concerns on this overall resiliency issue I'd like to surface and I hope come up in agency's consideration.
First, obviously, making the SLR a backstop puts extra pressure on sound risk-based capital requirements.
And I think financial sector resilience is especially important right now.
The economy could well be on track for good growth and low inflation.
That's what's priced into financial markets.
But we shouldn't be lured into complacency.
Secretary Besant last night worried about pro-cyclicality in financial markets.
He cited private credit in that regard,
but we know banks and bank regulators,
from history we know banks and bank regulators
are not immune to this particular disease.
And the tails of the distributions
around the central tendency seem unusually flat
as we are in unchartered waters with respect
to the evolution of the global trading system,
the ratio of federal debt to national income,
and challenges to the independence of the Fed.
So I think the risk of unanticipated developments
are particularly high right now.
And it would be preferable to evaluate this proposal
as part of a holistic review of all capital requirements.
In that respect, this is a terrific conference putting all this together.
There's so many in the risk-based capital, there's the Basel III endgame GSIB requirements
and the stress tests and how are they all going to fit into this.
So were risk-based capital requirements the first line of defense weakened, I'd need to
rethink my support for reducing the backstop.
And I urge the agencies to put the whole package together before signing off in one piece.
And the second point, I want to come back to something that came up before, and that is releasing
capital at the DI will not reduce the resilience of the overall organization.
Powell is not resigning.
It will be encouraging.
In fact, one of the benefits cited in the thing is—
They can apply that model.
Markets remain steady as Fed chair continues to steer monetary policy.
Widespread losses on treasuring agency securities contribute not only SVB's problems, but continues to steer a monetary policy widespread losses eyes now on rate decisions and their
impact on crypto and securities contribute not only svb's problems but the risk to the broader
system that triggered extraordinary actions by the authorities in march of 23. so banks should be
required to mark securities and the available for sale portfolio to market and the available for sale
portfolios should be subject to market risk capital requirements. Bank interest rate risk
management even for the hold the maturity portfolio should be subject to close
close scrutiny and as I noted my concern about interest rate risk would
My concern about interest rate risk would make me very reluctant,
would make me opposed to exempting all treasuries from the leverage ratio.
So the gist of your remark is that you want to see the whole package before a final view on it.
Yes.
Yeah, interesting.
And other, Hal, what's your view on this?
So I think we need to keep in mind that the U.S. banking system is today very well capitalized.
The sailor guy.
U.S. G-SIB actual capital levels have increased 17% over the past two years.
And our minimum capital requirements are now 1.7 times higher than the Basel requirements.
$837 billion versus $473 billion. are now 1.7 times higher than the Basel requirements.
837 billion versus 473 billion under Basel
because of our stress testing regime and gold plating. Keep in mind that we gold plate the Basel requirements.
This proposal does not reduce risk-based capital.
It merely moves leverage into the background where it always has belonged and, in my view,
we could do away with.
And if it's in the background, you can further say, why do we need it then if it's now in
the background?
It's not binding anybody.
Okay, so anyway, I think overall the U.S. banking system is in a very good place today in terms of its actual capital levels.
Hal, you mentioned gold plating.
I'd like to get a reaction to something that came up, another topic that came up at dinner last night,
which is the implications of the SLR and other regulations
on the ability of US banks to compete
both with non-bank financial institutions
and with international banking institutions.
First, is that competitive angle,
does it figure in your minds
as a important aspect of the rule change? And secondly, is it actually true that U.S. banks have been at a,
or GSIBs have been at a competitive disadvantage
because of the capital requirements that we've been discussing?
I, Daryl, quite frankly frankly don't know the answer to that,
but I would be skeptical. I think there are a lot of other factors that affect competitiveness.
I mean, you know, when we originally adopted Basel, it was because of competitiveness concerns
with the Japanese banks, right? And we said, well, get them on an even playing level. They'll have to
have the same capital level as we do.
But then it turns out they have different accounting systems.
They have different government subsidies.
They have different forms of regulation.
They have nothing to do with capital.
So you have to add all of that into the picture when you're
thinking about competitiveness.
Any other reactions on competitiveness?
Any other reactions on competitiveness?
I would just say certainly we have a higher SLR requirement than other jurisdictions,
although that does not seem to have stopped our banks from competing very well against
a lot of the international banks.
I think certainly non-bank financials have significantly increased their scale and scope
in some of these businesses.
And obviously they don't have the same regulations, so that might have merit.
Moderators don't get to vent their own views,
but it does seem like better capitalized banks are better able to compete in principle.
Yeah, that was the point I was going to make.
I don't think the UK, European, Japanese banks would think that they're at an advantage
because their capital hasn't been gold-plated.
I think the U.S. banks are pretty much competing very, very well in the international field.
And there are times when being well capitalized, having high capital is to your advantage because of course
under stress there's much less to worry about. We saw that in the U.S. in the March 23 situation
where deposits fled from regional banks where people were concerned about the embedded losses on treasuries and other things.
And they fled to the GSIBs.
And some of the commentary, well, that's because the GSIBs are too big to fail.
But I think it was also because the GSIBs were much better capitalized and much, much less likely to fail.
Okay.
I'll make one observation.
Yes, go ahead, Ben.
I do receive a lot of questions about the regulatory capital or liquidity treatment
about particular transactions or products and things of that nature.
And that does clearly illustrate that their marginal incentives and essentially what the
marginal capital cross, liquidity cross does factor in.
That's not necessarily contradictory.
But I think it does show that the actual marginal effects of regulation do factor into business
decisions and there are differences between US and non-US requirements.
Tiffany at a global bank. Well I was going to re-highlight some of Don's
points one being completely support interest rate risk management it's a
strong pillar it's an important risk pillar and as I, it's a strong pillar, it's an important risk pillar. And as I mentioned, it's an important part
of the overall risk management framework for banks.
Second, the holistic review,
I think is an important point as well,
because we find that, again,
managing to a lot of risk measures,
making a change to one risk measure
is likely going to have another become binding over time
and could have the same constraints,
let's say on the treasury market.
So I think that holistic review is also makes a lot of sense.
Terrific.
Okay.
I think we got a pretty good sense of the views of the panel and I think it's time to
turn to you all.
If you have a question, would you raise a hand?
I see there are microphones.
Would you also please identify yourself and try to keep it to a question, just one.
If we have a second round, we can come back.
And not a speech, just a question, please. Speaker 1, 2, 3 banks are subject to two leverage ratios.
One is supplementary leverage ratio. The other one is Taiwan leverage ratio.
And the question is, why do you think two ratios, both target leverage, are needed for these banks?
both target leverage are needed for these banks.
Okay, I'm going to ask anyone that can address that question
because I don't want to handle that one.
Anyone.
Hal, do you have a thought on that?
I'm not going to defend one of two ratios
and I disagree with both of them.
What do you propose?
Okay.
I'm watching for hands.
Yes.
Hi, Sharon Hishai from Morgan Stanley.
I actually have a question directly to Don.
You mentioned that you think that we should have a counter cyclical buffer.
You mentioned overlap between different parts of the capital regime.
You mentioned that it was something that made sense in the UK,
but at the same time, the US has a much different capital regime inclusive of the CCAR test, for example,
which does give you an ability to build capital, to be there for stress. And so I'm curious as to why you
would want to impair potential use of capital from the banking institutions in
a period of stress where they could be using
most as though the the concept behind having overlap is not necessarily taken into account from a buffer mentality where you don't necessarily have the CCAR exam in the UK. and the two leverage ratios and overlap between things. So that's why this is such a great event today,
because the authorities can hear views about how these things interact and whatnot.
But I do think my counter-cyclical buffer thought,
or at least the way we exercised it in the UK,
was exactly to free up capital in a stress event and by lowering
the counter by taking out the counter cyclical part you enabled banks to use
that capital without running into restrictions on dividends and buybacks
and that kind of thing so our view and I think as I've read the studies that came out of the March 2020 COVID
thing that for countries in Europe that had counter-cyclical buffers, they found that it
did, the ones that released those buffers had better lending experiences than the ones that
didn't. So the whole, maybe I didn't understand quite your question totally, but the whole point of the counter-cyclical buffer is to encourage lending
in stress situations or discourage having a constriction of credit add to a stress situation.
Alistair. Oh, sorry. Yes, you. Thank you. Bill Demchak. I'm the CEO of BNC.
Just an observation.
This entire conversation on leverage ratio
and then pointing to the functioning of the treasury market,
what we're actually talking about is the ability of prime brokers
to increase their balance sheet in times of stress.
So the noise around, hey, banks are just going to go buy
more treasles up because they can take more interest rate we're not going to buy any more
treasuries so we can get duration a hundred and hundred different ways without going to the
treasury market we can do it off balance sheet through swaps what we're simply talking about is
it is it a good idea to give g-sibs the ability to grow their prime brokerage operation to support the actual capital providers into the treasury market today, which are principally hedge funds?
And by the way, I'm in favor of that, but I would reduce the conversation because I think the issue ultimately becomes size of prime brokerage across Wall Street as opposed to what the leverage ratio is.
So, Bill, would the support for hedge funds and others who prime brokerage increase in a stress?
So I think one risk, isn't it, that this actually enables the hedge funds to become more levered because banks and then and now you've got a stress hits and the margins start increasing and pressure on the hedge funds.
The basis trade blows up even worse.
You're picking your poison, but that is the correct discussion.
the correct discussion. So banks, you know, since I worked on a primary dealer desk 30 years ago,
they don't take down the auctions anymore, right? We used to. We no longer. The hedge funds bid the
auctions. You know, the big banks finance the auctions. If you get an off-the-run treasury that
won't trade because it's unfinanceable. You get disruption and dislocation.
So you want to be able to finance it.
You say, all right, well, I want the treasury market to function because we're running the biggest deficit we ever had, and it's likely to grow.
So therefore, I need to get capacity to make this thing work.
I need to expand primary deal, the prime brokerage, central clearing, a whole bunch of other things to allow that to happen,
all of which I'm in favor for. But I'm simply saying that you are,
we're consciously choosing to ask banks to finance a larger portion of the principal
positions of the players in the treasury markets. That's what this rule is about.
Yes, Pete, a question right here.
I have a follow-up, actually, to Bill's observation.
Could you give your name, Pete?
Sure. Peter Blosdeen, PV Investment Partners.
So a follow-up to Bill's question is perhaps heretical,
which is to ask, are there other rules that should be addressed if we're trying to get
more treasury market liquidity, namely proprietary trading and Volcker rule? Should banks rebuild
relative value fixed income desks that all migrated out of the banks post Dodd-Frank,
post Volcker, and that should be the place for treasury market intermediation rather than hedge funds as Bill suggests. Just an
off-the-run thought. Thank you. I'm curious if any panelists support that view.
Any views, panelists?
Well I think in the context of looking at and taking a look at regulations overall,
it's an important holistic piece of the discussion today. I do think in the context of
intermediation is one piece of the treasury market. Certainly that is a very important
activity during a period of stress, but to the point of close to 30 trillion market today,
growing, intermediaries are one player in that market.
Buyers and holders across all different banks
is something that we need to and should consider
to continue to support that market.
So that's the kind of broad view.
And looking at broadly regulations overall is,
I think certainly the leverage ratio is a step in the right direction.
But taking that big picture view as part of that holistic discussion
that we're having here today as well.
Subjected to market risk capital.
Market risk, interest rate risk management.
Interest rate risk management, right.
The proposal does cite some research, for example,
by Falk Breining and Hilary Stein at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston showing that those dealers that were relatively more constrained by SLR
provided relatively less liquidity to Treasury markets in the March 2020 event.
And more recently, a Federal Reserve Board study by Mary Tian and her co-authors
showed that those banks that have more headroom under the supplementary leverage ratio
provided more financing, to Bill's point, in the Treasury market.
So there is some research in support of what
you're all saying. Other? Yes, Hal. So I understood the question basically was let's get rid of the
Volcker rule so we can have more prop trading that could actually help the Treasury market? It's the implication.
Okay.
Okay.
So, you know, I never, well, I understood why we did have the Volcker Rule.
It was kind of a populist measure back at the time when Scott Brown got elected in Massachusetts.
So I remember the Senate hearing on this and the Democrats being puzzled about why we're even doing this.
If prop trading would help the Treasury market, I would be in favor of reexamining the Volcker rule.
But I want to caution everyone as we talk about all these changes, there is legislation to consider here.
This is not something that the Fed or other regulators can easily do on their own.
A lot of these changes are embedded in statutes.
Now, maybe the president can be creative with executive orders in this area,
but as we proceed on this line, we have to ask ourselves,
how much can the regulators do without legislative change?
And that's a big constraint, okay, in this picture.
Just to be clear, in the legislation, the Treasury market is exempted from the Volcker Rule,
so it doesn't really restrict proprietary trading in the Treasury market.
So let's have another question.
That's not true? Treasury securities are not exempted from the Volcker Rule? I think they are.
Al? Drell. All right. Sorry. Sorry. Norbert, Michelle, Cato. Hi. Sort of an efficiency
question along those same lines. If we're worried about specific activities, okay, and if we're
worried about source of strength actually being source of strength at the holding company level,
why aren't we more worried about the capital at the IDI level as opposed to holding company level?
So let's go, let's revisit that. Anyone have a reaction on this issue of capital at the
insured depository versus the holding company? Ben, you have your line? Yeah, I think capital at the Insured Depository Institution level is a relevant consideration,
but we're looking at it today from a level that's high based on a leverage requirement
that's also uniquely applicable at the GSIB IDI level,
which is just not aligned with the general framework that we currently have.
And so it is important to balance what's at the holding company, what's at the bank.
And as I was expressing earlier, I think this rule would strike a better balance but that doesn't mean that going lower is in forever going to be a better
thing it's that it's necessary to balance all these things so it's that
this rule strikes a better relationship with the broader framework in my view
okay I'm watching for hands.
I'm also watching the time.
We have a couple more minutes.
Yes, now Al.
Sure.
Al Moffitt, JPMorgan Chase.
So there's been a lot of discussion just really about the role of the leverage ratios as it relates to the Treasury market.
And one thing I haven't heard from the panel is the effect on
deposits and so one of the things we saw during uh during the periods of QE was that there was
significant growth in deposits prior to the Fed rolling out the overnight RRP program
and strikes me that the changes to leverage ratio may you, reshape that into a potential next crisis.
I'm just wondering if the panel has any thoughts on the role of, you know, particularly the value
of changing the SLR for the IDI and the consequence on deposits and other low-risk activities like
that, even if they are put into cash and not 30-year treasury bonds. But and just you know maybe that all potentially offers
flexibility for reserve in the size of the RRP program. But welcome any thoughts.
Who has a thought about this? Ben. I was gonna say the economic analysis of the proposal makes
very clear that just in the past years and probably over longer periods the degree of
low risk assets treasuries reserve bank deposits are much higher now than they've been in the historical past.
And I think that's important for the ESLR. It's also important for the basic tier one leverage ratio.
Their 4%, 5% structure and the prompt corrective action framework's been around for a very long time.
When it first was implemented, I would be very confident that reserve bank balances and treasuries were a much smaller portion of bank balance sheets. Thinking about the overall structure of the capital framework
looking at the evolution of bank balance sheets the degree of low risk activities that are related
to deposit taking liquidity risk management I think it's a very important consideration.
Tiffany. I agree the as you mentioned now heightened cash balances heightened deposits
particularly in a period of stress,
it typically coincides with when also
trans-intermediation is important.
But ensuring, which is why we talk about a targeted approach,
a targeted approach that specifically excludes cash,
for example, because banks tend to be that shock absorber
of cash and deposits, whether it be in the immediate stress
or afterwards as a result of monetary or fiscal policy.
And banks having the ability to support that in periods, particularly volatility or stress, is important.
And I agree that both the supplemental leverage ratio as well as the Tier 1 leverage ratio should also focus on that.
as well as a tier one leverage ratio should also focus on that.
Yes, and I think just to reinforce that,
making sure the leverage ratio doesn't impede the banking system
when the Fed is doing QE and adding to those deposits that you were talking about.
And that's at the Bank of England.
That's we exempted deposits at the Bank of England
when we wanted to make sure that was,
so I think, so as I said,
I would be opposed to exempting treasuries blanket,
but I think thinking about exempting deposits
at the Federal Reserve from the denominator
along with the other things
is worth consideration.
And that's a good point in that the PRA
has made that exclusion as well in their leverage ratios
specifically for cash.
If I could, I just have a quick add-on
that ought to be part of this discussion
and that's FDIC insurance on size of your balance sheet.
They're the only measure still left where you go period end.
And so one of the reasons you see repo get very tight
at the end of a month is simply because everybody's calculating
their balance sheet on period end.
If they averaged it, you'd likely get rid
of the month end crunches.
It seems to be a pretty easy fix.
Good to know.
Okay, so we've run our allotted time.
I just wanna thank the panel
for an extremely illuminating discussion.
Lots of back and forth, good audience participation.
I learned a lot.
And I wanna thank Vice Chair Bowman again
for inviting us to speak here today.
How y'all feeling? How y'all feel about that? Man, how y'all feel about that?
Integrated review of the capital framework of large banks. How y'all feel about that?
Take a look at these prices bro uh so yep soul is still under 200 bitcoin 118 eth at 36 hundo it's mixed right now bro mixed reviews mixed reviews benny how
you feel about it it's all right it's all right could be worse it's only monday anyway
you know gonna act like they're gonna still buy that out bro every rich every dgen is gonna act like the news don't fade them but
in reality whether it dips or rips people are gonna buy any way bro and the market's still
gonna be busted so just lock in stay vigilant and just move accordingly fam
76.3% sold out of motion
Run it up only about 700 left
Off the rick there are only about
7100 clips left
Last lap man
We got Chaz on stage to get a GM from Chaz
What's up homie
What's going on man how are you
You're
You know just waking up getting ready to work
leave work in like an hour or so excited yeah gotta be excited i need some shit done today
you know what i mean yes sir i'm excited to get paid and paid yes sir you tell them to pay you in bitcoin i wish you're in shit
oh that's a lot of i'm looking at i'm looking at this art that books would put they put up
there with books books uh posts is that the panda thing which one the one that says yams the ones
only don't know how to say loyal and true is that the panda i don't know i can't i can't tell is that
the one i feel like that's yeah that's
it that's a panda one that's the one I got a t-shirt of oh yeah I see it I see it let's put
it back yeah I'm about to put that t-shirt on for the day you gotta get some photos in that bro get
some photos and that oh yeah with my new glasses of my new haircut too standing up posing
you know i'm saying flex on them a little bit yeah and i just got i just had new glasses and
new and haircut yesterday too so oh yeah looking all tight and tight height and high and tight
need more coffee man when that's it waiting for the brew fresh haircut man that's motion yo
waiting for the brew fresh haircut man that's motion yo
now we're staring at me like what the fuck are you doing right now
yo sharp link gaming y'all remember we talked about them earlier last week back in the news uh
discloses that they have purchased 250 million in ETH.
And let me see.
Put their total holdings of ETH to 360,000 ETH.
They're back at the number one spot, the largest holder of ETH.
More than the Ethereum Foundation itself, man.
Sharplink Gaming is not playing.
Go figure.
A gaming company that's not playing go figure so
what else we got man it's a lot of good news today coinbase opened its perps
futures product to us customers perps futures product gotta take a look at
that man ETH ETFs have outperformed the Bitcoin ETFs over the past six sessions by $200 million.
Look out there.
Kato introduces Capital Launchpad and First Project Espresso, raising $4 million at a $400 million.
For a market value evaluation, shout out to that.
Strategy announces a new dividend stock, STRC, in a $500 million raise.
JP Morgan evaluating lending against Bitcoin and ETH.
Lending against Bitcoin and ETH.
Sheesh.
Trump media discloses the $2 billion of Bitcoin that it has.
It's now fifth on the corporate treasury list.
Much higher.
Let's go.
What else we got?
Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev said their tokenized stocks and private companies effort will continue despite the open AI hiccup.
Shout out to Robinhood.
We talked about
BitGo fouling their IPO with
the SEC yesterday.
Bullish. Huge.
Polymarket has announced
a US return
via a $112 million
exchange deal to acquire
Polymarket.
Let's go, man. jesus got rugged out i think he said something in the dms let me get another co-host in here i said i say can co-host so chas you're co-hosting for a second
uh volcon announced plans for a 500 million dollar bitcoin corporate treasury mercurity fintech announced plans for a
200 million dollar sold treasury and what else do we i know we had something else we need to go over
y'all hear about this uh wallet that got hacked for millions of dollars bro
jerry about that of course another one now another one? Yeah, just days after
a $1.2 million wallet
drainer announced massive attack
and drained another $254,000
in USDT.
The victim signed a malicious
approval over 50 days ago
and the scammer patiently
waited. What does it say?
Patiently waited for a large
USDT deposit before instantly
taking the funds
bro waited about two months for that appreciate you
y'all gotta be careful man you gotta be careful
this is insane western union yeah i know who western union is exploring stable coin integration
in its digital wallet eyeing faster cross-border transfers and fiat conversions after the genius
act boost that's major bro that's major bullish on western union tokens they already got some
motherfucking um customers they got some motherfucking customers.
They put a motherfucking QR code in all their little
stores and places. That's just gonna rock.
It's gonna blast,
bro.
They're same-day transferred, but
now they ain't gotta go there and stand in line
and sign docs and all.
Nah, man. Click a button.
And knowing
them, they'll probably find a sneaky way to make people on board without people knowing they're on board.
And so people will go in there to transfer money.
And they'll probably just do their own thing without saying anything.
So I'm just charging them a regular fiat fee.
But then they go do the whole blockchain thing with the money.
You know what I mean?
Regular thing.
Exactly.
So people won't even know this type shit.
What you think they will call something like that man just call it western western super cyber union i don't fucking know bro like like like like the like if it has a token
right dollar sign western oh shit competitors eastern or wu yeah so so flipped bnb market cap bro shout out to that guy
damn sold and flipped ass by a billion dollars a billion dollars and that is the latest and the
greatest in the news today there's a little bit more rolling out let me see what else is
happening here u.s senators tim scott santiolumis bill haggerty bernie moreno
released long-awaited crypto market structure drive covering token classification
banking operations disclosure and illicit finance
they release some white paper, bro.
That shit live on X.
Let's get it.
Let's get it, fam. Let's get back to these trenches
and make some trades.
I say you got some alpha for the people.
Closing statements, what you got?
I say
you say Benny, what you got? I don you say.
Benny, what you got?
See it, man.
I got work, man.
Getting this goddamn money locked in at the same goddamn time.
Everybody motherfucking get their money up.
Excuse my language.
Stay vigilant and support each other.
Keep an eye on the markets.
Keep an eye on the news.
Move accordingly.
Crypto ain't nothing but an ocean.
So ride the waves. Avoid the
whirlpools. You know what I'm saying?
Get you a floaty or something.
Just chill, man. Have a good day, everybody.
Appreciate y'all.
Appreciate y'all. Appreciate the comments.
They're looking fire. The comments are kicking
ass. Chaz, what you got for them?
Closing statements.
Catch some grass, man man go outside and see the
sun real quick and then come back in to make some more trades yes sir i'm gonna do yes sir
track is running in the jumbo man uh if for some reason you came by you know a like and the repost
goes a long way out here don't cost a thing only three minutes away from
the honey cake coins giveaway and we running it right now back tomorrow I said do you love me, you kiss, you know I follow
Time is what the essence, you know I don't know
So now I feel like a magic
Fives when I am inside, it's amazing
Take you to a better place in the bedroom
When you cross the line, you're ready
All my anxieties
Facing all my fears
Steady on my ground
Defensive like I take
No one can take my place
Many things I can't say
You can't feel my pain
You don't know me, shawty
I'm so different
God is my only reason
I'm walking doors by way Flowing will leave me tonight I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight
I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight I'm so different, now this mine will leave me tonight I'm so different, now this mine will leave No guarantee, you're a beautiful day Shining to the dark, you're a flame on that beautiful day
Shining to the dark, beautiful day
Shining to the dark, beautiful day
Shining to the dark, baby, you're a flame on that
Build to the show, me Got it going on, I get no sleep Let's go. Yeah, I want a replay, can you clap in? Whoa, get that workout Care you say the word, get the smirk out
It's an only time to let my hands work out
My God, number one, it's the world around
Yes, it's only time to hear
Gotta shine it through the dark, mama, no fear
Gotta dive in my arms, cause I'm right here
It's one life we can live through you
It's one life we can live through you
It's one life we can live through you my
We do this
Yeah
Appreciate y'all tapping in
Tacos and crypto
We back tomorrow with another one
It's
We out
Peace
