| Ticker | Direction | Speaker | Thesis | Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LONG |
Peter Van Valkenburgh
Research Director, Coin Center |
Peter states, "We do believe in common sense regulation of trusted persons in the space of companies like Coinbase... If you walk like a duck and you quack like a duck... we just think there should be equal treatment." Coin Center advocates for a bifurcated regulatory regime. While they fight to exempt software developers, they concede and support the regulation of centralized custodians. As the DOJ and regulators crack down on illicit finance and "fake DeFi," capital and legitimacy will flow to the entities that fit the "trusted person" regulatory mold. Coinbase is explicitly named as the entity that fits this "fair bargain." Long COIN as the beneficiary of regulatory moats around "trusted" custody. Excessive compliance costs or failure of the "market structure bill" to pass, leaving the industry in limbo. | 0:40 | |
| LONG |
Peter Van Valkenburgh
Research Director, Coin Center |
Peter argues that "truly neutral, non-discretionary infrastructure" should be treated like publishing a book. The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) aims to codify that if you don't have "control" of funds, you are not a money transmitter. If the BRCA passes or influences judicial precedent (like the Tornado Cash defense), protocols that are immutable and non-custodial gain a massive legal advantage over "managed" protocols. They become un-bannable "speech" rather than regulated financial services. Long "True" DeFi (immutable protocols) and Privacy Infrastructure that fits the "publisher" definition. Courts may reject the First Amendment argument; the definition of "Control" remains vague. | — | |
| AVOID | V | V highlights the danger of the "Control" definition: "If we can upgrade the vault, does that constitute control? What if we can pause withdrawals...?" Peter confirms that under proposed Section 301, protocols deemed "Non-Decentralized" (due to admin keys) could be forced to register as Broker-Dealers. Most current DeFi projects are not immutable; they have multisigs, pause buttons, and upgradeability. These features place them squarely in the regulatory crosshairs as "Non-Decentralized Protocols." They will face the impossible choice of registering as a Broker-Dealer (which a smart contract can't do) or facing enforcement actions. Avoid DeFi tokens where the team retains admin keys or "governance" acts as a proxy for control. Regulatory definitions may soften to allow for "security councils" or emergency pauses without triggering Broker-Dealer status. | — | |
| LONG |
Peter Van Valkenburgh
Research Director, Coin Center |
Peter states, "I would be more comfortable if the way AI was built out over the next few years was as much as possible through decentralized systems for both like who owns the compute resources and how do we reward training data." As AI liability and centralization concerns grow, the regulatory and ethical argument for decentralized infrastructure strengthens. Crypto protocols that manage compute and data provenance offer a solution to the "black box" problem of centralized AI. Long Decentralized Compute and AI-adjacent crypto infrastructure. AI development speed in centralized tech (Hyperscalers) outpaces decentralized alternatives. | — |