Transcript
Speaker: Welcome to the Policy Layer, where we talk about the real decisions shaping crypto, tech, and the future of trust. I am Silvia Sanchez, your host from the Avalanche Policy Coalition. We aim to bridge the gap between the builders of Web3 and the people that are shaping the rules. On our podcast, you'll hear from policymakers, developers, academics, and others working at the edge of tech and regulation.
Speaker: We ask the questions that everyone's actually wondering and we keep it easy to follow. This is the Policy Layer.
Speaker: Hi everybody and welcome back to the Policy Layer. I feel like we picked a rather interesting week to talk about US blockchain policy. Well, all this year has given us something to talk about, but in the span of a few days, Clarity failed to clear cloture in the Senate. The SEC and the CFTC continued moving on digital asset policy, and Congress kept working on other pieces of the crypto policy puzzle.
Speaker: So today, i want to do something more useful than spend the next 30 minutes asking whether Washington is pro-crypto or anti-crypto. But I want to take a closer look at where policy and regulations stand right now. We're taking a look at Congress, the agencies, a combination of both, and what this all means for the U.S. regulatory framework.
Speaker: Today, we have a really nice group joining us today. We have our own Lee Schneider, General Counsel at Ava Labs and co-founder of the APC, Norma Crayim, Chair Cybersecurity, Privacy and Digital Innovation Practice at Vanskoyuk Associates, and Peter Freeman, partner FS Vector. So let's get right into it. Thank you all for joining me today.
Speaker: So it's no news that the Clarity Act had been negotiated for months. Then we got new texts right before the vote, and negotiations continued almost to the wire, but then ultimately the Senate couldn't get to the 60 votes needed to proceed.
Speaker: So like I said, I'm not going to spend this episode assigning blame or any of that, but I am more interested in what the process tells us about what is and what is not negotiable from here.
Speaker: So take us inside the congressional mechanics. When Clotter fails this late in the process, how should people interpret that? Is this one failed vote or does the Coalition for Market Structure Legislation have to be rebuilt in some meaningful way?
Speaker: I don't think that needs that it means that we need to get a new coalition going. i think there are a lot of issues at play. Most of them are political issues ah between Democrats and Republicans with the upcoming midterm elections, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker: So I think lots of us will continue to work in the background to see if we can try to make something happen after the midterm elections in November.
Speaker: ahs Okay. I'll just jump in on that. I think Lee's exactly right. I don't think we need a new coalition. I think we need a coalition that really understands maybe some of the more delicate nuances that happen in the Senate. The Senate is just a very different beast when it comes to making sure that anything that gets through needs to be bipartisan.
Speaker: And so bipartisan in the Senate it means you need 60 votes. It is a little bit easier in the House right now with the House margins to move legislation that the majority wants. And I think maybe the lesson learned thus far that when we talk about legislation that is as big as clarity is, it ah it is as widespread and deep and critical, that it is important that there is more notice as Congress works collaboratively with the private sector. And it's challenging whether it's the private sector or or senators when a brand new bill comes out within 24 to 48 hours of the final vote and the bill is over 600 pages.
Speaker: And so when you see members of both parties say publicly to the media, I don't have time to read this bill and I'm concerned about that. I think that was an important just sort of notice And to Lee's point, the great wide world of Congress means as little time as there is before the end of the year, there actually still is time.
Speaker: The question is whether or not stakeholders in general and members of Congress can actually come to some agreement on core issues. And we've still seen ethics is really one of the core ones.
Speaker: It's not the only one. But everybody needs to be able to come together farther in advance before a vote. And for anyone who's done this for a long time, and all everyone on this podcast has, you know, last-minute jamming of any member of Congress with 600-page bill will never succeed.
Speaker: and and I mean, I guess I'll give my my two cents as well just quickly. and I mean, there's been a lot of, yeah I guess, what we call Monday morning morning quarterbacking about, like, what went wrong and how could we do better. But I do think that the timing was the issue. mean, Norma just said it. You're trying to jam something through.
Speaker: um The biggest issue here was members did not feel like they had enough time. And and that really – goes back to this this process, you know, when you took genius and you moved market structure separately, that was the first time when when this really, I think there was a misstep. I mean, that that's in the eyes of the House Financial Services Committee Chairman, Fred Schilden, who said that at at the time at the time was splitting the two up or moving one before the other. But, you know, it's it's you know it's tough to go back and and revision revisionist history is a real thing. We can go back and talk about where mistakes were made. But yeah what's clear to me now is it's going to be very difficult to to get anything done in this kind of election season, post-election, lame duck.
Speaker: It doesn't mean there won't be attempts, um maybe for you know something slightly smaller to attach to must-move legislation. But that would require Elizabeth Warren likely to sign off on something. and She doesn't seem like that.
Speaker: She's in a mood to do that based on her comments post-clarity. failure to to move forward. So it's going to be really, it's going to be a tough luck to see something, you know, in this and this Congress before new members are sworn in in January.
Speaker: It doesn't mean we have to go back, you know, to the drawing board in terms of coalition, but it does mean we'll have a a whole host of new members, potentially, you know, changes in control in the House and or the Senate, um which which changes the calculus on how you get things done and what you can get done And then at least to say, excuse me to that.
Speaker: I think, I mean, Peter is right, and Lee teed this up. the You know, the goal here is we keep the coalition together. The coalition most likely needs to be broader. We have seen different, you know, parts of the financial services ecosystem come forward, and they were very vocal.
Speaker: I think everyone needs to understand that they, who are who needs to be at the table. And as we think through that, there needs to be a different approach as we go forward. And as Peter said, I don't,
Speaker: No one feels the need to start from a blank slate. But I don't think anyone should expect that we're simply going to dust off the current drafts of the bill and that's what will work.
Speaker: As Peter mentioned too, we have an election coming up and that changes paradigm. And the House will be over 75 members who are simply just not coming back because they chose not to run for re-election.
Speaker: And I think we also have to plan ahead for what could happen with the election itself. If Democrats take control of the House, that certainly tells us a number of things. You know, the Senate is a different beast, but and you know,
Speaker: ah No one should lose hope. right It is critical that legislation is passed no matter what. And I know we're going to talk about regulatory issues, but we need that legislation.
Speaker: And so it will just depend on you know how how industry works collaboratively with Democrats and Republicans. And we've certainly seen a lot of media, top-wide headlines that say, you know, how much money was dumped, you know, into elections to try and elect certain pro-crypto members of Congress. and And that's democracy. But you still have to get to 60.
Speaker: And that means a bipartisan approach. Indeed. I'm sorry, go ahead. No, no. um I was going to say that it's it's true that thexi the proximity of the midterms changes what kinds of compromises are politically available. But building on Peter's point earlier, Natalie, of course, dive right in When negotiations are breaking down this visibly, how much of the work afterward is substantive policy negotiation and how much would it be That process of rebuilding trust between the people who need to get a deal done, is there something you would watch for as evidence that these type of negotiations negotiations have generally restarted, like staff talks, a public statements from particular committees, revised texts, or or something else?
Speaker: I'm going to leave that one to Norman and Peter, who are much more expertise on this stuff than I do. I'll just start and we can sort of ping pong back and forth. I mean, Sylvia, you asked a very interesting question, which is about trust.
Speaker: That that if if Lee and Peter and I can answer a trust question in politics today, then we will all be billionaires and we can retire immediately. i think going to pivot. I think what industry needs to understand is certain things cannot be jammed through.
Speaker: And so it's more about if you're going to rebuild trust or simply come to a negotiation that is trustworthy, then industry has to step forward to talk about some of these issues. And and the administration has a big part of this. There are some pieces that that really were not left to the industry to decide to negotiate. They were left to the Senate and to the White House and the and the president.
Speaker: And so I think we have to split how we look at these issues. At the moment, The House is in recess. The Senate will go out at the end of this week. And then people are going to focus on the reelections.
Speaker: So you'll see some tweets. You'll see, you know, probably more limited public statements on this. And a public statements we may see in October will be finger pointing about who killed the bill, right? Who did this or that, the other.
Speaker: I think probably later in October, you know, staff will continue to have conversations. It's not going to happen quickly. And I do think if there is some attempt after the election to bring this bill up, I think if I had a concern is that no one will have learned from the process and it will be another last minute new bill dropped. Here we go again.
Speaker: But um we did see democrats issue a press release saying that they were still committed to this process obviously said republicans are committed to the process but i wouldn't expect for our listeners to see you know some lightning bolt of movement over the course of october yet yeah i think it's really going to be a post you know next a next year conversation and then it becomes a very different conversation because it's not going to be the bill that that failed to move forward. It will be you know whether this White House and Republicans think that negotiating with potentially with Democrats control of one or not both bodies is better than movement at the SEC and the CFTC and the banking regulators and all the things that we now see moving forward.
Speaker: we and We know that that is not you know, lasting, durable market structure regulation because it can change with administrations.
Speaker: But it is moving in the right direction. and So the the real question that is, is a negotiat negotiation where Democrats are in control of the pen on the Hill better than temporary relief from the SEC and the CFTC.
Speaker: And how temporary that is is kind of an open question, but it's it's definitely not as durable as, you know, passing market structure legislation into law. And so the calculus becomes a little bit different.
Speaker: Doesn't mean, you know, to your question, it doesn't mean the conversations aren't going to happen. I mean, I think that we are going to see, and what you need to look for are those yeah leaders on committee, um financial services committee, and the banking committee in the Senate, and then look at those folks, and then look at people who were involved this go-around in those conversations. And, you know, we're seeing, you know, as Norma said, we're seeing some quotes from people like, you know Andy Kim, and Raphael Warnock that are positive. like we still want We still need rules for the road for this industry. so it' But I think read it restarts with people in different chairs.
Speaker: And that means that you start with a different you know you start with a different a different bill and than what what failed to move forward and probably one to just be crass that isn't as industry friendly um one that that puts you know puts consumers and um in a more forward like you know are we protecting uh people in these markets that becomes a a bigger issue um all the issues the democrats uh brought forward including ethics that norma mentioned that's going to be yeah front you know front and center so you know i think we'll see the motions we'll see
Speaker: We'll see people make comments, but honestly, and my real concern is that a negative tone out of the house, if it flips, that's really looking at oversight of crypto and then then the Trump family connections to crypto.
Speaker: And we lose a little bit of momentum on what we really need to be talking about, which is you know the market structure moving forward and and how we regulate this industry. And so we may lose some time there just with a lot of lot of angst on the Democratic side. about fairly specific and we have to push forward as an industry. We have to educate new members and we have to try to have a real positive conversation about the right way forward. So it's gonna be a lot of noise and it's gonna be tougher, but that doesn't mean that we can't make some strides with, especially with new members of Congress.
Speaker: hol and And everything that Norma and Peter said is why we've been at Avalanche Policy Coalition, we've been advocating for SEC and the CFTC to engage in rulemakings.
Speaker: Obviously, it's great to see the SEC stepping forward. the CFTC also has some things. that are are hopefully ready to come out. So i i do think that the regulators are the place to get the work done right now while in parallel you know to Norma and Peter's point. We do need legislation. That's not to take away from the fact that we need the legislation um because the regulators only have so much power. But within the scope of that, they can do a lot. And I really think they should.
Speaker: And frankly, one of the mistakes that I think the previous two SEC and CFTC commissions made was not trying to push rulemaking forward.
Speaker: Everything was left to sort of languish in this quasi-enforcement world, um sending signals to the market rather than proposing regulation.
Speaker: um And i so I think that was a big miss on the part of of previous administrations, both them and Republican, right, ah on this.
Speaker: I know you know Chris Giancarlo, when he was the chair at the CFTC, tried to move some things forward, um but was often stymied because the SEC would not move things forward.
Speaker: um So i think there's I think there's good work that can be done right now. And I'm really happy to see Chairman Atkins and Chairman Seeley
Speaker: And I think, you know, to Lee's point, I mean, we've we've always looked at this as kind of the minimum three-legged stool, right? You still must have legislation. You need to codify this in the law.
Speaker: But the SEC needs to promulgate its rulemakings, and so does the CFTC. The fact, to Lee's point, that they didn't is just an interesting thing.
Speaker: But what was even more interesting is, you know, all of the agencies over the course of the last you know year and a half have been moving forward, talking to industry, crypto task force, you know, crypto this, that, and the other.
Speaker: It was not, it should be no surprise to anyone that both the SEC and the CFTC were ready immediately 24 hours out of the gate after that clarity vote failed, that they made announcements on what they're doing.
Speaker: And I think that's important. And we have talked you know collectively over the course of the year about what could have been or what should be maybe that appropriate timing for agencies to move forward.
Speaker: Because at the end of the day, as the team has been saying, there is a deadline. The deadline is the end of this administration. And I'll say this, having been a regulator for, you know, Peter, I know you worked in the administration and agencies and and for anyone who's been a regulator, you know how long it takes to probably get a ruling.
Speaker: And so even if the SEC and the CFTC rush their way through, which, you know, is never a good idea either. You're talking about the earliest they're going to get these rules done is mid-2027, maybe, you know, into Q4 of 2027.
Speaker: So this administration is going to end up with some rules, maybe some sooner, but some of them won't be until the very end of the administration. And so, you know, that... There is magic timing on how you do the two step of legislative and rulemaking. And now everything has been pushed so far out. But Atkinson, CELIC have been very aggressive in saying that they will move expeditiously. And they know that they have to, because right now, rulemaking is the only thing that will be able to move forward in the next few months, as we then tee up the legislative approach next year.
Speaker: And my last thought on that is once we see all of the rulemakings come out, for instance, when the CFTC, like you know, public out for comment, we're still waiting on CFTCs to get through OMB, legislation will have to change because the administration has already approved what the rulemaking structure will be.
Speaker: So when Congress comes forward with a new bill, the new bill has to be synergistic with that unless Democrats are in charge of one or both chambers and they violently disagree with the approach of the rulemaking.
Speaker: And that's another is another barrel of monkeys. And to your point, Norma, I think one of the things that was under discussed about the Clarity Act is how many rulemakings that actually required.
Speaker: So part of the argument that we were making was, hey, SEC and CFTC, you're going to be doing rulemakings no matter what So best to get started sooner rather than later for precisely the point you identified, Norma, which is, hey, you may run out of time in this administration for the rulemakings that need to get done.
Speaker: mean, I think there was a belief that they didn't want to take away from any of the momentum and the negotiations ongoing, but it really does put them at a disadvantage moving forward. But it's also the reason we're seeing such quick quick action, right, with with regulation crypto assets, red crypto coming out of the SEC already, the tokenized stock exemption you know activity last week. I mean, this is all immediate. You know, the CFTC...
Speaker: um is quickly moving and and and that's, um you know, their their regulations under review right now and should be approved. I mean, it should be put out, I'd assume, soon. So, you know, if not, this stuff's happening like hour by hour. So by the time this airs We might already have something out there. but i mean, it really is.
Speaker: We need to move quickly. And there there is also a look back. I mean, if this gets into this enormous set in the Q4, you know, and you start you get further and further along.
Speaker: You can also if you have a change in administration and you have control and in Congress. you know by Democrats, you could even have stuff clocked back. up right that's right you act So there's gotta be concern around that on on all of that, those fronts that that things could could change drastically. But my hope is That, you know, after things die down, that even if Democrats have gavels and the pens, as I say, like writing the legislation, that we can get to a better place fairly quickly where we can have some sane conversations about, know, what this needs to look like moving forward. But that's that. I mean, that's my. I haven't lost my optimism being in Washington for this long, so I'm not going to lose it now over one vote in the Senate.
Speaker: But I do think that a lot of hard work has been done, a lot of educating of of new members, and we're going to have to do some of that again with the new class coming in. But it's not an impossible task. A lot of bills have failed before they've passed. I mean, I've got to remind people how many times and we've tried to do a tax reform, and then it takes a decade to get a bill done.
Speaker: this The fact that we got thats best fact the stablecoin legislation got through so quickly you know it it ah went back a full congress and this market structure bill goes back almost two congresses now if you if you look at it but um it's not work that you know that that that will go unused i mean we have to pull things back off the bookshelf and and use some of the ideas and pull from here and there and um you know sec cftc action also if the democrats don't like it they that might bring them to the table as well to to create something that's slightly different that's that's uh legislative so there there's some wrinkles here that can help bring people to the table. But what's clear is, you know, this effort I think is is is it has has failed, but it's not the end of the conversation. this This bill itself has failed, but that does not mean that it can't resurrect and pieces of it can't be put together into something else. So gotta be optimistic about, because we need we need this. We need long lasting
Speaker: in a market structure that we understand that we can we can you know work under with certainty. And that's the American competitive arc of competitiveness argument that I think both sides agree with.
Speaker: We should not be ceding leadership to other jurisdictions. We need to be you know at the forefront of this. And that same conversation now is starting with AI, and it's gonna be the same same sort of conversation with a different you know with different with with a different regulatory structure.
Speaker: Starting the same talking points. yeah need to be ah We need to be at the forefront. and then And with lacking regulatory certainty, we will not be at the forefront. And I, you know, if we can claim success about maybe one or two things in this process, I think we have, we, we the royalty industry, you know, Congress, Democrats and Republicans agree on that.
Speaker: They agree on the need to lead. They agree on the need for competitiveness. We have spent a lot of time educating people so more people understand what blockchain is, what digital asset is, you know, what crypto is.
Speaker: I think what we need to do is, you know, as the team is saying and it's collected, harness that and take it forward. But everyone who's listening needs to know you can't use the same talking points you've used for the same three years.
Speaker: You can't, right? There are clear issues that everybody understands that are in the risk or reward category. And when you're educating new members, they have a host of other members they're going to go talk to who have been through this firefight for three years now.
Speaker: And I do think it is important for people not to, two are actually to remain hopeful because big legislation takes a long time. Things in Washington, D.C., they fail.
Speaker: You learn from them, you pick it back up, and you keep moving. And the reality is, at least from Norma's opinion, you know, rushing to write 700 page rule that is not fully vetted by anyone, like anyone, any party, any constituent, it's just not and that is not an outcome you want, because if something is clear or wrong and you have to go back and fix it. Congress doesn't like to reopen 700-page bills or you're going to be back to litigation.
Speaker: So again, i think we have a good opportunity for next year. We need to get it right. I mean, we need to stop fighting of the new versus the old, big versus small, and you know three or four handful of companies can't dictate the entire structure of a new legal model. You talk about these And then going back to the rulemaking point, which is what we see that the SEC and CFTC are leading more on. Do you consider that this active rulemaking process would somehow reduce the pressure on Congress because agencies are filling the gaps or can it increase the pressure because lawmakers suddenly have much more tangible regulatory frameworks to react to? And with that in mind, just like looking ahead, could the next few months end up being less about Congress versus the agencies and more about the agencies building this sort of regulatory floor that Congress would eventually codify, change or or exp expand?
Speaker: I think that's a great question, Sylvia. And unfortunately, I think the answer is remains to be seen. um Check back again once a month and and maybe we'll have more more certainty around that. But you know to Peter's earlier point, sometimes rulemaking by the agencies can put pressure on Congress.
Speaker: And it depends on how Congress is feeling about those particular rulemakings, not just from a Congressional Review Act standpoint, although that can be pertinent, but also in terms of recognizing the need for legislation. So I do think that plays an important role. And by the way, it's not just the SEC and the CFTC. It's the banking regulators, too.
Speaker: You know, a big portion, well, an entire title of the Clarity Act is devoted to banks and providing banks the ability to engage in blockchain activities and crypto asset servicing and such. So um all of that combined my might end up putting the right kind of pressure on Congress to get something done.
Speaker: I'll just say this. It's a tag team, right? The agencies agencies have moved forward on the regulations. but I mentioned just how long that process takes. i don't I don't think it's that it's an either or. There's not a choice.
Speaker: Congress will still have an opinion. They could still, i you know, I think we all agree there's very limited time to do anything this year. But tees up an interesting debate, which is if if Congress flips one chamber or both and they do not like the structure of the regulations that agencies have put out, they have the ability to move quickly to pass a law that could and stop all work on the regulation.
Speaker: Congress has the ability to restrict an agency's ability to spend any money on a regulation. There's a million ways to kill regulatory process, for those who are listening.
Speaker: That's the secret sauce. But it could also, you could have an interesting detente where members see the regulations and they agree with that. And that means that the legislation could be dramatically scoped back, scoped back, you know, different rules filling in the gaps and things like that. So we'll see. more You know, as Lee said, everyone should listen to this podcast in the future. have a lot anything to say. Later in the year or next year, but you know, this is not done. There's a lot more work.
Speaker: Norma, when you said do not like, the first thing I thought of was green eggs and ham, right? Do not like them, Sam I am. Sam I am. 100%.
Speaker: umm I'm interested to see if if there aren't like, I mean, Norma raises is a really good point on like whether there there aren't like little things, like piecemeal things that start getting pulled out. um You know, the the treatment of software developers being at kind of a strong example where there could be bipartisan support there.
Speaker: You know, there's also this movement to a foot on on tax regulation and crypto treatment, treatment under the tax code. So, you know, it's really,
Speaker: there's a couple of little areas where you could see that that there could be bipartisanship um but but things that the sec and you know other other regulators can't do right now um you can't do through necessarily through safe harbor they may try but you know they they could also get sued on some of this as well which is something we haven't talked about which is fear of whether lawsuits could put some of the the regulation movement and in question as well, which again is another reason why we wanna see legislation and long lasting market structure regulation that's pushed through the legislative process. So so it's it's it's fascinating when you start kind of like trying to think about the interaction of politics
Speaker: you know changes and and control. and then two years out, you know who's going to be in the White House and those types of questions. I'd like to announce that I'm running for president in 2028 on this podcast. Lee, I will announce my strong support for your You just made it the top of my vice president list. Fantastic. fantastic and not true I'm not Norman, you're set death, just to be clear.
Speaker: I'm good that. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's fast. Like these issues, though, especially when you see and Norma mentioned this, the the amount of money being spent by the crypto industry. We saw the announcement on the fair shake pack was, you know, spending a bunch of money in Ohio against share crowding.
Speaker: who used to be one of the leaders on the Senate Banking Committee on the Dem side. Those types of things, I'm hopeful that there's bipartisan support um by some of these PACs because what we don't wanna see is this become a presidential election issue where Republicans are supportive and Democrats are opposed.
Speaker: We've gone through this already in one one cycle where it started to to move in that direction. A lot of work was done to you know undo you know some of some of some of that harm on the political side.
Speaker: hope that we can, rather than just read the headlines and money being spent against Sherry Brown, which has been spent against him before, um that we maybe we can move things back towards a a bipartisan support even on the political conversation because lacking that we're going have to wait for another time in which republicans control um all the levers and as we've seen you still need 60 votes in the senate even when you have the house the senate in the white house so you can't live in a world in which this is a partisan issue it should not just be bipartisan it really should be non-partisan when we're talking about
Speaker: market structure
Speaker: And I would just just one quick thought on that. I mean, if I had a call to action to the industry, I would say, like everyone must learn the lesson that you must be nonpartisan, bipartisan, pick your word. Right. The fact that we're seeing certain PACs are going to drop hundreds of millions of dollars against one member or target ah Democrats in general is just showing that they have not learned the lesson of that vote just a few days ago.
Speaker: It doesn't matter, we need to work with both parties. You don't always have to agree, but very aggressive support only of one party, which whichever that it is, is not gonna provide the outcome to get legislation passed. And so that's my call to action.
Speaker: You have to talk to everyone, you have to negotiate, and you're not gonna get exactly what you want. And you can't force fit it on the rest of the industry because the banks and the community banks made their opinion known.
Speaker: And so this should not be a money fight. This this should be, let's have we don't want to have an idea fight. That's fine. But you'd have to compromise. Otherwise, you're going to see the same thing over and over again.
Speaker: Indeed, and I think that's a really good way to to close us all off since we're almost out of time. Just this call to action reminding and the industry to negotiate, but also the policy space, the regulatory space, that with this many parallel proceedings, and the danger that policy could become fragmented and that we're just continue continuing to stall while the U.S. s loses its competitive advantage on borders. regulating the industry, giving good market structure. So coordination is super important. and It's critical, but also negotiation. And I think that that's the thread running through this whole conversation because we've seen that, okay, the failure of one vote didn't stop policymaking, didn't stop regulation. Congress still has a big role to play while we have the SEC, the CFTC, these other a regulators already moving. and
Speaker: Part of that big issue that we're still seeing now is how much of that framework becomes durable. um And just to close this all off, I think that underneath all of this, there are some pretty fundamental things, not like what are we regulating? What activity is taking place? Who is truly acting as an intermediary? And which issues require Congress to draw the line? And it's exciting to continue to see how this develops. Well, as as you all mentioned, we have to check back like every month, every two weeks, Seeing what happens, we'll continue to update and all our listeners here on the APC. So once again, Norma, Peter, Lee, thank you so much for joining us. And thanks to everybody listening. We'll see you next time.
Speaker: We hope you enjoyed this episode of The Policy Layer. If you want to learn more, check out avalanchepolicy.com for free educational resources. And also follow us on social media at avalanchepolicy to stay updated.
