# Stablecoin Strategy, MICA Impact, and Corporate Tokenization Opportunities

**Podcast:** The Milk Road Show
**Published:** 2026-07-15

## Transcript

It was the single biggest, I think, strategic blunder he's made.
He's made a lot of great decisions.
I would say even launching the metaverse, that the downside of that would have been swept under the rug had he launched.
a stable coin micah is pushing crypto out of europe the clarity act is stalled on the finish line bitcoin is back over 65k is all of this government regulation going to drive people back into permissionless assets or is centralized control the future for all of us hello and welcome to the milk road show the podcast that knows that crypto legislation sounds great until you read the fine print I'm your host, John Gillan.
Today is Wednesday, July 15th, and today we are joined by William Quigley.
William is a pioneering cryptocurrency entrepreneur and investor, best known as the co-founder of Tether.
And as the co-founder of WAX, a purpose-built NFTs and gaming blockchain, Will was an early investor in Coinbase, Kraken, and over 30 other projects in crypto.
He's going to give us a ton of alpha today, and we're going to unpack some things that neither one of us have thought about until now.
So if that all sounds good to you, make sure you like and subscribe.
Share this episode with somebody who's going to enjoy it.
Today's episode is brought to you by BitGet, stocks 2.0 with real liquidity, real dividends, and securitize the regulated rails for tokenization.
And without further ado, welcome back to The Milkrow Show.
William.
How are you, sir?
Doing good, thanks.
William, I'm excited to have you here.
And as the co-founder of Tether, I thought it would be interesting to get your thoughts on some of the recent developments we've seen with regulation in Europe around crypto, around digital assets overall.
Tether and Binance and several other players have left the European Union in response to this MICA law that's come out.
And I'm curious your reaction to this news and what you think this means for the future of crypto in Europe and more broadly.
Sure.
Well, I would say in an ideal world, Tether would be available, as well as the other stable coins would be available anywhere in the world, wherever you are, because tokenized fiat is such an amazing way to do payments, to settle especially cross-border payments.
But every jurisdiction wants to impose its will on the companies that operate in their jurisdiction.
And in this case, I can't say MICA, the MICA, the regulations surrounding things like stablecoins and crypto, you can't say it was sprung upon us.
You know, this has been in the works for probably five years.
The first draft, I think, was available in 2023.
So we've seen it coming.
decided not to comply with MICA and therefore has decided to withdraw is mainly around the way it would have to reorganize its reserve math in order to be compliant with MICA.
Because as, you know, just for one high level thing, the MICA legislation would require Tether to have 60% of its reserves in EU banks.
And that wouldn't work for a whole bunch of reasons with the way Tether is currently run.
In addition, if it was going to do that, I'd say it would be willing to do it if that was the only market Tether operates in.
But the vast majority of Tether liquidity and Tether trading occurs outside of the EU.
The EU has never really been as important in crypto as either the US or Asia.
So for Tether, it would come down to basically an economic decision.
Does it comply with the rules of MICA, but greatly lower its own economics?
Or does it simply withdraw?
And there's a whole bunch of details in there and things Tether could do.
You know, Tether could, of course, well, why doesn't Tether just operate a subsidiary?
And there's we can talk about that.
Why maybe it wouldn't want to at this point.
So it's not a surprise that it withdrew.
It was a business decision to do it.
I think that EU crypto customers are much worse off not having Tether.
But at the moment.
That's the reality they have to deal with.
Now, I should also point out, it's not illegal to hold Tether, even post this MICA legislation.
You can still hold Tether.
You can self-custody Tether.
But it's just EU-regulated exchanges can't trade it because they can only trade MICA-compliant stablecoins.
Guys, listen, we are at a very crucial point in time right now.
AI stocks have ripped.
They're going to keep ripping.
Our analysts on the AI side are up like literally 100% or more on quite a few calls.
And crypto is about to boom again, or at least it feels that way.
If you want all the insight on what we're buying, what our analysts are doing, what's on their watch list, all of that is in Milk Road Pro.
So join at the link below.
Right.
OK.
So I think all of this is helpful context and great details to point out about this.
I'm kind of curious your thoughts on Circle, USDC and EURC, which are the stablecoin products in the dollar and the euro that are put out by Circle.
Circle has kind of gone the other way on this.
They have been MICA compliant.
They have gotten chartered as a bank in the United States.
And it seems like they're rising in dominance in market share in Europe, especially because of Tether being pushed out here.
We had open permissionless access to all of these things and let the market decide.
But it seems like legislation is picking winners and losers.
I'm curious your thoughts on how that plays out and what the consequences are for the digital asset landscape if more and more companies and products are forced to make these decisions about either complying or not complying with some of these regulations.
Circle made a decision that it wanted to have a foothold in Europe.
And it had to do things.
subsidiary is based in France.
It could be wrong, but I think that's right.
And because it's MICA compliant, it is the dominant token.
I think EURC and Circle, I guess they'd probably be like 90% of the liquidity bucket that you can trade into.
And for them, it was...
you know they were always number two compared to tether right um tether is the dominant uh uh token and tether is uh dominant in many ways um not just by market cap because you could look at it and say well they're whatever it is 25 the size of tether but in terms of trading pairs the most The dominant trading pair for every crypto pretty much on Earth is the native crypto versus Tether.
Right.
So if you are number two and a distant number two and you you want to find a way to expand, you might go into a market where your bigger competitor for various reasons doesn't want to play.
And so.
That's the logic of Circle.
They were willing.
They had less to lose by operating under the MICA compliant rules.
And so they were willing to do it.
I think things would be different if tokenized euros were a thing, right?
But they're really not.
No one wants the euro.
You know, I'm old enough to remember pre and post introduction of the euro.
The euro was was heralded as the competitor to the U.S.
dollar.
You know, at the time, people thought, you know, the Japanese yen, the USD.
And then then maybe this euro currency would would be sort of become equals at some point.
But that's never going to happen.
It's a it's a lame regional currency and it works fine.
for the, I don't even remember, 25, 27 EU countries.
But if people around the world wanted to hold the euro, I bet you, you know, Tether would say, fine, we'll tokenize the euro.
We'll allow you to use tokenized euros.
But they don't.
So that's also a factor in why Tether maybe doesn't think of it as an important place to fight.
I'd also say something to consider is any decision that you can reverse is not a decision that you should be paralyzed in making.
Right.
And I I've always followed that rule as a business guy.
There are some decisions that are essentially irreversible.
This is not one of them.
Anybody, you and me or Tether can at any time, as long as we play by the rules, we can launch a.
MICA-compliant stablecoin.
So the way to think about Tether in the EU right now is currently, it's not being offered.
But that doesn't mean it can't in the future.
But what would happen if in five years, the euro share, the EU share of crypto trading is 5% of global volume instead of whatever it is?
I haven't looked in a long time.
Maybe it's 20, whatever, then that would be a shrinking market that wouldn't matter anyway.
You know, you see, so that's also an important thing that for whatever reason, Europe was never that important for crypto.
And so naturally enough.
You know, stable coins aren't as important either.
I mean, if you asked Circle, would you rather be dominant outside of Europe or dominant in Europe?
You know, it's obvious what they would say.
Right.
William, I'm curious your thoughts on this from a more like macro perspective, because a lot of people in the United States have been very vocally opposed to central bank digital currencies.
In other words, a stable coin issued by the central bank that's totally operated and controlled by the central bank.
And there's been legislation and a lot of public outcry against these things.
And yet it seems like...
tacitly, implicitly circle by complying with these regulations is sort of moving to become sort of the de facto central bank digital currency of the United States.
And I'm curious your thoughts on that, if you think there's any truth to that and what sort of the risks are if we move towards like a centralized system for stable coins as opposed to a more open permissionless system where there's a lot of competition and options and just what that looks like in your mind.
Sure.
We could write many, many books on this subject you've just outlined.
So I'm going to try to synthesize it.
So directly to answer your question, no, I don't think Circle is becoming a de facto central bank digital currency.
There's no chance of that.
As you remember, just going back a few years, there was so much...
momentum towards this idea that the US would launch a central bank digital currency.
And then it stalled.
And the reason it stalled was probably more to do with marketing than with reality.
A lot of people, particularly online, were worried about a central bank controlled digital currency.
Suddenly having an ability to know every transaction you're making, to be able to remove you from the banking system if you said something politically that they didn't like and so forth.
Now, I wish what I'm about to say was better known because the reality is, I'm sorry, people, that shit's been going on for 15 years.
In fact, more than 15 years since the Patriot Act.
probably the single worst piece of legislation that's passed in my lifetime and with a pathetic name.
Right.
And this, by the way, this is the lesson of rapidly passing legislation when people are in this, you know, this, this anxiety state.
And that was what happened with the Patriot Act.
It passed in, in 2001 or 2002, right after.
9-11.
And the stated reason was, oh, we need the ability to track terrorists and where their money is, right?
But it never did that very well.
And worse, what it really did is it gave many different entities in the United States in particular, an ability to weaponize the financial system.
And no one knows that better than people in crypto.
Many, many people in crypto lost access to banking, constantly had to fight to maintain bank accounts for no other reason than they liked crypto.
And so the idea of a U.S.
central bank digital currency enabling the government and financial institutions to monitor all your transactions and then restrict your access to banking, like, I'm sorry, they already have been able to do that.
So I always thought that was an incredibly naive take on the matter.
There are reasons you might not like a central bank digital currency, but because it empowers the government or banks to see how you spend is absurd because we already know that the U.S.
government can, anytime it wants, access the banking records without your permission and without even a freaking court order.
And they do this constantly.
They do this constantly.
And they do it illegally, but they do it anyway.
And so I thought the value of a central bank digital currency would outweigh the negatives because the perceived negatives already exist in the current world we live in.
So that's my take.
I did believe in 2015, after we rolled out Tether, I thought the...
The notion of tokenized fiat was so incredibly positive that, and this would be even from a private issuing entity like Tether, as opposed to a sovereign.
But I thought it was so powerful that my thinking was by 2030, the majority of the world's big economies would have tokenized their currency.
And it's paused.
It's taken longer than I thought, though.
I still believe it's inevitable and it's inevitable because the value of tokenized cash is so profoundly high.
And this is an area where the vast majority of people, the vast majority of business people don't understand payments, don't understand the payment networks, how complicated they are and how much fee extraction takes place in particular around currency conversion.
I believe it's probably a trillion dollars is taken from global businesses and consumers every year from the 5000 or so entities around the world that are allowed, authorized by their governments to do currency conversion.
It's a stealth tax.
So with tokenized cash, it makes it very easy to not convert.
And therefore, you could just hold cash in different.
of different currencies and then use them as you need, never having to constantly be forced to convert and get that tax.
So it's still a very valuable thing to do.
But whether it takes another five years, 10 years, 15 years, I don't know, but it will happen.
One of the things that a lot of people have said needs to happen before that can happen.
uh is the passing of the clarity act and i'm curious your thoughts on this because we've already got the genius act on the books we've kind of seen the micro legislation rolling out in the european union but the united states is sort of dragging its heels on the question of this clarity act i really appreciate by the way that transparent take on central bank digital currencies and saying like Yes, there are some drawbacks, but the benefits far outweigh it.
And putting dollar figures on that, I think, is really helpful.
What is the big unlock that you see that would come for the economy overall if the Clarity Act came into place?
And what does that look like as that starts to play out and we move more towards tokenized fiat, tokenized everything?
Yeah.
So the Clarity Act, for those people who don't know, but it's the omnibus legislation that would provide a framework for how crypto...
is regulated in the United States.
And if past is prologue, whatever the US does, everyone else will wind up doing some version of.
In fact, if anything, it's kind of surprising that MICA passed before the US Clarity Act passed.
But be that it's May, they're going to be somewhat similar.
And the biggest impact will be probably invisible to most consumers, but not invisible to businesses.
Because the movement of money is so extremely important in digital economies.
And as a result of that, there's lots of little feeders who are grabbing their fees whenever money gets moved from one business to another.
The biggest Effect will initially be a massive increase in the in the amount of businesses, I think, that create stable coins.
I believe that it would be wise for many, many big companies and big companies of a particular type to issue their own stable coin.
And those types of companies would be companies that have hundreds of millions of consumers.
or companies that operate platforms where they have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of enterprises operating on their platforms, because there's a lot of money going back and forth in those platforms, captive to those platforms, that would move faster with lower fees, lower friction, if the entity that controls that had its own stablecoin.
And Mark Zuckerberg, and at the time Facebook now met up, they were on that path, as you remember.
And then for various reasons, after Zuckerberg presented to the US Congress about his plans for a stablecoin, he walked away from it.
My belief is that he walked away from it because he was clueless, because he did not.
have any understanding of what a stable coin would do for his business.
And this is an example, by the way, of a businessman who created the giant platform, two and a half billion people globally using it, a very sophisticated guy.
But when it comes to treasury functions and such, I assume he knows very little.
And when I watched him present before Congress, when they dragged him, to a committee to speak, I thought this guy probably got briefed a couple of days earlier.
He had some talking points.
He had no passion for what he was trying to do.
And he sort of like shrugged his shoulders and said, you don't want me to do this?
Fine, I won't.
The reality was there was no law against him offering a stablecoin, none at all.
He just didn't understand it.
And he was preoccupied with the metasphere or whatever, the metaverse.
It was the single biggest, I think, strategic blunder he's made.
He's made a lot of great decisions.
I would say even launching the metaverse, that the downside of that would have been swept under the rug had he launched a stablecoin.
Because maybe no other company on earth would have benefited more from a stablecoin.
Two and a half billion people being able to transact instantly at virtually no cost with with no risk of chargeback, no risk of payment fraud.
That's wild.
And he could have done a blended currency that had various other currencies in it, or he could have just done one where, take the top five currencies in the world and you could pick your currency, how you want to transact with people on Facebook marketplaces or peer payments.
To me, that would have been a fabulous business and it would have blown Wall Street away once they realized how big of a deal it was.
allowing people to use it on WhatsApp and so forth.
But that will happen.
Amazon will do it.
Apple will do it.
Obviously, Google, Microsoft, Alibaba, any company that has a large amount of enterprises or consumers should launch its own stablecoin or it should do a consortium type of play, a co-op.
Now, that's what the U.S.
banks are doing.
You might have seen.
A month ago or so, about 140 banks and other financial institutions came together and they said, we're going to operate a cooperative and we're going to have a stable coin or maybe our own branded stable coins, but they'll all be interchangeable.
I would say for anybody who wants to dig into this, it is a very similar model to what we saw the U.S.
banks do with the ACH network back in the 60s.
It's a nonprofit cooperative that is just an interchange system that allows them to rapidly transfer money at virtually no cost.
But now that will be even more effective and faster and less prone to fraud once you get a stable coin that everybody can use.
And we, you know, there's a million ways this could go.
I have fun sometimes sitting with my crypto friends.
trying to figure out will one crypto, one stablecoin be the dominant one like US dollar or will there be thousands, tens of thousands of stablecoins?
I lean towards that.
I lean towards more people having different types of stablecoins than I think one dominant.
But, you know, we'll know in 10 years.
Real world assets like funds, treasuries and private credit are still running on rails built decades ago.
Gated, paperwork heavy, slow to settle.
Everyone's talking about tokenizing them, but far fewer can actually do it and do it without cutting regulatory corners.
Securitize can.
It's the SEC-regulated infrastructure bringing real-world assets on-chain.
Nine years in, native tokenization, not wrapped, backed by BlackRock, Morgan Stanley, and Cathie Woods Ark Invest, and chosen by the New York Stock Exchange, VanEck, BNY, and Apollo to do it at scale.
It's the regulated bridge between traditional finance and crypto.
Tokenize the world at milkroad.com forward slash securitize.
Everyone's tokenizing stocks these days, but almost nobody's doing it right.
Thin liquidity, prices that drift from the real thing, dividends that just vanish, BitGet Stocks 2.0 is different.
real NASDAQ and New York Stock Exchange depth through licensed brokers.
Prices mapped one-to-one, dividends paid to your account in real time.
Plus, you get the lowest fees in the market at just 0.04%.
And you can trade them like any other crypto, as margin in earn in grid trading.
Tokenized stocks, finally done right.
Head to milkrow.com slash bitget to get started.
William, I think it's a really fascinating subject, and I agree with you.
It's going to take a long time to see all these things play out, but I'm glad you brought up this OpenUSD project with this 140 different, you know.
participants, this consortium they're building, because I think a lot of people are wondering, is that sort of the future state that we get to where everybody has their own stable coin and they're sort of interoperable?
Or do you think that there is continuing value to, you know, a single company like a circle, like a tether that issues their own stable coin and businesses just use that?
Do you think that, you know, the market's going to like take a long time to figure this out and both will find a role or like, how do you see these as like competitors or, or, um, you know sort of like uh cooperating in the uh continuing adoption of stable coins again we could write books on this there's a lot of hypotheticals you pose there all reasonable ones uh i guess i would say this the uh as a guy who's been investing in technology and you know innovative platforms for 35 years now what i'd say is The pattern seems to be this.
There's an innovation.
Almost always a group of new players see this innovation and figure out a way to do something valuable with it.
Pretty much every innovation I've ever seen, this is how it's happened.
Obviously, crypto especially.
And they get very good at it.
Now, one of two things happens.
That market that they invent with this new innovation gets so big and valuable that these new companies effectively dominate that market forever.
And companies that were big that didn't try to go into that new market are just too small.
And of course, the Internet is the best example of this.
Almost.
Every giant company that we would call like internet centric was created natively as part of the adoption of that platform, right?
Google, Facebook, Amazon, and so forth, Alibaba.
But if the due to regulation, it's hard for businesses, small businesses to use this new technology and do something with it.
crypto would be the perfect example, then you give enough time to these slow ass big companies to gradually figure out and see what's going on.
And then they go one day, ah, this is actually something we should do.
But they don't have to worry about these giant.
native emerging companies that have figured everything out before them because regulation has strangled those companies.
The fact that crypto is as important as it is, and we basically have Circle and Tether, or Circle and Coinbase as the dominant public companies, both puny market caps compared to like, you know.
how we think of new industries.
I mean, look at Anthropic and OpenAI, you know, trillion dollar market caps with no revenue and no business model that seems to work.
But those guys have, you know, 20 times the market cap of a Coinbase.
And the reason is because the regulators and the existing companies in the financial markets did everything they could to kill crypto and they did a pretty good job of it.
In the case, therefore, of something like a stable coin, the biggest one out there is Tether.
And it's not that big.
You know, it's got 180 billion under AUM.
Call it that.
I mean, that's a very small little regional bank asset base.
Compare that to the whatever, 15 trillion dollar base of a BlackRock.
So the way I see it is the dominant stable coins are going to be.
issued by the giant banks, giant financial institutions, and maybe eventually central banks.
There'll be a role for private issuers like Tether and like Circle.
I think the role there will be, they will be more likely to embrace new technology because big, old, established financial institutions don't generally do that.
They wait because they're run by a bunch of W-2s, so they're afraid of doing anything.
And so there is a role for private issue stablecoin issuers.
But I think in terms of plugging stablecoins into the existing $100 trillion global GDP annually, that's going to be done by the big banks because the big enterprises are going to use their traditional payment rails, which are run by these big banks.
And maybe you'll see.
you know a certain group of people want to use the privately issued stable coins because they offer more capabilities but um the big institutions are going to go with big financial institutions that offer them and uh that consortium uh oh what is it oh usd or something yeah that that i suspect will do pretty well because it's going to have so many important member institutions and as i said there's an analog to it which is the ACH network, which has worked out incredibly well.
The only thing they'll have to deal with is potential antitrust issues.
So like the ACH network, they'll have to make it open and available to anyone who meets the standards.
And then the rest of the world will, you know, they'll have their own native systems.
But if you offered the Chinese an ability to have a tokenized dollar or a tokenized RMB, 99% of the time, they would say, give us a tokenized dollar.
So as I've always said, this could be, and the US government, the people there aren't smart enough to understand how a tokenized dollar would make USD even more dominant than it already is.
But they don't understand it enough to figure out that they should be pushing for it.
They shouldn't just be.
questioning it and wondering at this point whether it's a good idea.
I think some of them are starting to wake up to that, which is why we're finally getting some movement on this.
But you're right.
We'll have to see how these things play out.
I'm curious your thoughts on is as we see more of these like centralized entities, whether it's a company or a central bank.
start to bring out their versions of these digital asset products and services, do you think that this drives demand in the market appetite for things like Bitcoin, like Zcash, like Ethereum, things that are open, permissionless, censorship-resistant digital assets?
Do you think that that thesis gets stronger, let's say, over the next five to 10 years as some of these more centralized fiat currencies start to come out as well?
Or how do you see these things evolving together as we go forward here?
I'm glad you asked these questions.
I mean, if I knew the answer, you and I would be the richest men in the world to that.
I'd say that is that's, you know, among the top three things we ponder as people who are deeply in the crypto world, like with all this activity going on, the regulation that's trying to standardize.
The practice of stable coins, for instance, and let's be clear, like it shouldn't be controversial to say this, but you always have these weirdo Bitcoin maxis who think this.
The real prize that came out of blockchain is clearly stable coins.
That's the real prize.
I mean, the trading volume of Tether alone dwarfs Bitcoin.
So stable coins is what really came out of it.
Now.
How that relates to all the other tokens that are out there, we can only guess.
You can make an argument that stable coins are a way to interact more easily with other tokens.
And therefore, if you own a stable coin, you kind of have a key to starting to try out these other tokens.
But for the most part, what drives the volume of these tokens?
It's just arbitrage on big exchanges.
And what have we seen in the last like 10 years?
More and more trading volume concentrated in a smaller number of exchanges.
And as maybe Robinhood and other traditional regulated exchanges start to adopt stablecoin trading or other kind of tokenized asset trading, I think the concentration will even be more pronounced.
And so either these other tokens are going to be orphaned and they'll be just a real small sideshow, or there will be some utility people see in them, which will drive them to have relevancy and people will use.
I'm not sure which one it is.
I see one extremely strong argument for the existence of...
let's say the non-stable coin and pretty much non-Bitcoin related cryptos.
And that is what I talked about earlier and innovation.
It's much easier for those tokens to innovate new ideas, to offer new services, particularly in the area of DeFi, right?
You can do so much in DeFi that you could never do in the traditional financial markets.
So the the desire of people to innovate would probably push them more towards the permissionless blockchains where you can see all the code, it's not all IP protected, and you can do things that simply will never happen or will take years to happen on like a JP Morgan or a Robinhood based chain.
So for that reason, I don't see them going away.
But in terms of capturing a market and keeping it on these permissionless open chains versus the highly regulated sort of closed chains that you see big companies want to do, it'll come down to a use case.
And that just is a roll of the dice, whether one where it goes one way or the other.
Yeah, so it's still something we have to see happen.
But I do agree with you.
It's been really exciting to see a lot of the innovations that have come out of these blockchain ecosystems like Solana, Ethereum, and many others.
So I'm excited to see where that goes.
William, we're getting close to time here, but I do want to ask you one final question.
I know that crypto, digital assets overall are in a bear market.
I know that you've been sort of skeptical of the valuations that a lot of AI companies have had.
But I'm really curious what you're excited about investing in right now.
I've heard you say you're passionate about video games, so you look in that area.
But at this point in this market, what are you excited about investing in right now?
What has your attention at this moment?
Yeah, video gaming has been a strong interest of mine forever, particularly once my partner and I developed the virtual item trading marketplaces, which we did very well with.
And by the way, for your listeners to...
one of the reasons i did wax because i wanted to allow people to freely trade video game virtual items without the the game publishers uh shutting off your account which everybody knows that's how it works the only company that's been semi-open has been valve uh where they've allowed trading on some of their games but most publishers hate it um and so uh but we never did find a an ability or a use case uh a mechanic for video games that worked really well with blockchain uh it was mostly a lot of dgens just trying to trade a token to make money and and it didn't really add to the to the uh to the game entertainment value um i think uh real world asset tokenization is uh is the most interesting area to me.
The thesis there is very simple.
The way we trade assets is very clumsy.
You have to do so much work to ensure that what is being traded is real.
There's all these fiduciaries that are checking things to make sure that the assets on any kind of big regulated exchange actually correspond to a real legal title.
to an interest in that asset, whatever it is, a commodity or a stock.
So real world asset trading is using blockchain is, has very strong arguments for it.
And that is where I put a fair amount of my time, as well as new video game items.
I, yeah, AI, as you said, I've been obviously, Everyone likes what you can do with AI, so that's not the issue.
But I've been around long enough as an investor to know it's not enough to create value.
In fact, you can make no money creating massive amounts of value, and there's an infinite number of cases I could show you of that.
What you have to figure out is a business model to capture the value that you create.
I don't know how to do that with a lot of these AI companies.
And to me, you know, listening to Sam Altman, he doesn't do it as much as he used to, but he talked a lot about the word utility, right?
Who here thinks investing in utilities is an amazing way to make money?
They have reliable cash flows, but they're generally highly regulated.
The public utility commissions dictate how much they can charge and their massive CapEx dependent.
Right.
And they're essentially inflexible, too, and what they can pivot into.
So I never thought his his analogy of a utility was very good one.
But I think the hyperscalers have put in hundreds of billions, soon trillions of dollars in what they're doing.
I do question how they're going to get the payback for that.
I'm one of those people who's skeptical that LLMs are the final method we're going to roll out and use AI.
So I would be very skeptical about these companies as public businesses.
And that's what I tell people who ask me for advice on that.
There's obviously a hype cycle where things become worth more than they're intrinsically worth.
uh but but eventually the market says you know as as uh warren buffett always said the market in the long term is a weighing machine it weighs how much cash you're generating it's not a popularity machine uh when eventually these companies have not figured out a way to to return all of that capital that they invested in capex they're not going to be worth much so um as a result i'm still on the things that i think are quite attractive, profitable, and add a lot of value, real world assets.
And then, you know, in the video game world, I wish there was something post AI, you know, that was interesting.
I haven't seen that yet.
I'm also a bit of a skeptic on how much value in the next 25 years people are going to make in space-based businesses.
Similar reasons to AI, very competitive, you know, no moat.
and very capital intensive.
William Quigley, co-founder of Tether and Wax, very interested in video games.
I love that about you.
And I wanted to talk about that.
So I'm glad we got to talk about that a little bit.
But thank you so much for being on the Milcro show.
Where can we send people to find more of you and your work online?
I'm on Twitter, whatever, X, mainly.
I don't publish a lot.
You know, I speak a fair amount, but I don't publish a lot.
But when I do have things I want to say, it's usually on X.
And that's at William E.
Quigley.
I hope our audience will go find you there.
Thanks so much again for being on the show.
Thank you.
Thank you all for joining us.
I hope you all learned something today.
So until next time, stay safe, stay educated, stay bullish, and we will see you all on the next episode of The Milk Road Show.
Thanks for being here, everyone.
Bye.
Want insights on what's moving crypto markets and how we're trading each event?
Subscribe to our channel.
Join the Milk Road daily and pro newsletters and start investing like the top 1%.
This show is for educational purposes only.
Nothing we say is financial advice.
Investing is risky.
Never invest more than you can afford to lose.