Who Controls the Future of Finance? | Weekend Wrap-Up — October 26, 2026

[00:00:09] [SPEAKER_00] Welcome to The X Factor with The Crypto Hipster. I'm Jamil Hasan, The Crypto Hipster, and this is our Monday Mornings Weekend Wrap-Up, where we take five significant stories throughout the past several days over the weekend, and we examine them through the frameworks that I've developed in stewardship and emotional assets and governance.

[00:00:36] [SPEAKER_00] We are not simply here to repeat the news. We are here to understand what the news tells us about human behavior, institutional responsibility, and the systems upon which we depend. This weekend, six articles covering five developments brought us to essentially the same question.

[00:01:05] [SPEAKER_00] Who controls the financial systems of tomorrow, and who is responsible for protecting the trust that makes those systems work? The trust. Now, we have publicly traded companies that resist tokenization of their own shares.

[00:01:32] [SPEAKER_00] We have the Pentagon restricting the use of military information in prediction markets. That's a huge topic, prediction markets. We have an Argentine president cleared in a criminal case involving cryptocurrency that collapsed.

[00:01:53] [SPEAKER_00] We have Israel exploring blockchain as a potential defense against financial sanctions. And we have the European Central Bank advancing their digital currency as an instrument for European sovereignty.

[00:02:14] [SPEAKER_00] Five stories all around the world, five different institutions, different technologies, even, different countries. But all five include the relationship between power, responsibility, and trust.

[00:02:38] [SPEAKER_00] My steward framework that I developed in my book, Inheriting Saturn. Examine seven principles. Stewardship over ownership. Trust under pressure. Embracing change with purpose. Wisdom in systems. Adapting. Adaption for tomorrow.

[00:03:07] [SPEAKER_00] Resilience with meaning. And defending what really, truly matters. Emotional assets, which I developed in my book, Writing It All to Zero, which I have right here, Writing It All to Zero.

[00:03:27] [SPEAKER_00] That examines the human qualities and perceptions that give relationships, institutions, and economic systems their strength or expose their weaknesses. And today, we're going to apply those ideas to the events shaping the financial world. Let's go.

[00:03:56] [SPEAKER_01] Let's start. Let's start. Segment one.

[00:04:05] [SPEAKER_00] Segment one. Tokenization meets institutional stewardship. So Wall Street wants to tokenize stocks. We all know that. But there's a problem. Some of the companies whose shares would be tokenized aren't particularly enthusiastic about that idea.

[00:04:30] [SPEAKER_00] So according to reporting from Cointelegraph, 22 publicly traded companies have objected to plans by OKX ICE, a venture involving cryptocurrency exchange OKX and Intercontinental Exchange. The parent company of the New York Stock Exchange.

[00:04:55] [SPEAKER_00] The companies include that dispute this, that don't like it, include Wells Fargo. We know that. It's a bank. But also. Microsoft. Alphabet. Arm Holdings and Intuit. Interesting, right? Especially Microsoft and Alphabet. In particular.

[00:05:21] [SPEAKER_00] The proposed platform would allow tokenized versions of publicly traded shares to be bought and sold through blockchain-based infrastructure. Which makes sense. But the appeal is understandable, of course, right? Because potentially around-the-clock trading for everybody, faster settlement, new kinds of market access, and a different technology architecture for financial ownership.

[00:05:51] [SPEAKER_00] But the companies have exercised their ability to object. And under the applicable SEC exemption. I don't think Gary Gensler authored the exemption. And I'm not here to badmouth somebody who's no longer in its position. But the public notices do not necessarily establish why each individual company objected. It is did, right?

[00:06:20] [SPEAKER_00] That distinction matters. I'm not telling you that why they're saying that they did. So it will be easy to characterize these companies as resisting innovation. That's why I'm surprised about Microsoft and, you know, Alphabet. You can't assume things. So I can't make an assumption, right? So I can't conclude things based on their objection alone. Perhaps some are concerned about market fragmentation.

[00:06:50] [SPEAKER_00] That makes sense. Traditional finance, you can trade stocks only at certain hours. And tokenized, you can do 24-hour around the clock trading. You have a discrepancy, right? Perhaps others want to see, you know, technology mature further first, right? Perhaps they want greater clarity about how prices are established and how shareholders will be effective and how you reconcile those prices. Maybe.

[00:07:21] [SPEAKER_00] I mean, I would, right? So let's apply my steward framework, right? The first principle is stewardship over ownership, right? A corporation's shares may be traded by investors. And the company, though, still has a continuing responsibility to its shareholders and to the integrity of its relationship with the capital market, which is much greater than just the tokenized price, right?

[00:07:50] [SPEAKER_00] So the ability to create a digital representation of a security does not automatically resolve every question about the rights, obligations, and market structure surrounding that security. And that brings us to wisdom and systems. An efficient system is not necessarily a trustworthy system. A faster transaction does not necessarily mean it's more fair.

[00:08:18] [SPEAKER_00] And a market that operates 24 hours a day does not necessarily produce better price discovery. It could, but it doesn't necessarily have to. So those propositions must be demonstrated first and not just simply advertised. There's a lot of advertising of this price is going to this place. We're not going to name names. I would love to see Bitcoin in a million. I think everybody would.

[00:08:46] [SPEAKER_00] You know, that's just my opinion. Right? But we're talking about corporate. So while these companies are objecting to particular tokenized listings, right? The SEC Commission has separately identified tokenization as an area of attention in its fiscal 2027 financial examination process and priorities. And you move up the priority list.

[00:09:15] [SPEAKER_00] It doesn't mean that the SEC is rejecting tokenization whatsoever. Right? It means that technological innovation creates new questions about how financial infrastructure operates. And it has. And it does. I'm glad they're addressing that now. You know, and not just saying, okay, it doesn't fall into the 1940 Act or the 1933 Act. Let's create a 2027 Act, perhaps. Because financial innovation changes every 90, 100 years. Right?

[00:09:44] [SPEAKER_00] So one group wants to introduce a new market structure. Right? And another wants greater assurance before its securities participate in that market. And the regulator is examining the risks associated with the evolving infrastructure with both camps in mind. Right? So this is what institutional transformation actually looks like. It isn't simply the arrival of new technology and price go up.

[00:10:14] [SPEAKER_00] It's a negotiation of responsibilities between the participants who build, use, supervise, and depend on that technology. And there's an emotional asset submission here, too. Confidence. Confidence. Investors need confidence that their securities represent enforceable rights, the right price, the right return.

[00:10:41] [SPEAKER_00] Companies need confidence that new markets will not undermine their shareholders' interests. Because the purpose of any publicly traded company is to maximize shareholder wealth. Regulators need confidence that market infrastructure can operate reliably and trustworthy. The question isn't whether Wall Street can tokenize stocks. They can very easily.

[00:11:11] [SPEAKER_00] The question is whether Wall Street can demonstrate that tokenization itself deserves institutional trust. That's the first X factor. Now, the second X factor is when national security becomes a betting market. This is so interesting, right?

[00:11:42] [SPEAKER_00] So it takes us from Wall Street to the Pentagon. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has issued a directive prohibiting Defense Department personnel from using non-public information to place wagers on military operations. It's a good idea. You're not going to bet on who hits the red button, right?

[00:12:11] [SPEAKER_00] So that includes information that is classified. And that is unclassified as well, but not publicly available. And it includes transactions on production market platforms such as Polymarket and CalSheet.

[00:12:29] [SPEAKER_00] Directive follows allegations that involving an American soldier, right, accused of using sensitive information connected to the operation to capture a Venezuelan leader, Nicolas Maduro, to profit from prediction market wagers. The soldier has pleaded not guilty, and the allegations remain allegations. Nothing's been proven yet.

[00:12:55] [SPEAKER_00] But prediction markets, they offer interesting instruments, don't they? They allow people to express expectations about future events through financial positions. Supporters argue that markets can aggregate information and produce useful signals about the likelihood of future outcomes. Sometimes that's true.

[00:13:24] [SPEAKER_00] But there's a fundamental distinction between someone making a prediction market based on publicly available information and someone using privileged, confidential information entrusted to them for an entirely different purpose. In corporate America, we call that insider trading.

[00:13:47] [SPEAKER_00] In the government realm, we call that, you know, perhaps being a traitor. I'm not sure, right? So you could call it what you want to call it, right? So the distinction, though, is central to my steward framework, especially trust under pressure.

[00:14:14] [SPEAKER_00] Think about what happens when someone is working inside a military institution who has access to information about an upcoming operation, right? That information is not simply something the individual happens to possess, right? It's been entrusted to them because they have a particular responsibility.

[00:14:37] [SPEAKER_00] The information may concern operational timing, troop movement, or details when disclosure could endanger lives of a few or many. Now, introduce a financial incentive to act upon that kind of financial information.

[00:15:00] [SPEAKER_00] And suddenly, the person who possesses that information may benefit personally from a particular outcome at the expense of everybody else. That creates a conflict, right, between institutional responsibility and individual financial interest. The problem extends beyond whether someone actually changes a military decision, right?

[00:15:29] [SPEAKER_00] Even the movement of money through prediction markets could, you know, potentially reveal information to people watching those markets. The market itself could become an intelligence signal. Now, apply my framework for defending what matters. The purpose of military information is not simply to preserve secrecy for its own sake.

[00:15:57] [SPEAKER_00] It's to protect people, operations, and national security. That responsibility cannot be reduced to whether a particular trade is profitable. And this was where emotional assets becomes relevant, too. Trust affects whether people believe institutions are acting for the purposes they were created to serve them.

[00:16:23] [SPEAKER_00] Imagine a service member discovering that someone with advanced knowledge of an operation had placed a financial wager on its outcome. What happens to the confidence in that institution? What happens to the confidence in our military? What happens to the confidence of any organization or the government organization? To the relationship between duty and personal interest? What happens to that?

[00:16:50] [SPEAKER_00] What happens to the public's belief that national security decisions are made for legitimate purposes? This directive does not establish that every prediction market is illegitimate. It's not. Sports betting happens all the time, and it's very legitimate. And it doesn't suggest that all forecasting activity is inappropriate. Not all. Certain activity is inappropriate only.

[00:17:18] [SPEAKER_00] The issue is the use of non-public information. And conflicts of interest, when sensitive institutional knowledge becomes the source of private financial gain. Information is not automatically an asset that belongs to whoever possesses it. Sometimes information is a responsibility.

[00:17:47] [SPEAKER_00] And when someone converts that responsibility into personal profit at the expense of everybody else, the institution risks losing something far more valuable than money. And that's the second X factor on this Monday morning.

[00:18:08] [SPEAKER_00] The third X factor we're going to go to, we're going to talk about some organization I haven't heard back in a while. Libra. The ego of houndability.

[00:18:22] [SPEAKER_01] And the emotional asset. The ego of houndability.

[00:18:34] [SPEAKER_00] This story takes us to Argentina. Okay. An Argentina federal judge has dismissed a criminal case involving President Javier Milay. And I hope I'm pronouncing his name properly. Milay. And 10 other individuals connected to the Libra cryptocurrency controversy. In February 2025, Milay posted about Libra token on social media.

[00:19:03] [SPEAKER_00] The token's value rose dramatically. Then it collapsed. In crypto terms, we call that pump and dump. Used to happen all the time. Now, not so often. But this one was significant. According to reporting from the block, its market capitalization briefly exceeded for Libra. The market capitalization of Libra briefly exceeded,

[00:19:32] [SPEAKER_00] what was it, $4.5 billion before the token lost 95% of its value. On-chain analysts also identified substantial withdrawals by wallets associated with the token's team. Inside are dumping and pumping, pumping and dumping, right? The class prompted questions about the promotion, the token structure, and the people involved.

[00:19:59] [SPEAKER_00] Now, in October 2026, almost two years later, Judge Marcella Martinez de Giorgi has concluded that the evidence did not establish criminally relevant deception by Milay and the other defendants who made bank. Some investors are seeking reinstatement in the proceedings, potentially allowing them to challenge the dismissal.

[00:20:30] [SPEAKER_00] That is a legal development, ladies and gentlemen. And it's important to respect that distinction between allegations and findings. Innocent until proven guilty here in the U.S. It applies elsewhere, too, right? The court did not establish criminal fraud. I'm not lying. The fact that investors suffer losses does not, by itself, establish that a crime occurred.

[00:20:57] [SPEAKER_00] But the X factor, my show, I am, interested in a different question. Another question. What happens when public authority becomes an emotional asset in the financial marketplace? What happens when a public authority becomes an emotional asset? People don't evaluate financial opportunities using numbers alone.

[00:21:25] [SPEAKER_00] They also respond to credibility, to recognition, to authority, to influencers, to familiarity, to confidence in the people associated with an investment. A prominent public figure can influence how people perceive an opportunity. It can. Michael Saylor talks about the price of Bitcoin on there is no second best.

[00:21:54] [SPEAKER_00] I disagree. People like him. There are other influencers out there who talk about Bitcoin being the only choice in the world. People like them. They listen to them. I don't. But that's me, right? Influence is part of the emotional architecture of markets. It's true. You see it. I'm not suggesting that every endorsement creates legal liability.

[00:22:24] [SPEAKER_00] It doesn't. I'm going to say, okay, the person they have has an opinion. I like their opinion. It's an opinion. And I'm not suggesting that the court's decision should be disregarded. The legal question and the stewardship question are different. The legal question asks whether conduct satisfies the requirements of a particular offense.

[00:22:48] [SPEAKER_00] The stewardship question asks how someone entrusted with public information and public influence should exercise that influence when private financial interests are involved. These are not interchangeable standards, right?

[00:23:08] [SPEAKER_00] A court can find that criminal deception was not established without resolving every ethical question surrounding the promotion of a financial product. The same principle applies beyond Argentina. This is Argentina. We're talking about everybody. Celebrities promoting investments. We've seen this. Executives endorsing products. We've seen this. Influence recommending assets. We've definitely seen that.

[00:23:37] [SPEAKER_00] And institutions lending their names to emerging technologies. They do. The identity of a person making a statement can influence how the statement is received. And that influence can be very valuable, but it can also create expectations exceeding what the underlying investment provides. So, this is where my emotional assets matter. Confidence can support economic activity.

[00:24:32] [SPEAKER_00] It does. Stewardship asks whether trust was responsibly exercised. Those are very different questions. And understanding the difference is essential to understanding financial markets.

[00:24:49] [SPEAKER_01] And that's the third X factor.

[00:24:58] [SPEAKER_00] Segment four. Blockchain sanctions and the meaning of sovereignty. The fourth story takes us to Israel. Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu.

[00:25:33] [SPEAKER_00] Netanyahu. Discuss the possibility of using blockchain-based financial systems as alternatives to traditional banking channels. Smart. That might become restricted. The proposal has drawn criticism. I think it's smart, though. But it's drawn criticism. Including Israel's central bank. No surprise. Which disputes the idea that cryptocurrency could provide a practical means for bypassing sanctions.

[00:26:05] [SPEAKER_00] Let's separate technology from politics. Okay? Whether someone supports or opposes Netanyahu's government is not the question we're going to examine here. All right? We're not. The question is whether blockchain technology, blockchain, can provide meaningful financial resilience to a nation facing restrictions on its access to international markets.

[00:26:33] [SPEAKER_00] Blockchain was designed in part to enable the transfer of value without requiring every transaction to pass through a single central intermediary. Remember, Bitcoin was built during the time where people lost trust and confidence in banks. It's a significant capability. But a capability is not the same thing as a complete economic system. Although we'd like to see it be.

[00:27:04] [SPEAKER_00] Especially if you're a maxi of Bitcoin or other, you know, non-centralized money. Right? But a country does not function simply by transferring digital assets between wallets.

[00:27:22] [SPEAKER_00] It needs to access goods, energy, credit, banking relationships, businesses willing and legally permitted to trade, and the confidence from people and institutions to participate in the economy. Apply my Stuart framework. Resilience with meaning. Resilience is not simply the ability to survive a disruption.

[00:27:50] [SPEAKER_00] Resilience is not simply the ability to preserve essential functions through disruption. Alternate payment infrastructure may improve the ability to transfer certain forms of value. But if trading partners cannot legally transact or banks cannot provide financing, payment infrastructure alone does not resolve larger problems.

[00:28:20] [SPEAKER_00] Now consider wisdom and systems. Systems are interconnected. They're not standalone. They're not in an isolated silo. Changing one component does not automatically eliminate dependencies elsewhere. Blockchain may reduce reliance on particular intermediaries.

[00:28:41] [SPEAKER_00] But it doesn't necessarily eliminate reliance on currency conversion, liquidity, legal recognition, commercial relationships, or physical supply chains. What does financial sovereignty actually mean? The ability to operate without depending on anyone else?

[00:29:09] [SPEAKER_00] Or having enough alternatives, relationships, and institutional capability to preserve economic activity during the circumstances change? So the second question is more useful, right? No major economy operates entirely independently. You might have some Nepalese coins and not be able to trade them anywhere else. That might be independently.

[00:29:37] [SPEAKER_00] But no major currency, no major country who's a major trade partner around the world can operate independently. Every decentralized financial network also depends upon people agreeing to exchange value through it. That agreement is an expression of confidence, which is an emotional asset. A blockchain can provide technological independence from certain intermediaries.

[00:30:07] [SPEAKER_00] But it cannot guarantee that countries, businesses, or financial institutions will accept everything that moves through that blockchain. That's preposterous. Financial sovereignty cannot be measured simply by whether a nation can move digital assets outside traditional banking channels.

[00:30:30] [SPEAKER_00] That's not the only, it's an aspect, an aspect, but not the only aspect. It must be measured by whether the nation can sustain the economic relationships and essential functions about which people depend. And technology can create alternatives.

[00:31:28] [SPEAKER_00] The ECB is preparing for a pilot involving real transactions in 2027. With potential issuance as early as 2029. You should be here sooner than you know it. It's subject, well, subject to legislation and institutional decisions.

[00:31:48] [SPEAKER_00] The concern is that Europeans' payment infrastructure depends significantly on companies and systems controlled outside of Europe, creating potential vulnerability. So this is what makes it interesting, right? Israel is exploring blockchain and cryptocurrency as possible alternatives to traditional financial channels.

[00:32:20] [SPEAKER_00] Europe is approaching sovereignty from a different direction. Rather than looking primarily at decentralized alternatives, the ECB is exploring public digital payment infrastructure under European institutional authority. A digital euro is not the same thing as Bitcoin. Of course you know that. Nor is the ECB's proposal simply another cryptocurrency on a public blockchain.

[00:32:48] [SPEAKER_00] It's proposed form of central bank money with a different governance structure and different institutional responsibilities. The technology is not the ultimate objective at all. The objective, according to ECB, is ensuring Europe retains the capacity to operate essential payment services without being entirely dependent on external providers.

[00:33:16] [SPEAKER_00] Now, okay, apply the steward framework. Apply defending what matters. Payments are not simply a convenience. They're essential infrastructure of economic life. We need wages. We need to be able to buy things. We need to pay our bills. We need to transfer money.

[00:33:42] [SPEAKER_00] First of all, businesses need dependable ways to recollect revenue and meet obligations. If the systems become unreliable, that affects everyday life and everybody. Second is adaptation for tomorrow. I want to say adaption. No word, adaption. Adaptation for tomorrow.

[00:34:10] [SPEAKER_00] Institutions must adapt as technology changes. But adaptation does not necessarily mean abandoning responsibilities, right? Sometimes it means developing new capabilities to fulfill those responsibilities more effectively. And we'll look at resilience with meaning, right? Would the digital euro reduce critical dependencies?

[00:34:40] [SPEAKER_00] Would it provide dependable alternatives during disruptions? Would it preserve confidence? Would its benefits justify costs and risks? These questions require evidence. Institutional sponsorship does not automatically make a technology successful.

[00:35:09] [SPEAKER_00] A digital euro would also raise questions about privacy. Privacy, adoption, and the relationship between private and public systems. And the appropriate role of central banks. Those deserve scrutiny. Now consider emotional assets, right?

[00:35:33] [SPEAKER_00] Trust in money is not simply trust in the physical object or digital record itself, right? It's trust in the surrounding system. The money remains usable. That payment's complete. That rights are respected. That institutions act competently and not just take your money and do nothing. I've experienced that. Confidence cannot be created simply by announcing a digital currency. Oh, we have a currency.

[00:36:03] [SPEAKER_00] Oh, I got a currency. You see it all the time. You see tens of thousands of meme coins all the time. You have confidence in most of them or any of them? Confidence must be earned through design, implementation, reliability, and accountability.

[00:36:26] [SPEAKER_00] Israel is discussing this blockchain as a way to reduce vulnerability and vulnerabilities to external restrictions. And Europe is discussing a digital euro to reduce dependence on external payment providers. One explores alternatives outside traditional channels. The other seeks to strengthen centrally governed institution capability.

[00:36:52] [SPEAKER_00] Different approaches, different circumstances, but a common concern. How does an institution preserve its ability to function when it depends on the systems it does not fully control? Financial sovereignty is not simply the power to issue money or move it digitally.

[00:37:16] [SPEAKER_00] It's the ability to maintain reliable economic functions, preserve meaningful choices, and sustain confidence in the institutions supporting them. And that is the fifth X factor. So let's bring these stories together.

[00:37:46] [SPEAKER_00] Okay? Let's bring them all together. In the U.S., companies are exercising their ability to object to tokenized listings. While the SEC examines emerging market infrastructure. Step in the right direction. At the Pentagon, officials are drawing boundaries around entrusted information and prediction markets. To ensure trust.

[00:38:14] [SPEAKER_00] In Argentina, a court has dismissed criminal allegations surrounding cryptocurrency promotion, pump and dump. While they leave broader questions about influence and investor confidence unanswered. In Israel, the government is exploring blockchain in the face of potential sanctions.

[00:38:36] [SPEAKER_00] While in Europe, central bankers are exploring a digital euro to reduce dependency on external payment providers. At first glance, these stories are unrelated. But examining them through emotional assets and steward framework, a common pattern emerges. Every institution is confronting some combination of technological change.

[00:39:06] [SPEAKER_00] Right? They're confronting changes in financial incentives. And the role of responsibility. Every institution must decide how to preserve trust. Upon which legitimacy and effectiveness fully depend. Tokenization asks whether new markets can establish confidence among companies and investors.

[00:39:35] [SPEAKER_00] The Pentagon story asks whether people will protect entrusted information rather than exploit it. Argentina asks how public influence, how that interacts with investor expectations, investor confidence, and legal accountability.

[00:39:58] [SPEAKER_00] Israel asks whether technology and technological alternatives create genuine resilience. And Europe asks whether new public infrastructure can preserve sovereignty without introducing unacceptable and unvoidable risks. These are not simply cryptocurrency stories.

[00:40:26] [SPEAKER_00] They're stories about governance. And governance is ultimately about people. People making decisions within systems of responsibility. That's why emotional assets matter. That's why emotional assets matter. Markets still depend on technology alone.

[00:40:48] [SPEAKER_00] They operate on expectations, confidence, credibility, trust, and people willing to participate. And that's why steward matters. And that's why steward matters. Institutions must do more than adapt to change. They must understand what they're protecting. Why it matters. And how decisions affecting people depend upon them.

[00:41:16] [SPEAKER_00] Throughout technology history, we've focused on what new systems make possible. We do. Lots of new things are made possible. Faster transactions. Greater access. New instruments. If you have a mindset of getting rich quick, then if that works for you, it works for you. Alternative networks. Alternative networks. Digital currencies. But possibilities are only a beginning.

[00:41:45] [SPEAKER_00] The more important questions come way afterwards, right? Who's responsible? Who benefits? Who bears the risks? Who makes the decisions? And what happens when something goes wrong? Something always goes wrong. A blockchain cannot make someone trustworthy.

[00:42:10] [SPEAKER_00] A central bank cannot manufacture confidence merely because they issue a digital currency. A prediction market cannot eliminate the ethical duties of people with privileged information. And a court's finding on criminal liability does not automatically answer every question about responsible public influence.

[00:42:37] [SPEAKER_00] Institutions must earn trust through conduct. Let me say that again. Institutions must earn trust through conduct. They must build systems that are not merely efficient but accountable.

[00:42:59] [SPEAKER_00] And innovation without stewardship can introduce vulnerabilities even as it solves existing problems. The financial systems of tomorrow are being built today. And some will be decentralized and some will be centralized. Others will be a combo. But all face the same fundamental challenge.

[00:43:24] [SPEAKER_00] Can they create systems that people have a good reason to trust? That is the connection of the five stories. And that is what makes it the X Factor. I'm Jamil Hasan. This has been the X Factor Weekend Wrap Up. Brought to you by CHP Media. Crypto History Publication Media.

[00:43:51] [SPEAKER_00] Every Monday will examine five significant developments through emotional assets and steward frameworks. Connecting the headlines to deeper questions of human behavior. Institutional responsibility and governance. Because the story isn't simply what happened. It's what those events reveal about the systems we're building and the decisions we're making and the future we're creating.

[00:44:20] [SPEAKER_00] Until next time, keep asking the questions that matter. I'll see you on Friday for the X Factor with the Crypto Hipster where we'll examine 10 happenings throughout this week and assess them as well. Got a weekend wrap up on Mondays. Got an X Factor with the Crypto Hipster on Fridays. Remember, technology changes what institutions can do.

[00:44:49] [SPEAKER_00] Stewardship determines what they should do.