Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I take a bit of a step back from a lot of the conversation about Web3 and comparing that to Bitcoin.
Web3 is typically a marketing term. It's an all-encompassing term that covers things like NFTs, security tokens and DAOs.
For a lot of the stuff, existing regulations can address a lot of these use cases, whereas something like Bitcoin is decentralized. There is no central party. There's no company that controls Bitcoin. Nobody can enforce changing the monetary policy of Bitcoin or issuing more coins. You're not reliant upon the efforts of others. We have clear definitions around what makes something a security. A lot of times these Web3 projects are run by companies. I agree that we should have regulatory clarity, but I feel as though we do kind of have regulatory clarity. It would just be better if we would come together and make clear what a proper path forward would be.
There's nothing wrong with digital securities. There's nothing wrong with a coin, like FLO coin or something, being registered with the Canadian securities agencies. There's nothing wrong with being a digital security and trading compliantly. It's just that currently, there's a lot of undisclosed risk in these things for investors, like large grants of coins for anonymous founders or team members or venture capitalists who can take these extra bags of coins they got in the early launch of their project and maybe even issue more.
I would also love to be part of the conversation. Bitcoiners would love to be part of the conversations, because you really can't lump Bitcoin in with the rest of everything else that's going on.