It's Genius! Decoding the New US Stablecoin Act | Michele Neitz

The U.S. just passed a monumental piece of legislation for stablecoins: The Genius Act. To break it down, host Lauren Weymouth sits with legal expert, Professor Michele Neitz of the University of San Francisco's Center for Law, Tech, and Social Good.

Is this the first domino to fall in regulating the entire digital asset space, from DeFi to NFTs? 

Together, they dissect what this new law means for consumer trust, financial inclusion, and the future of crypto innovation. They explore how the U.S. now stacks up against international regulations and Professor Neitz shares inspiring stories of how blockchain is being used for social good and why educating our legal system on new technology is more crucial than ever. 

Tune in to understand the new rules of the road for stablecoins!

Transcript

Lauren Weymouth: 00:00 I'm Lauren Weymouth, leading Ripple's University Blockchain Research Initiative, the UBRI program that collaborates with global universities to accelerate understanding, adoption and innovation with blockchain technology. Our podcast, All About Blockchain looks behind the curtain of what academic and industry partners are building. Blockchain is solving challenges, and our goal is to talk about how it makes a positive difference. 

Today, we are sitting here today live in San Francisco, and we're about to dive into the monumental piece of legislation that the industry is buzzing about, the  Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoin Act. Whereas the rest of us are calling it the Genius Act. This thing just passed Congress, and the president signed it into law.

The signing of the Genius Act cements the US's future in being a leader in truly innovative financial technology, stable coins. So who better to help us break down this behemoth than [00:03:00] a bona fide legal genius? We're thrilled to have Professor Michele Neitz, a leading global scholar and deep with deep expertise in the financial regulation. Michele, it's nice to have you here in the production studio. Welcome to All About Blockchain.

Michele Neitz: 03:13 Thanks so much for having me.

Lauren Weymouth: 03:14 Alright, so tell us a little bit about what you're doing now and how you even got into blockchain in the first place.

Michele Neitz: 03:20 right now I'm the visiting professor of law at University of San Francisco School of Law, and I'm the founding director of the Center for Law, Tech, and Social Good. [00:03:30] I actually got into blockchain in 2017 at a family dinner, when my brother, who is a serial entrepreneur, started trying to tell the family about his new company involving blockchain. And one by one, as he tried to draw out the Bitcoin protocol, family members just started getting up from the table, walking into the kitchen. And, but I was stunned by this idea of a decentralized technology because as a lawyer and an ethicist, I thought, well, who [00:04:00] are you gonna arrest if something goes wrong? And how can you guarantee that it's actually gonna be decentralized?

04:06 And so that started my interest in this space, and I dove deep and did lots of research around the ethics of decentralization. And that got the attention of the Governor's Office. And I was appointed to the California Blockchain Working Group in 2019. And ever since, I've just been so interested in the way that law and regulation and ethics can be used to make sure that we're actually keeping [00:04:30] this technology decentralized, and that we're using the technology to help vulnerable populations.

Lauren Weymouth: 04:35 Hmm, I definitely hear that. And today we're gonna get right into the Genius Act. So this bill is huge for the industry. Last major financial regulation bill in the US was passed 15 years ago in response to the 2008 financial crisis. So that's been some time. Um, let's get into the basics. From your perspective, what are the most significant high level changes that Genius Act introduces?

Michele Neitz: 04:57 Well, I can say personally for me, I finally [00:05:00] have a law to teach in my blockchain law class from the federal government. Um, but I think that what we're seeing here is the US actually catching up with other jurisdictions, like for example, the EU. And so the first high level piece of the Genius Act is that it's going to position the US to be more competitive. I am also very happy to see things like reserve requirements for stable coins and restrictions on misleading marketing, because I think those elements [00:05:30] of the Genius Act are really going to protect consumers in this space, which I think overall is good for the industry. I think the other thing I like about this is that it involves states. It's an acknowledgement that states have been legislating in this area for so many years while the federal government has been absent. And so this dual approach to licensing in the Genius Act between states and federal governments, I think is a really intriguing part of this law.

Lauren Weymouth: 06:00 Yeah, and you just kind of touched on it a little bit, The Act puts responsibility on stable coin issuers, mandating a one-to-one backing with specific highly liquid assets and imposing other capital liquidity and operational risk management requirements. What do these regulations mean for building consumer trust in stable coins?

Michele Neitz: 06:16 This is a really important step. So your listeners will likely remember Terra Luna back in 2022, in which an algorithmic stablecoin was under-collaterized, under-collateralized, and lost its peg to the dollar and collapsed. So now if I know that a stablecoin is actually going to have the reserves to back up that stablecoin, I can trust that I'll be able to trade that stablecoin for a dollar. And that's gonna really help, as I said, help the industry. It's not the same as the consumer trust provisions that we have for regular dollars, right? I mean, there's no FDIC insurance still. So stablecoins are still different. Some would say now with this regulatory clarity, stablecoins are actually [00:07:00] better than the dollar because of the way that it can be moved and transmitted so quickly.

Lauren Weymouth: 07:07 So it's sounding like this level of regulation is a net positive for the industry. Do you think it could ironically stifle the very innovation it claims to be promoting? Like where's the line between protection and overregulation, and are there any new requirements or restrictions that test that boundary?

Michele Neitz: 07:24 So my answer to this is different today than it would've been five years ago. I think five years ago I would've said, "Well, let's make sure we're striking the balance exactly right." But in the wake of FTX and Terra Luna and all of these things that have happened in the absence of regulatory clarity, I now think we need some sort of regulation in this space. I think it's impossible to ask people to invest in businesses or to start businesses or to get into this space when they're not sure whether or not a business is legal.

07:57 And a great case in point is the Llewellyn v. Garland case that's happening in fe- in federal court in Texas, which was just filed in January this year. So in that case, a developer literally went to court to ask for a declaratory judgment, which is a, like a preemptive determination that he would not be held criminally liable for publishing cryptocurrency software designed to coordinate crowdfunding campaigns for charities. Developers should not have to do this. We should not have to turn to courts to say, "Is [00:08:30] this legal?" And so now I think, you know, the crypto industry was involved in the drafting of the Genius Act. I think most observers would say it's a positive for the industry to have this sort of clarity.

Lauren Weymouth: 08:44 Okay. And earlier you mentioned other jurisdictions and where they have come into place in putting clarity in before the US, like you said, the EU, this bill seems to give new clear authority to federal regulators, to oversee foreign entities that issue stablecoins to US residents. [00:09:00] Is this a sign that we're finally seeing a more unified global approach to regulation? Or is it more of a US-centric move to assert dominance in the digital asset space?

Michele Neitz: 09:11 I think it's the latter. I don't-

Lauren Weymouth: 09:14 Yeah, I was kind of smiling when I, I asked the question.

Michele Neitz: 09:17 I mean, we could have a kumbaya moment that we're all, you know, in this together. But I will say, I think, It's promising that other countries are also passing stable coin laws, but they're not exactly alike. So that sense of harmony is not quite there. I'll give you a great example. Hong Kong just passed a stablecoin ordinance this summer that is different from the Genius Act in a number of ways in terms of who can apply for licensees, who can issue licensees. Uh, their reserve requirements are a bit more flexible. So I think if you're looking at inter-jurisdictional competition, which is one of my favorite [00:10:00] topics, to see states competing or to see jurisdictions competing, the stablecoin laws that are being passed are gonna be a really fun place to look at that.

Lauren Weymouth: 10:10 That's interesting. So when you're looking at cross-comparative jurisdictions and the laws that they're putting into place, like where does the Genius Act fall on severity or generosity with, with issuers?

Michele Neitz: 10:22 So the, actually the Genius Act is a bit narrower than the Hong Kong ordinance when it comes to issuers. So, um, first of all, [00:10:30] only the Hong Kong Monetary authority is able to issue licenses. Whereas with the Genius Act, we're a little broader with states and federal governments, but who can apply for issuing, issuance, but who can apply for licenses in Hong Kong is slightly different. So under the Genius Act, it's only insured depositories or the subsidiaries and non-bank entities that could, that would be approved by the OCC, the Office of Comptroller [00:11:00] of the Currency. But in Hong Kong, it's actually any entity could apply.

Lauren Weymouth: 11:04 So a bank entity could apply in Hong Kong, but not in the United States?

Michele Neitz: 11:07 the bank and their subsidiaries could apply here. Okay. But I'm thinking more of like just, you know, the Neitz Ice Cream Company that we could set up could apply to issue stablecoins in Hong Kong. That's my understanding. So, so that's gonna be interesting to see the fact that we're gonna be in the US a little more picky as to who can issue stablecoins. I [00:11:30] think from a consumer protection perspective, that's gonna be really interesting to see what happens.

Lauren Weymouth: 11:36 That makes sense. Okay. And then finally, let's talk about the long term impact. This act is focused on stablecoins, but it's a huge precedent.

What does the passage of the Genius Act signal for the future of other crypto subsectors like DeFi, NFTs [00:12:00] and privacy coins? Is this the start of a domino effect for more sweeping regulation across the board?

Michele Neitz: 12:07 Well, the Genius Act shows that it can be done, which we did not have until now.

Lauren Weymouth: 12:11 Right.

Michele Neitz: 12:12 it does seem that this is happening piecemeal. I will say we're not done with the Genius Act, right? The federal agencies will now write the detailed rules related to capital and liquidity and that sort of thing. Um, there is hope for a market structure bill. I think we're gonna see [00:12:30] one by the end of the year. I'm not sure exactly yet what it will look like, which we could talk about.

Lauren Weymouth: 12:35 Mm-hmm.

Michele Neitz: 12:35 it would not surprise me to see individual laws happening for different subsectors. This is happening in the EU, which even in its sweeping markets and Crypto Assets Act known as MiCA, they did not choose, they chose not to regulate NFTs. And so NFTs may be something that's regulated in the future. I think that the bonus [00:13:00] of this approach is that it is flexible. This is a very fast moving market. Things develop so quickly, it's easier to amend a narrower law than a broad one. So it does give the government more flexibility down the road, if we start with narrow subsector laws.

Lauren Weymouth: 13:18 Now that we've got this done, these recent developments in DC have changed the regulatory landscape, leading to more corporations being involved with digital ecosystems. Have you seen an increase in collaboration with traditional companies interested in getting involved?

Michele Neitz: 13:36 Yes. Companies don't wanna be left out.

Lauren Weymouth: 13:38 Hmm.

Michele Neitz: 13:38 I mean, that's been true for years. I was once at a conference, it was, it was pre-pandemic, 2018 maybe, uh, on, on blockchain and crypto. And I sat next to someone from a large bank that you have heard of. I will not say which bank it was. And they were interested in getting into the blockchain space. And when I asked her why, her answer was, "I don't [00:14:00] actually know. I think we just don't wanna get left out."

14:03 And so I always look at things with that sort of insider perspective of why is a traditional company getting into this space? Is it because they don't wanna be left out? Or is it because they actually see the potential for innovation to serve their customers? Now I will say, I think we're seeing institutional adoption from traditional finance. So for example, Santander, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, these traditional [00:14:30] finance, financial services companies are using blockchain and tokenization to serve their customers. That angle on it, I think is going to encourage more cooperation, because now it's not just about getting left out, it's also our customers will now demand this. We need to be ready.

Lauren Weymouth: 14:49 Yeah. So, and beyond FOMO, it's um, really helping to mainstream this-

Michele Neitz: 14:53 Exactly.

Lauren Weymouth: 14:54 ... as well. You know, I work on the impact department. We often talk about how this tech is helping [00:15:00] with financial inclusion. Will the Genius Act affect vulnerable populations? Like how does it advance or hinder financial inclusion?

Michele Neitz: 15:07 I think the rise of clarity for regulation around stable coins will advance financial inclusion. So this is something we think about a lot at the center. A great example is of course, remittances. Right? And so for immigrant populations, people who are unbanked, stable coins will offer this safer, cheaper alternative to traditional money transmission, which we've already seen advancing in this space. I also think the reserve requirements mean that communities who rely on stable coins will be better protected. And I just have to say, I was chatting with some friends about this last week and one of them said, "Well, I use Venmo, so why would I ever need a stable coin?" Or, "I use Zelle or PayPal or any of these." And what I told them was, "Well, let's leave the US for just a moment." Right? We tend to have a very US-focused perspective,  especially in the Bay Area, I think because so much innovation happens here.

But I serve on a UNDP discussion group for development in Latin America and the Caribbean. So I get the chance to think about these perspectives differently. And if you're living in a country with currency instability, so, say Argentina, you don't know how much the cash in your house today will actually be worth tomorrow. And so stable coins give you the chance to have some sort [00:16:30] of stability in your financial holdings. I also think we shouldn't underestimate the potential for people outside of the US to have access to the US dollar or treasury bills or the things that are held in reserve, because I do think that it's, we're opening up markets for people who really need them, even if Americans don't necessarily need them right now. Um, I will tell you though, I do think on the back end, stable coins are gonna start to be [00:17:00] running much more than Americans realize. And it's not gonna be, I need to use a stable coin to do this transaction. It will be I'm doing this transaction.

Lauren Weymouth: 17:10 Yeah, that's a really good point, right now of other populations, like in Argentina, in places, you know, they wanna access US dollar, they still have to go to a bank to make transfers, but if they don't have a bank account, they can't. But now with digital access to other currency stable coins in their wallet, they can participate in a whole new way.

Michele Neitz: 17:33 Exactly.

Lauren Weymouth: 17:34 Yeah.

Michele Neitz: 17:34 Exactly. So we're opening up access to the dollar, which is part of the Genius Act's premise is that it's going to try to strengthen the dollar in that way.

Lauren Weymouth: 17:55 moving on to the future, what are your thoughts about the Clarity Act? It just passed outta the House in July and would finally provide clear rules for the digital asset industry and investors alike. Does it do enough to properly regulate cryptocurrencies which trade more like commodities than securities?

Michele Neitz: 18:15 So this is an interesting bill. It's gonna change a lot in the next few months. Um, Senator Cynthia Lummis has said that the Senate Banking Committee and the Ag Committee, the Agriculture Committee, are working on their own versions of this bill, which they will then [00:18:30] use as they consider the Clarity Act. So I think we're gonna see a lot of changes in September and October. Uh, I will say, I think the banking committee version is called the Responsible Financial Innovation Act of 2025, in case your listeners wanna track this. It has some key differences with the Clarity Act. So there will be some modifications as the bill becomes law. Um, but in the meantime

The Clarity Act puts digital commodities squarely within the purview of the CFTC. It also introduces this concept of a mature blockchain system that would be considered a commodity. And I think this language is actually really interesting, if I can go in the weeds for just a moment on the legal, what this, if I could go in the weeds for just a moment on the, the legal ramifications of this.

Lauren Weymouth: 19:27 Yeah, please.

Michele Neitz: 19:28 So under this [00:19:30] bill, if a blockchain is sufficiently decentralized, which means it's not controlled by any person or any group of persons, it would be considered a commodity. But in order to make that determination, the blockchain system has to file a statement with the SEC showing that it will become sufficiently decentralized within the next four years or already is.

Lauren Weymouth: 19:55 And how do they measure that? Like is it by the amount of nodes running by different parties around the world?

Michele Neitz: 20:00 [00:20:00] This is my exact question. Lauren, you've hit the nail on the head. So the SEC also could object to that classification. So that means as a system, we are a sufficiently decentralized mature blockchain system and the SEC could say, "No, you're not." And now we're, now we're still within that turf war of SEC versus CFTC. And so in addition to the lack of clear language, I think we're also, we're muddying the waters a bit with this bill.

And as I tell my students, "I smell litigation." Like I could just smell the litigation coming as the systems try to appeal the SEC's determination as to whether or not they're sufficiently mature. So, so I, I will also say, finally, I really wish that this bill and every other bill that's going through any legisla-, any legislature would include some provisions [00:21:00] for community education. And I've been beating this drum for a while. I advise Senator Gillibrand and her team that I wish some of the earlier versions of these bills had, had had more community education. I think, you can't tell me you're worried about scams and consumer protection and then have no way of educating people about the fact that they should not buy my Neitz Ice Cream Company stable coin that I've just invented yesterday. Um, so [00:21:30] to me, education would open up this space and really allow more people to benefit from it. But I don't have to tell you that.

Lauren Weymouth: 21:37 No, I mean, you're definitely preaching to the choir on that one. I I think it's probably one of the reasons we've just saw the National Cryptocurrency Association pop up at NCA to help educate the soccer moms, you know, everyone under the sun on what crypto can do, what it is and what it isn't.

Michele Neitz: 21:53 Mm-hmm.

Lauren Weymouth: 21:53 And how to participate appropriately. Right? Okay. Um, [00:22:00] turning to your work, what inspired you to found the Center for Law, Tech, and Social Good? Like what are some of the key legal and social issues it aims to solve?

Michele Neitz: 22:09 So the Center actually comes out of my work in advising, uh, governments. And it, it really came about because after the California Blockchain working group issued our report in July of 2020, it got pretty buried with what with the pandemic and wildfires that happened that year. And so I was watching what was going on in state [00:22:30] legislatures and in the federal Congress, uh, in, in 2021 into 2022. And I, I noticed that it was just crypto scam, crypto scam, crypto scam. No one was talking about these incredible social impact use cases that I knew about from my work advising the California legislature.

22:49 So I thought, well, you know, I've been an academic since 2006. What could I do from my chair as an academic to educate government officials in a neutral academic [00:23:00] style way, like a law school class, that would help them to recognize that there's more potential here? And I thought, well, I could start a center. Um, and the Center got big very quickly and I moved the center to the University of San Francisco in 2023. And we really have been able to educate over a thousand government officials focused on what is blockchain. Like when I tell them, "I'll tailor it for your, you know, particular [00:23:30] work." Almost uniformly what I've been asked is, "Could you just tell me what it is?"

Lauren Weymouth: 23:36 Well, that's a substantial amount of, uh, government officials that you're educating. Um, and I remember reading the report that you helped create, I remember reading use cases for the Department of Motor Vehicles, like really positive, um, outcomes that you kind of reported on. Can you talk a little bit about some of the other examples of the use cases that you proposed that got buried?

Michele Neitz: 23:58 Yes. So, uh, I was in [00:24:00] charge of civic engagement and so, and the ethics portion, but some of the other things we looked at were things like using blockchain for cannabis tax payments, right? Because cannabis is a, an industry that, especially at the time was, was really stuck in how to pay taxes. So their choices were that for cannabis industries, they could either hire an armored vehicle and drive the cash to Sacramento to make their payments, or they could go to Canada [00:24:30] to set up a bank and then try to do an international payment.

Lauren Weymouth: 24:33 Wow.

Michele Neitz: 24:34 This is a fantastic use case for cryptocurrency, right? It would be so easy to just use crypto to pay these tax payments.

Lauren Weymouth: 24:41 It's timely, given that we're looking at now reclassifying marijuana, you know?

Michele Neitz: 24:46 Exactly. Exactly. And so, so those were some of the issues that, that had come up. I also think it's very exciting to think about what we could do in the context of energy use. Um, tracking electronic, electricity, let [00:25:00] me rephrase. It's very exciting to see what we could do when it comes to energy use, such as using blockchain to track electricity grids.

Lauren Weymouth: 25:09 Mm-hmm.

Michele Neitz: 25:09 And making sure that we have enough electricity to serve any particular jurisdiction.

Lauren Weymouth: 25:15 And I think going deeper and sharing that information with the consumer, so I, as a homeowner that's running my own household of electricity can understand my use. How extra use to extra energy that I'm producing for my solar panels [00:25:30] maybe could be re-traded on the open market, uh, you know.

Michele Neitz: 25:34 Exactly.

Lauren Weymouth: 25:34 Gives me more power in my hands as the consumer.

Michele Neitz: 25:36 Exactly. One thing I will say that was a great success out of that group was the DMV that you mentioned in California. They're now putting card titles on the blockchain so that instead of having to get the paperwork from the DMV to sell my car to you, you and I could do that transaction just sitting here in this studio, um, through the blockchain. So, so California, especially the DMV in California, [00:26:00] which I know is contrary to people's perceptions of the DMV, but California's DMV is very forward-thinking when it comes to technology.

Lauren Weymouth: 26:08 Well, I hope between your center and now that so many more big name banks and industry players are getting on board with blockchain, um, the government will reopen your report and kind of take more seriously some of the recommendations that you and the team put together. Um, really inspiring and exciting. Um, okay. So as we were walking up here to the studio, you were telling me how your courses that [00:26:30] you're starting to teach this week have been oversubscribed. Um, congratulations. That's really exciting that more and more students are interested in learning about blockchain and law. Has the Genius Act changed the way you are preparing to teach your classes and/or research topics this upcoming semester?

Michele Neitz: 26:46 Yes. So as I said, first of all, I have a law to teach now, which is very exciting. Um, instead of just state laws, I teach blockchain law as a seminar and I ask my students to make sure that whatever deep dive they're [00:27:00] doing is something that ties directly to their employment. And the most exciting part of the seminar, Lauren, is that blockchain ties to any area that a lawyer wants to go work in. So if you wanna do IP, you're gonna be looking at blockchain, right?

Lauren Weymouth: 27:14 Yeah.

Michele Neitz: 27:14 If you, if you wanna do privacy law, blockchain has places for that. I've had students write their papers on things like fashion law, using blockchain for supply chain issues in fashion. I had a student last year write her paper on using [00:27:30] blockchain for sustainable hotels, so that you can track whether a hotel is particularly green or not.

27:37 So what's really fun about it is that I give my students a lot of leeway. Now, I suspect, I'm gonna get some papers this year on stablecoins, right? Because there is a law to ground it in. Um, one of the things I'm thinking about doing this semester in blockchain law is to ask my students to take on the role of the agencies [00:28:00] who have to draft the final rules and regulations for the Genius Act, and ask my students to draft their own rules based on the Genius Act legislation. And what will be fun will be seeing how law students envision what the rules are, which is really how to put teeth into a statute like this, right?

Lauren Weymouth: 28:21 Absolutely.

Michele Neitz: 28:21 And then seeing how the agencies end up doing it.

Lauren Weymouth: 28:24 And maybe you can even invite some government officials in to hear their final reports because it could give them some bright ideas.

Michele Neitz: 28:30 [00:28:30] Yes. We hold a blockchain symposium every semester. I force my students to get up in front of the school community and present their papers. They're always nervous to do it, and they're always thrilled that they've done it. I've never had a student after the symposium tell me they wish they hadn't done it. I hear them before the symposium say, "I'm nervous. You know, no one knows about what blockchain is, then my family, but can they come via Zoom?" So I've had families come to hear the students present. I'll make sure that [00:29:00] you get an invitation.

Lauren Weymouth: 29:01 I was gonna say, send me the Zoom. I'd love to invite, uh, Ripple's legal team as well as, you know, some of our other departments. I think they'd find it really interesting. Um, and then talking deeper about your center, how does your center define social good? Like in the context of emerging technology, specifically blockchain? Can you provide some examples? Can you provide some of your favorite examples?

Michele Neitz: 29:21 Sure. Well, you may have noticed that the term social good is very vague. Um, and, and we put a lot of thought into that term because I [00:29:30] believe that social good broadly means having a positive effect on vulnerable populations. But there's so many different ways that you could do this. So my favorite examples, and I, I'll tell you, I sat down to write a list and it was really long, so I'll just give you some, the short list here. My, I love seeing the delivery of humanitarian aid. So things like the International Rescue Committee, the UNHCR, using the blockchain to safely deliver payments. [00:30:00] Stablecoin's obviously a great use case for this.

Lauren Weymouth: 30:02 Yeah, that's right.

Michele Neitz: 30:03 I mentioned remittances. I think supply chain management for things like food safety, pharmaceutical safety. I love the example of British hospitals using blockchain technology to make sure that there was sufficiently cold storage of COVID vaccines at every step along their supply chain. I think you could get really excited in an environmental space around this, asking citizen scientists to record data on the blockchain. I was just in New England this summer. And they actually have QR codes along coastlines where they're asking people to take a picture of the coastline, then send it to this QR code because they're worried about erosion of coastlines there.

Lauren Weymouth: 30:51 Oh, that's interesting.

Michele Neitz: 30:52 blockchain would be an awesome use case, right? And I know it's already being used for that. And then the government use cases just write themselves.

Lauren Weymouth: 31:00 Right.

Michele Neitz: 31:00 Healthcare data, you know, vital records, car titles. I mean, there's just so many different ways that governments can use it.

Lauren Weymouth: 31:08 And then stepping back into an even further lens, in your article, Ready or Not, you argue that courts are ill-prepared for the influx of litigation concerning new technology. What steps, what steps can we take to better educate judges and the legal system as a whole to handle these complex cases?

Michele Neitz: 31:26 Yes. My job as an academic, the way I see it is to sit back and take a look at the big picture. And I am concerned that judges are not ready to decide these cases of first impression, and blockchain and AI and emerging tech generally, not because they don't want to or because they don't have the ability, but simply because judges are so busy, and they don't have the time that I do to keep up with this fast-moving industry. I have no idea what I'll be teaching in late October, early November. I'm [00:32:00] gonna wait and see what happens in this space before I decide on that, on those classes. Right? Judges can't take that time to sit back and think. So, so I have three solutions that I've proposed, and the first one is the biggest, which is a specialized tech court. So we, we already have specialized courts in the US. We have tax courts, we have specialized courts for patents. I think we should have tech courts with judges who only handle emerging tech cases.

And I actually got this idea out of where I clerked in the southern district of California. At the time that I clerked, there were a lot of biotech patent coming into the district, and a lot of judges wanted no part in these, you know, very, I mean really huge cases, all very technical. But there was a judge who had majored in biology in college and said, "I would happily take those cases." So they sort of self-select to specialize. I think if we had a [00:33:00] formal tech court with judges who were getting educated every quarter, every month on developments, it will promote efficiency in the courts. 'Cause you're not asking judges all across the country to take the time to learn. You know, about, for example, in the Llewellyn case about, you know, the way to use cryptocurrency, um, to be able to manage campaign donations.

I also think it will increase uniformity among the cases because [00:33:30] you've got judges who are around the same level of education instead of one judge who may have majored in computer science and another judge who may have majored in like me, creative writing, and asking them to take, uh, different approaches. So overall that's a, a great option I think. It's also very budgetary, uh, what's the word? Prohibitive. It's also very budgetary [00:34:00] prohibitive. So I also think regardless of whether we establish tech courts, we need to expand judicial education. This is something we're trying to do at the center, right? We're looking at training actually international judges this year. Um, and I think judges should have tech advisors. Congress has tech advisors. Why doesn't a judge in federal court have a tech expert in chambers who is a full-time employee, who is, you know, beholden to the confidentiality rules that any court staff would have, but can be someone who could help to advise judges, uh, when these tech cases come up.

Lauren Weymouth: 34:39 Yeah. And at least an advisory council or or one person on staff, as you say, that sounds like it makes a lot of sense. And with them being more comfortable and coherent in the subject matter, I think you're right. They lend to better efficiencies. Is there anything we haven't talked about today that you really wanna share with our audience?

Michele Neitz: 34:57 I would love to encourage people to get involved [00:35:00] with the Center. So we offer these free trainings to government officials. So if any listener is a, a member of state, local, federal governments and is interested in getting more specialized trainings, they're interdisciplinary. We, we have affiliated faculty from around the university, including computer scientists. So we can really do trainings on any topic folks want. We also are, are doing public events, uh, as well as events that are just for USF students. But we welcome anyone who is interested in getting involved [00:35:30] with the Center and the Center for Law Tech and Social Good has a LinkedIn page. Um, it's a really exciting time at the Center. We're really broadening and expanding our reach. And so, um, we're thrilled to to welcome folks who are interested.

Lauren Weymouth: 35:45 And, and that's for here locally in San Francisco, California. But also it sounds like you also put materials online or for, you know, virtual participation from Florida to Maine. You welcome people to take part in.

Michele Neitz: 35:55 Exactly, exactly. And we, we will have an international affiliated scholar this year [00:36:00] as well and we'll be doing international training. So, uh, our reach is going beyond the US, because we think it's important that these types of trainings be offered to folks around the world.

Lauren Weymouth: 36:10 Absolutely. I think, well I think a lot of other, um, I think a lot of foreigners and a lot of internationals are watching this space of what the United States is doing and some cases reacting based on that, so...

Michele Neitz: 36:20 Exactly.

Lauren Weymouth: 36:20 Makes sense. And that's a wrap on another episode of All About Blockchain. And a massive thank you to our incredible guest, professor Michele Neitz, University of San Francisco's Center for Law, Tech, and Social Good. What a truly eye-opening conversation. We talked about everything from evolving legal landscape for digital assets to the importance of building tech with a conscious mind for social good. It's clear that the work happening at your school and USF is crucial to the crypto community and the world at large. To all of our listeners, thank you for tuning in for being a part of this journey. If you enjoyed this conversation, please hit that subscribe button, leave us a five-star review and share this episode with a friend. It really helps us bring more brilliant minds like Professor Neitz onto the show. [00:39:00] And, if you have any questions about this episode, or ideas for future episodes, please reach out to my Ripple. Please reach out to my UBRI@ripple.com email. Until next time.

Michele Neitz: 36:42 Thanks so much for having me.