I know what you’re getting at but I disagree with the analysis and I’ll try to frame what I mean, which is somewhat the opposite. I mean the ‘11 visit is indic

I know what you’re getting at but I disagree with the analysis and I’ll try to frame what I mean, which is somewhat the opposite. I mean the ‘11 visit is indicative of serious attention paid to by serious people very early on relative to the rest of crypto’s history. As in, the founder was right to be cautious. “Early on” in this case means that outside of tech pubs and curiosity pieces due to the compelling founder mystery, the space was treated as a joke by and large. Like watch Banking on Bitcoin, and imagine trying to convince critics of it at that time that ETFs, crypto aide to Ukraine, 3x nation state adoptions, custody teams at big banks, and so on were all coming. I would just completely disagree if you argued this wasn’t the theme then. So yes, 2011 and intel agency interest is quite early on. For example, it’s taken 15 years to get tangible regulatory clarity which arguably just starting finally with the ETF.