So growth in exchanges would not have been possible without bigger asset classes and new asset classes and we had them. They were unimaginable 50 years ago. Still it’s hard to imagine Cryptocurrency as an asset class being respected and a larger institution having a cryptocurrency allocation of varying sizes might be in its coming. So I think cryptocurrency has an extremely bright future and I invite your questions on that. I much mention one other thing is which is Yes please go ahead.
Steven Bregman: I would just like to interject a tiny bit of color. You can do it better yourself, but you decided to be efficient with your time which I think you might need to be with all the questions. But indeed at the time that CME was proposing currency futures, it was actually fought by many responsible people including policymakers that number one it would be illegal and if it wasn’t it should be because it could actually be dangerous for the entire financial system. It could undermine the sovereignty of nations. That was the kind of discussion or rhetoric that was going on at that time.
Murray Stahl: Yes that was the argument and just to give you a little bit more color, we have so many questions, I want to make sure I get to them and deal with all of them, but to just give you a little more color on that point, there were many reasons why it, they thought it would undermine nations. So I’ll just give you two. One is, you’re buying a future. It could be argued and it was argued at the time, you’re betting on the future value of a currency relative to another. So if you’re betting on the future value of a currency relative to another, which say, we don’t even think about that, that’s a standard and prudent hedging practice. 50 years ago they said that was gambling and of course, 50 years ago gambling was illegal.
So was gambling really illegal or was hedging your currency exposure illegal? Today I think we can state without equivocation that the authorities effectively, although intent might have been related to gambling, their intent was different than what actually happened. They didn’t want to make prudent hedging of currency exposure illegal, but that’s what they did. It was impossible to hedge your currency exposure. For companies, like we had in the United States of America they were branching out internationally. So if you thought about it in the forward-looking sense, the companies are branching out internationally, there’s going be a need to hedge their currency exposure. Couldn’t do it without getting yourself arrested. It’s amazing, but that’s what people said.
And then of course the idea, remember this is the early seventies, the United States was not yet off the gold standard. The idea was no currency should be allowed to float because a nation needs to control the price of its currency. Experience informed us during the seventies with the inflation, no nation was a, was ever able to truly, really control the value of its currency relative to other currencies and they basically gave up. And then suddenly they gave up pricing their currencies in gold. So currencies no longer had the fixed reference of gold and they basically gave up on fixed currencies. So that change, put yourself in the position of policy makers in that era to give up fixed currencies in that era it’s a much bigger change, a much bigger sea change and simply allowing cryptocurrencies today.
