From NFL to Startup COO to Congressman Regulating Crypto (with Rep. Anthony Gonzalez)

Gonzalez argues lawmakers can’t sensibly regulate crypto without trying it. He experimented with DeFi using a small amount of ETH (and donated proceeds), learning more than reading white papers alone—especially around gas fees and tax complexity.

He emphasizes hearings and committee negotiations as the locus of expertise and bipartisan deal-making. A small “informed minority” on committees often educates and pulls along the broader membership for complex policy areas like crypto.

Gonzalez’s playbook is to identify aligned members by listening closely during hearings, then co-write bills with cross-party partners. Without that, bills may pass the House as messaging and die in the Senate.

He cites the Clinton-era approach to the internet—tolerate early weirdness, target obvious harms, and avoid suffocating innovation before understanding it. He fears a heavier-handed executive/SEC approach absent clear congressional signals.

After Terra/Luna, Congress better grasps the difference between fiat-backed and algorithmic stablecoins. He favors defining and regulating ‘payment stablecoins’ (reserves, audits, redemptions, consumer protections) while being cautious/silent on algos until clearer classification emerges.

He points to the infrastructure bill’s broad ‘broker’ definition that risked sweeping in developers, illustrating how unrelated provisions get added to must-pass bills. Even when intent is narrower (tax compliance), sloppy definitions can threaten whole ecosystems.

On GameStop/Robinhood, he says a practical bipartisan fix—shortening settlement from T+2 to T+1—was available, but reforms were bundled with long-standing partisan priorities, reducing odds of Senate passage and leaving core issues unresolved.