The thread critiques the SEC's handling of cryptocurrency regulations under Gary Gensler, claiming it has damaged the Democratic Party's narrative around crypto and blockchain. The author argues that the SEC's assertion that all crypto-related activities fall under securities law is flawed. They liken blockchains to a simple ledger, illustrating the absurdity of designating everything recorded in such a medium as a security, which leads to the SEC's mischaracterization of items like Pokémon cards. In another part of the thread, the author questions the fairness of banking practices that allow banks to profit at the expense of average customers. They outline a typical bank's deal with depositors: zero interest on deposits while banks engage in risky lending, often benefiting wealthy clients. This system shifts the burden of losses onto taxpayers if things go wrong. The author emphasizes that competition should drive banks to offer better terms to depositors, rather than relying on a system that benefits only a select few. Further, the author highlights how banks are likely to argue against changes in deposit costs by claiming it would raise borrowing costs. They counter this by explaining that stablecoins provide a new funding model that reduces banks' reliance on deposit funding. Much of the lending that supports small businesses and housing occurs through private lenders, not banks retaining risk. This shift in funding dynamics could challenge traditional banking practices, especially as banks seek to protect their interests amid changing market conditions.