>> 2:45 p.m. eastern the white house historical association conference on the american president focusing on topics such as history and >> engagement, digital history, first lady impact influence and interpreting slavery and race at historic sites. exploring the american story. what american history tv saturday on cspan2 and found a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> tonight we are thrilled to have more for discussion of her new book. idealism, greed, lies and the making of the first big crypto currency craze. lor is a crypto colonels and hosey crypto podcasts unchain formerly a f senior editor she s the first mainstream journalists to cover crypto full-time and is

the author tonight's featured book joining lauren conversation kristine anchors and produces first mover at 9:00 a.m. standard time nyc every weekday live coin tvs a flagship show and first looked at the days of global crypto news headline she also posts all about bitcoin at 3:00 p.m. eastern standard time market analysis and all thingsne bbc. coin desk is the leading news event data provider for the block chain and digital asset industry. previously kristine worked at thomson reuters, bloomberg and pro public. her research and writing on nuance abatement laws contributed to an investigative series that was awarded the 2017 pulitzer prize for public service. and lead the new york city council to pass sweeping changes to the law. you can follow her on twitter at kristine news.

so without further ado please join me in welcoming laura and kristine to the stage. [applause] [applause] >> hi. >> hi it is such a pleasure and honor to be here with you all and be a moderator for laura and jordan a book appear to have got to say i have been a fan of laura's since you were forbes senior editor. i knew had all the big scoops in the crypto scene followed by your hosting of the unchained podcast which is still going o strong. and on my car rides to work i would always listen to you to get the latest updates an in-depth knowledge on folks in the crypto space.

so sing this book come out, i a was very highly anticipating it. >> thank you so much. >> it is a fantastic read. it really goes into depth and the egos, the struggles involved in making this historic crypto project. very incredible work. [laughter] >> thank you, thanks i had a lot of fun writing it and recording it. >> let's start off with getting a sense of our audience. how many people here are new to crypto? okay. i was about half.f. how about intermediate level? okay. and advance youou know you are working on a crypto project you are a developer, okay, okay. half a beginners a quarter intermediate a quarter advanced, interesting to note. >> the beginners are some of my personal friends.

[laughter] >> maybe i will start off just asking some questions. what do you think folks new to crypto will get out of this book? >> oh well, i think a lot c of people think crypto was technology or machines. but i think when you read the book it becomes pretty obvious that people and personalities and politics to influence the development of these technologies in a major way. but is probably one of the takeaways. and you notice that because some of these long, drawn out saugus between different personalities clashing in the egos battlingutt out that can take up pages the book it happens many times over and over again with different people very. >> with a lot of crypto projects they can be a little opaque. bitcoin is made which is a

pseudonym who could represent a person, various people we don'ti know. it's a project we actually know but it is still hard to, even for me to map out how it all works. the founders and the foundation, the for-profit, nonprofit entities. there were some serious effect of. finding an investigative wok there. >> one other thing i would say actually i noticed in working on this and i actually think this is a trend that has been happening kind of overall in the world is that the power centers are shifting from finance to developers to decoders. so what you see happen in the founding of a theory is after these conflicts especially in the beginning there's a lot ofbe conflict between the groups in the biz guys the other group on

what's fascinating ist they just prevail over and over again. i sort of feel like that is a further reflection of how previously wall street was a center of the universe on that is where young grads would want to go work. and then it became silicon valley. announced silicon valleys are leaving for crypto companies. and even when the coy cofounders of coin base started off as a programmer at goldman sach's but he told me he was treated like an it person. the finance people. >> fred errs him. >> the finance people would stand in front of d a desk and bark orders at him and have their feet on his desk while they were ordering him about. he would say oh they treated me like an it person. and now he is one of the kings of crypto.

i feel like this transition we are seeing is reflected on a small scale in the book and in these conflicts that play out. it is very fascinating to watch. >> awesome. i'm wondering why did you decide to choose the project you want to tackle? hax so, for anyone who is runnig crypto in 2017 that was definitely historic year. after i live to that in early 2019 i just realized wow, this was something that was totally new in the world. it was something that was historic. and i wanted to explain how that happened and i wanted people like 100 years from now to understand what caused this and how did it occur? it was the main platform on which the ideas were happening for the initial coin offerings as they were known, which was this phenomenon or projects to be like we are going to launch a coin and they would take the

coin as money to fund raise for the development of the project were trying to launch. this was just happening on such a grand scale billions of dollars being sent in crypto to launch these coins. and that just had never really happened before. you have capitol flowing like that around the globe for these brand-new projects just from people that were not so-called accredited investors. it was unprecedented and i wanted toth explain that the man platform towards the end when it really gets going it branches out. >> there's already a couple of books out there. i would say it lures is the most detailed, comprehensive, really gets into the weeds of who these founders are. whate makes them tick, where thy have gone on too.

she played o a part role as a detective and breaking one of the biggest mysteries which was finding who the dow hacker is put out go into that a bit later. but i guess, tell us a bit about your fact-finding process and the process of writing the book? because in approaching a project like this, it is again crypto can be very opaque shall we say. so how did you go about even starting mapping out who these people were? finding how these foundations, nonprofits, for-profits works, and getting into it? >> so, i created a big timeline a massive timeline i had a big document were collecting a lot of information. and i was juste trying to kind f organize it in the timeline. it's just the easiest way to tell a story.

so once i would kind of find some information i would figure where it would go i would put that in it, and the right place. i was trying to find the people who could fill out the narrative around those moments. it doesn't mean this entity was formed at this time or that time. a lot of this is actually power plays amongst different people. you then start to fill in the story around each of these events. and another thing with that, there were so many people which frankly made it quite a challenge. and people would say t something to me i would then check it with the other people through that you sort of get a better sense of what happened because you might have one person that t

rememberss something and then yu cannot find any cooperation. there are moments in the book oo you might see mention i only got that from one source. other times it was dating things when i say to me we might fact checker and i we were able to cooperate with multiple people. >> did you have any interviews? >> i did more than 200. we miss the storms then for sure it's not going to be following a start up with is going to be x number of cofounders edit those people you're mostly dealing withnd. eight cofounders two got kicked out to additional leadership people came. then the center of the story and i had to introduce all these other characters.

i have a list of 50 characters in the beginning of the book. that is afterim i trimmed it do. so the story you are seeing deciding to fully represent everything cap there's still 50 people have to pay attention too. >> what's interesting is you are able to talk to each of the initial cofounders and then also talk to a lot of their associates. so you have more of a balanced approach on what happened. what did you learn in your conversations? and what was he like throughout the process? >> for those of you who may be are not so familiar he is the creator of the theory him. and i actually mentioned this right in the beginning when i introduced him in as a character, a lot of people haven described him as being a lien. he definitely can be a little

bit socially awkward. and so oftentimes when i interviewed him i found his answers would be very brief. they would be one word answers. one sentence answers. so frankly, a lot of our conversations for me asking questions, him answering very briefly and me basically asking the same question was slightly different words and thenus him giving his very brief answer and trying to milk more and then asking some other variation and this went on, and on, and on. eventually there came a point where a large portion of our interview was actually done on chat apps. that kind of worked a little bit better. it felt like maybe just taking up that personal interaction helps it flow a little more. he was definitely a challenging person to interview. i have interviewed other people they will tell you about things

they've done they will give you the hold psychology i wasay thinking this in them and nothing happened at that old bur you know what, maybe fight at this other way, no there is none of that with him. it was literally me asking every single angle on a question trying to get that extra information because it's really interesting you say that. because when i spoke to the leader about the theory him, wormhole bridges, exploits, canadian truckers, he was very fluid and eloquent and very well rounded answers. but when i asked him about his experience for your book, who is a one word answer. [laughter] truck and asked what one word was? >> did you read it now. [laughter] what would you have to say about your a experiences? apparently in the book i would

say he came across as someone who was not privy to confrontation. he would say is would agree with that. where's all this other answers were very -- a lot more in depth. i think he might not be comfortable talking about personal aspects of the creation of a theory him. >> exactly. quick said that he has expressing his feelings as well. he is very affluent when it comes to technical things when it comes check about more a personal things or his feelings is much more difficult. when you also had a chance to talk to the lesser-known cofounders i am very curious about your impressions of them. : : : ebody who's very confident in himself, but also very controlling and so he would only talk to me in certain ways and then he was very controlling

about what the teaching was going to be and of course. his messaging was very different from what all the other co-founders were saying and so the in the main narrative you will read kind of about him and then it will be his response because from what i can tell in my reporting it seemed that pretty much everybody agreed reporting it seemed pretty much everyone agreed on one narrative and he didn't so i just included what his version was. he's very different, extremely talkative, a great storyteller, just very physical and kind of this romanian and anarchist and was into the clan early. he founded the magazine. i feel like maybe it makes sense

wopposites attract. there were some very -- nobody really looked good. when i think about some of the talesed alleged about him and en joe rubin i wondered is there a common thread. was there anyone you felt uncomfortable with? >> i guess i had conversations with all of those people. maybe with gavin a little bit less so. the one thing that's interesting so they are two people that don't like each other and what's

fascinating is they are both similar in the sense that people either love them or hate them however there is a way they are different which is everybody agrees. some people don't like it and some people do. when it comes to joe, people i think you either have a good experience with him or they have a really bad experience so it's like doctor jekyll and mr. hyde. people get on his bad side and say it's because it's like a popularityy contest and they usd to be on a good side and part of the people that won the contest and it switched dramatically so it's kind of a fascinating thing. for anthony and charles you will read a large percentage of people don't have good

recollections with them. is it a benefit or not to know who thetc founders are versus where the community could create their own narrative of what bitcoin is all about. it was a very different story and now we've got my book that is kind of exposing all the messiness.

it's clearly extremely successful. to my mind they are the only two that are established and have succeeded. whether or not they succeed in the long term is another question but for now they are. withholding those values and how messy it can get throughout the process but what is really incredible is the founders went on in some cases to create their own crypto currencies that have

become successful in their own right by market cap, so at least there have been a lot of tensions in terms of getting the project together leading up to an incident where eventually they were basically voted off the island if you will and they refere to that. you want to put some context into that? i will do a reading on that section and a moment but to give you the context, this probably was the first moment when the conflict between business guys came to head individually they kind of wanted to follow this more d traditional business modl

of doing a startup where they would get equity and the way the model would work is the way that a lot of the tech giants worked they take the user data and make a profit from that for advertisements or whatever it mightt be. many of you probably know in the crypto world they maintain their own data and the company at the middle isn't the one extracting value but the users that own the tokens and are sort of invested in the network at the same time and in a different way than the startup obviously because we've seen these massive startups that go from nothing and then the founders are just gazillion errors but with these networks the people that buy in early

sort of can ride along so yeah all of this came to a head around how to manage and at the same time there were a lot of personal conflicts with the so-called ceo at the time and people felt that hent was lying. it essentially that is one of the things he told several different people. they collected a bunch of information they considered damning so there wassi a dossier they had all been passing around and kind of checking out before this big meeting. so charles was the founder of

the bid to currency. he has the army so be careful. [laughter] finally in the early afternoon everyone began gathering on the top floor of the table. it was made of six long and wide bleached kitchen countertops arranged three by two within streaksd worker style. some sat in a mesh fabric office chair with lumbar support and wheels that world almost too easily on the floors. others stood.

he sat at theac head of the tab, his back to the smaller deck facing the kitchen at the other end of the room and said a few words and then asked everyone to go around and say their piece. jeff is one of the main developers. he thought that they had made a pact to say they didn't think charles could lead. they denied this. so jeff was surprised when he didn't mention that and then again he didn't say that charles needed to go although others would later claim he did say that if charles stayed, he would go and do a new project. he did say something along the lines of ay contributing little to the project. since he was on the business

side, gavin wasn't aware of what work he did and that gavin was saying these things so he could consolidate power under himself but not mentioning charles should be removed took him back. he looked at him and gavin returned. felt betrayed. why didn't you say anything? so, ever the honest dutchman, jeff told it like it was. charles, we feel you are leading us in the wrong direction. we don't want to be google and we would like tot see you leav. i don't want you to be ceo. to at least one person watching, jeff seemed absolutely livid. he was really letting charles have it. charles looked shocked, but jeff who always found charles fake couldn't tell if it was sincere. then he invoked the nuclear

option. he made it clear he would no longer be part of the project ia charles stayed. charles objected to talking about all the things he set up but jeff said it doesn't matter. i don't believe in becoming a google. wewe need to deliver something r people, not corporations. hed also said i'm sorry i gave you the benefit of the doubt but i don't think you belong here because i've not seen much contribution from you. he said he agreed and jeff was outraged. don't just agree with me. se' what's wrong. he added he couldn't trust what was real or not. basically it seemed sometimes charles lied. soin joe is one of the business guys also and said he trusted to charles and believed he wanted the best and supported him staying with the project but he would support any final

position. someone felt he seemed flabbergasted. joe denies this. they said also charles had to leave, so he felt it would be the end and didn't go into details. just said charles has got to go. he is a liability and he used a more colorful language like the word sociopaths. they punished becausee a mere ws technically his boss but he considered him mia. he wasn't allowed on decision decision-making calls despite having compiled of the dossier he didn't say much about charles. gavin who spoke early was watching the proceedings. appalled by how they had invited everyone to point fingers and name names and everyone who happened to be in-house including joe's son was privy to

the sensitive discussion. sittingg through an hour of t people proclaiming their enemies was excruciating and felt charles didn't deserve a public wbashing even if it was by the people who had been living with him.py people were unhappy with charles was a poor decision. she felt the meeting was spontaneous rather than organized and didn't see any smaller group with which the problems could have been discussed. one of the main orchestrator's of the moment was conflicted so there were two staff that kind of floated after charles. even though he knew this was the right thing to w do he always struggled with confrontation and if they were airing their grievances it made him feel awful. when his time came to speak he held back.

they were stressing about what to say but when the moment came, she spoke her truth. so she is roxanne and at this point was the executive assistant. she said she didn't trust anthony because he acted like he waspl superior to everyone else, plus he was pushing for a for-profitn structure. then she looked them dead in the eye and said charles and anthony are not trustworthy. in one of the most uncomfortable moments in their lives she madee the most directly negative remarks. charles widened her eyes as ife he were surprised she hadn't believed all the stories. she felt it was absurd they hadn't realized she had her own thoughts. gavin on the other end of the table new then charles could not recover. to him, until then it had been

all boy is condemning charles, so the disagreement felt like a fight among boys but for the only girl who lived in thein hoe full-time to say she didn't trust charles felt decisive. charles would later say the meeting, charles would later san this meeting was othersd brutalizing him and defended himself saying it could make things work, that he promised things would be better. that they could do the nonprofit. they seemm to think the for-profit versus the non-for profit was the crux of things. no one brought up the dossier. [applause] >> that is a taste of some of the struggles in the early beginnings.

the fight between the for-profit folks for the developers who want to make it a for-profit foundation and so on and so forth. they wanted to have this network that wasn't going to profit from the customers but have everybody sharing and appreciation with the users and even before then actually they had these other ideas to make it more like bitcoin in a way there wasn't goingt' to be what the creators create before the network to sort of like creating equity for themselves before hand. but he was overruled by the business guys early on. in particular, anthony.

there was a second phase i would say and this took everyone to create a nonprofit organization but then a whole new set of characters were introduced and became the director of the foundation. this was little well-known about how her processes were and how the foundation worked. maybe you can shed a little light into that. >> this was probably i think the most difficult person for me to write about just because the way people spoke about her was very different from the way that i've ever had anybe people describe somebody to me and she seemed a little bitit unbelievable

basically. of that sort of made a sense whatca people were saying and tn the character became more believable. but there were major red flags and there was an incident very early on which only became known to a small number of people. she basically accidentally send some communications to somebody she didn't mean to and they adefinitely should have been concerned about the character frankly. i was able to obtain those

messages. a quiet long saga in the book and hopefully i was able to explain the explanations are definitely they don't seem very rational but the fact this person was kept for as long as she does doesn't seem irrational so the only explanations i have -- >> what's also interesting is the shadow folks at the foundation who kind of controlled things in the background but wereou never reay named.

different people wield a lot of influence at that time. probably the 2017 era there were people in the foundation that were not necessarily in unofficial roles and so a lot of people said to me this is going on and we don't like it for thesepl reasons. what's interesting is the people that were named as the big power players in this shadow government, it was fascinating people would be scared to even mention their names to me. they would be scared to say they've been at an event, not even doing anything at the event but they've been there witnessing something historic.

people seemed frightened which is fascinating. so maybe a few spoilers but when i asked about one of them, he whistled. like he was just surprised i mentioned the name or uneasy about it. i don't know. clearly there are some things. >> is it decentralized that they have so much power over the foundation and i've asked you this before maybe we can get your thoughts again. >> my personal opinion is that it actually is but only because it's so big now that i do feel if the foundation went away people would figure out another way to organize and to keep the development going.

they have the most developers like no contest it's the next highest were something like that andop then 20% of all new developers would do stuff which is again so much mind shares. there's a very interesting subplot where let's, just say somebody might have lied —-dash

it with the foundation and a somebody that wanted to wield power over him. i wasn't able to solve it but i left that hanging. the hundred 50 million raised for the decentralized autonomous organization, 60 million was stolen and altogether represented i think 14%. >> it's hard to put a dollar amount because the price dropped from 21 to $14. so, inu the book i said if you take it by the high prices, 78 million or something, it's like 59. but yeah.

at the hacker took 31% and has 5% which is more than -- but it's one of the greatest industries in crypto. so this hopefully won't be a spoiler because i wrote a long article about this today my book came out last week. this was maybe the second biggest mystery but claiming the claim wasn't a crime and i called this whodunit.

idi worked on this for a long time. the main one i had was an investigation at the time and i followed the lead all the way through. i a interviewed the way i was going to write it in the book is evidence for the response and just going to leave it and people can do with it what they want but i wasn't going to say anything to conclude this. when you are wrapping up a book there are the three final passes which are things like copy editing, proofreading, legal, ande basically after they make the changes you check the changes and you may be make your own tweaks and then they take it again. so you do that in three rounds. one of my sources in brazil

reached out to me before we were going to turn in the second round, my fact checker and i. the police opened an investigation into the dow and extension on me. so i want to exonerate myself and would like to commissioned the report and thought you might like thee information. these are kind of expensive so he was able to get a discount in exchange for credit to the company in the book. what we are looking at his basically how they were cashing out. i'm going to give you some background if you are not familiar. basically as i mentioned, the dow raised all this money and it was the highest in history because they were collecting crypto currency. but that's how enthusiastic people were. like i said eventually when they have to, they got 5% of all

either. what the committee did is they did this change where essentially they created a new block chain that had the same history as the old one but at that moment it took the money in the related things and moved it over where people that had been involved could get their money back. however, since not everybody agreed with the decision, some small group kept the old chain where it occurred and that the hacker has 5% and tried to turn it into something useful because it was only an' few months old. it wasn't really usable as money and frankly everybody knew that they were stolen coins and nobody was going l to be like se you canat turn those into legitimate currency on exchange.

so, they were trying to turn it intosi bitcoin because it is moe likely and they were using anna exchange that didn't take the customer identifying information so they wouldn't have to give their name or anything like that. we were looking at these transactions and mapping them out onto a schedule. it was from like zero to 1500 and the rest of it kind of looked like they were asleep. i had gotten a customer service e-mail the hacker had to send when they were kind of collecting the money and putting in the contracts to the attack and in that customer service e-mail even though it was so brief it was obvious it's not even just the english is fluent,

but they used shorthand and that shows another level of fluency so at times it's like a morning to my schedule, but i know from the communication they are a fluent english speaker and the subjects i'd written about already they were based in europe, not asia. so i o was trying to figure this out and i'd been working on all kinds of other things for mynd book and i sent some of the information to them. i wanted more time to look into this. we are at the moment we are sending the final changes which is like a very minimal changes and i did ask the publisher for a little bit of extra time because this isn't the time to be divvying out for extra time

but meanwhile they did have the information i sent them so even though i didn't p get that thenf course later when they felt they had h a something, i can't go io all of the details but the key thing they were able to do is they were using a bitcoin mixer the way that it kind of mixes with other people it makes it difficult to follow so let's say if allwh of us are doing a transaction at the same time and want to make our activity a little private it would mix them together and on the other side it's harder to follow the trail back to where they originally came from. well disclosed iny mind book thy are able to dmx the transactions and so then they could see they

went to four different exchanges and eventually i did a lot of reporting on this but one source was able to i find out what happened to the money in that exchange and it was converted and then withdrawn with a readable address. my sources and i looked at the ip address and found these other bitcoin lightning nodes which is another bitcoin the thing and when we looked at those wlightning nodes on lightning explorer which is a website that gives information about others we saw many were 10x.

soob the ceo came up and his als was toby ai. he uses it i think there were 16 places i found and two weeks after that we were also able to get the e-mail address on that account which was the name of the exchange so he controlled that domain and i later found out another source that he used and the e-mail address and that person ended at toby ai so we pushed the publicationon yet agn and then finally it came out on

22 how magical that happened. >> is there any chance of bringing this alleged attacker to justice? >> there is a limit. about an incredible work finding this potential hacker. so from there what is your biggest take away upon learning about the people.

this really represents the moment. one other thing i mentioned i feel like a lot ofes people feel these technologies are sort of bloodless and a sterile and know the personalities involved really make a difference. one thing we've talked about a lot with the people that created the dow once i went to them and said i have a good suspect because here was the thing not

ionly when i got the name did i have that but it was to the point i couldec see he was makig scomments and he had e-mails wih the creator saying these are of the things that i think are wrong with it that you need to fix and after the hack, he was tweeting things that were kind of against the side of you raising the hack and for the side of keeping. soba once you have the name and you go back and tell the story the rest of the picture fit. what one of theut creators said when they were talking about this person's identity was it's amazing because one of the

technical aspects. there were like 20 days and was a complicated thing sort of like a video game. buton he had basically a month e could have sent the money back and made things right and said i wanted to make a point that they are vulnerable in this way but now send the money back and let's make it better. they wanted them to express what they never once tried to fix it. he t was saying if he rescued te money instead of taking it, he would be a hero today. there are these people like one of these famous hackers and crypto that will find vulnerabilities and rescue the

money before anybody knows it is vulnerable. he's really treated like a hero. a lot of fans and the person that i alleged to be the hacker isn't somebody that has this kind of massive following and is and is seen as a hero so those are kind of interesting lessons. you can hide behind this cloak of anonymity but every transaction is why we are seeing in the recent weeks the mysteries coming to light discovering who is potentially behind it a month ago and we have one of the biggest tax.

now you can see the transactions on the block chain and you are able to trace back the transactions to this person who could be. the next one i can't remember but i noticed a bunch of people mentioning likeck all of these e from 2016 are now figuring out who did them and i'm kind of feeling like if you're thinking about stealing some crypto you

better know that forensics is going to catch up with you. i think now we can open up the audience to q-and-a. >> congratulations on the book. i guess following up the discussion were you able to confirm and get him to comment on the findings i know the books just came out. i willhe have an announcement at some point when it's ready but i will say about the attacker i didn't mention this part.

while we were reporting the book i sent,it i tried to get an interview with him multiple times. so i finally just sent him the fact h checking document and ultimately he wrote me and said your statement in conclusion is inaccurate. i can give you more details if you like and so i wrote him back immediately and said please give me the extra details. i gave him the deadline very clearly. i said like midnight but again no response.

a few things as i did kind of expect he might to delete some of the social media so i saved everything before i reached out to him and he did delete some of it although he said it was to do a decentralized kind of twitter. so there was one left saying he was going to the center platform. >> i work on crypto. what would you say the biggest thing you learned about nature or yourself in the process of writing this book.

people that listen to my show know that i'm into meditation and i was meditating a lot while working on this book. when you meditate, i was kind of just in meditation trying to turn off my mind. it makes you very [inaudible] it makes you very aware of your mind, and i suddenly realized. i didn't phrase that question to the exact perfect way.

i suddenly realized i was doing this to myself and i highly advise if you ever have a bad habit i would meditate for a while because you should start noticing things about how your brain works and i stopped in that moment and now i never would criticize myself to the point i just can't even function. highly unproductive but yeah the most important thing i learned about myself. congratulations on the publication of your book. i just got back from east denver and found it to be an incredibly inspiring experience from a woman that is going to be working and i also found it

[inaudible]] i wonder what is the future of non-binary people in the block chain space? >> that's definitely a hard question. i agree because i meditate a lot. i'm totally well aware that if i were to engage in a lot of sites i would have a much bigger following. i do see people that employ that energy which is sort of disheartening but it works for them. in terms of more women in this space, one thing granted i've been covering this almost seven years so one thing for me

there's a lot more now than there were in 2015 and i would say they've brought more women in which is great. one other thing i don't know if you've heard of the investment club, but as we mentioned, it was an autonomous organization but there were groups of 99 people or less and the reason is because they would regulate these groups of people that are getting togetheras and then they basically have ahe crypto wallet they share and invest together. at h the end of getting the grop together, half of them are

either all women are women led. and that's very unusual in crypto but they realized the kind of natural ideal and mission with these clubs is detracted more than you see traditionally so part of me thinks maybe because personally it does feel the ideas that would appeal to a lot of women but it isis true that there area lot of reasons there's fewer we have a lot more than you would see in a different industry but, yes, i would hope that naturally people would figure out that it makes a lot more sense to have women involved. i think we are getting to the

time is up, but we do have two more questions. do we have time and i will try to i speak quickly. congratulations again on the book. i hope this isn't too much of a spoiler but it's kind of an interesting thread where they seem to prioritize his eco- chamber. has that changed the introduction or evolving theory of whether you think this is still an issue with the space overall. >> i don't know if i would necessarily say that it's people to echo sentiments back to him but again my book and is in

early 2018 and i really didn't do that much investigating and what's happened in the years since. when it comes to judging people that's why he uses these advisors or at least that was the case in early 2018 or 2017,y so i don't know if i would say that necessarily means he's looking for people that reflect his own view because he's kind of looking to them for guidance in a way but granted he's a lot older than when the book starts he's like nine years older or something like that. he's grown a lot frankly. ' think that's one other part of

my book but it's a kind of coming of age story i would imagine he just continued to mature. to get money or people who believed in the project and anyone who is interested and showed some interest and support but he and realized it takes more than folks just being niceu to you to understand that they are with you are not and he seemed after that to choose folks that had values and shared principles so i feel that's what he carries on with him now.

it's about rainbows and unicorns and it's a very metallic. >> i was curious, and you do such a good job, personally if you are an idealist do you buy into it being this revolutionary technology for better or for worse? the technology will develop and become world changing. at the same time, i am completely prepared to cover it if it goes crashing to the ground. i try not to have fixed views on

what i think will happen because i don't want to mess with the story will be but they trail in action a little bit so i don't want to come out like this is going to happen and then have a vested interest in not being proven wrong o or something. probably the reason i said yes is because at the five-year reunion like 50k or something by that point i had classmates and by the five-year reunion he already launched startups. i had no idea this was going on because i had lived in new york and so if i just think about how

technology had changed in the 25 years since i graduated it seemed unlikely it isn't going to s develop and become somethig bigg. it's going to continue to develop and become something big. >> so, my company does own some things like in address or url. i get a lot of imposters but for me personally, no i don't. >> we've got to wrap it up there. [applause]

we will stay behind of it. you have signed copies of the book. if you want to sign your book -- >> i can take this moment. if you have yet to purchaseth te book you can purchase it at the registers in the back. tmy colleague will ring you upn just a second and if you are staying to have your book signed, j i'm going to ask that you remain seated while you set up the signing and then we are going to call you up in rows. on that note, thank you everyone for coming. [applause]

♪♪ ♪♪ >> both for a governor but also for president. that was very helpful. >> using material from the award-winning biography series first ladies. >> i'm very much the kind of

person who believes you should say what you mean and mean what you say and take the consequences. >> and the online video library we will feature lady bird johnson, betty ford, rosalynn carter, nancy reagan, hillary clinton, laura bush, michelle obama and milani a trump. first ladies in their own words saturdays at 2 p.m. on american history tv on c-span2. or listen as a podcast on the c-span free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.

on the airline stage we will be speaking about women's success and challenges and business politics and i'd like to welcome to the stage donna brazil. [applause] [applause] [cheering] it will be