I am currently in possession of the @AFLCIO letter opposing Genius and Clarity, and let me say, wow, do they need to do better work. It's chock full of falsehoods and misrepresentations, and comes across more as a handful of staffers with a personal vendetta that their part in the anti-crypto army tanked the Democratic party in the election and that their insane, burning hatred of ledger technology has not lead to the entire financial system turning against one type of electronic database to instead use a slightly different type of electronic database (weird hill to die on, but they seem intent on it). However, leaving that aside, let's confront some of the lies in the piece about Genius. I'll leave aside Clarity, as I do think there is a bigger discussion there, but if you want to trash talk stablecoins and bank regulatory frameworks, congratulations, you have entered my wheelhouse, @AFLCIO. I hope you came prepared. First, they say that pension assets are better regulated than the regulations in Genius. This is fascinating, given that there are many, many billions of money market funds and stable value funds in retirement funds right now, and those are less stringently regulated than what Genius stipulates. Some of them can be in vehicles that are not BK remote (we have a pension rescue fund for a reason!), and they can invest is vastly more broad assets than what Genius allows. To argue that Genius is not a sufficient regulatory framework is to say that all pensions are orders of magnitude too risky and should be abolished. Is that what you are arguing, @AFLCIO? If not, what specifically do you think is wrong with a bankruptcy remove government money market fund structure in economic substance? Second, they say tech companies can become the de-facto issuers of corporate cash, despite the fact that: 1. All Genius stablecoins must be backed with Treasuries and 2. The bill literally and specifically prohibits this. Maybe they read the wrong version? Maybe they aren't literate? I'm not sure what happened here but Section 4(12)(B) literally prohibits this. You guys read that part, right? Like, that they can't do this and only primarily financial companies can? Third, they argue that the assets backing stablecoins are not sufficiently strong. Guys. These are bank deposits, t-bills, and repo secured by treasuries. Exact same stuff that's in a government money market fund. So if you want to make this claim, please explain to me which of the following you believe: are US banks unsafe and should not be used by anyone, or is the US Treasury about to default on its debt? Because if you don't believe one of those two things, this looks incredibly deranged to put in here (unless you just didn't understand how the bill works, in which case you probably shouldn't have an opinion on it), and if you do believe one of those things, why did you wait for a last minute hail mary on a crypto bill to warn everyone about the impending collapse of the US banking system? Seems odd! Again, we can tell this is a few niche staffers who still struggle with email raging against the dying of the paper check era, and yearning to go back to a world where banks were actually still failing all the time, there was just less news about it because the internet didn't exist. What are we doing here, people? Why have we declared war on gov't MMFs and the internet and then expect people under the age of 45 to take the Democratic party seriously? This is not a serious letter. It was not written by serious people. Everyone involved should be fired and should go home in shame. Sad.

The letter: