In the latest edition of Executive Session, the official podcast of Directors & Boards, Bill Hayes, editor in chief of Directors & Boards, speaks with Michael Peregrine, partner of McDermott Will & Emery, about board resignation. In our second interview, Michael Montelongo, director of Civeo North America, Conduent and Palmex Alimentos SA de CV, explores the current landscape of geopolitical conflict. And in our third discussion, Susan Holliday, executive in residence at Progress Partners and former director of Acrisure Re, and David Crosbie, strategic advisor of RedEngage and visiting fellow of the SEC, provide their thoughts on cryptocurrency’s continuing emergence and its import to boards.
Don’t miss an episode! Follow the Executive Session podcast on Spotify, iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, or anywhere else you get your podcasts.
Guests
Michael Peregrine
Michael Peregrine is a partner in the Chicago office of McDermott Will & Emery. He is a fellow of the American College of Governance Counsel. As a senior contributor to Forbes, he writes about governance, leadership and boardroom culture. He is also a periodic contributor to The Chicago Tribune on leadership and ethics. Peregrine is also coauthor of three corporate governance compliance white papers published jointly by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General and the American Health Lawyers Association. From 1993 to 2025, he has been named one of the “Best Lawyers in America” by Healthcare Law.
Michael Montelongo
Michael Montelongo is an independent director of Conduent, Civeo North America and Palmex Alimentos SA de CV. He is a lecturer of business administration at Harvard Business School and former independent director of The Larry H. Miller Company, Herbalife Nutrition, Exostar LLC and The Aerospace Corporation. Previously, he was chief administrative officer and senior VP, public policy & corporate affairs, of Sodexo Inc. Additional board service includes stints as a director of DataPath Inc. and Denny’s Corporation. Montelongo was assistant secretary of the U.S. Air Force, serving as CFO. A commissioned officer of the U.S. Army from 1977 to 1997, Montelongo previously was director of small business services for BellSouth Telecommunications Inc.
Susan Holliday
Susan Holliday is executive in residence at Progress Partners and a former director of Acrisure Re, Tangerine Financial and Tribal Planet Inc. She is a Qualified Risk Director and a founding member of Extraordinary Women on Boards. Holliday is president of SH Advisers Inc., non-resident scholar at Insurance Information Institute and member of Exceptional Women Alliance. From 2019 to 2022, she was a senior advisor of International Finance Corporation. Previously, she was head of reinsurance strategy at Swiss Re, director of equity research and specialist sales at UBS Investment Bank, and VP at JP Morgan.
David Crosbie
David Crosbie is a strategic advisor at RedEngage (having previously served as chief technical officer) and a former visiting fellow of the SEC. From 2016 to 2020, he was an adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and from 2012 to 2014 he was a senior consultant of DiaLogos. He was chief technology officer and founder of Adero, Bluesocket and Leostream Corp.
Transcript
Bill Hayes: Welcome to Executive Session from Directors and Boards.
Michael Montelongo: Boards are realizing that geopolitical risks must be incorporated into long-term strategic planning rather than treated as one-off crisis. The idea that companies must be agile, resilient, and proactive in their risk management is more evident than ever.
Bill Hayes: That was Michael Montelongo, director of Civeo North America. More from Michael later in this episode. Hello and welcome to Executive Session, the official podcast of Directors and Boards. I’m your host, Bill Hayes, editor-in-chief of Directors and Board. In this episode of Executive Sessions, we’ll also discuss board resignation with Michael Peregrine and Cryptocurrency with Susan Holliday and David Crosby. Let’s get to our first interview. For the uninitiated, you might think that a director leaving a board is fairly cut and dried. You call the nom-gov chair, let them know that you have run out of steam for the board, and that you are ready to step down. Easy peasy. Well, as Brad Pitt said to Matt Damon in Ocean’s Eleven when the latter jokingly suggested that their complex casino heist was a mere smash-and-grab job, it turns out that it’s a bit more complicated than that. Yes, director resignations can throw a serious monkey wrench into board operations. To talk about the possible repercussions, as well as how directors should ideally go about departing from a board. Today we will be talking to Michael Peregrine, partner in the law firm of McDermott, Will and Emory. Michael, in a new look at director resignation, a piece you did for directors and boards, you said that director resignation can be both a vital operation for director separation and the tool for disrupting board functions for selfish reasons. Can you describe under which circumstances a director’s resignation can be a vital operation for separation from the board?
Michael Peregrine: I think there are a lot of reasons, Bill, and I think the law recognizes those reasons when a director might step aside. It could be, you know, let’s just take it from the top. It could a fundamental disagreement with the board on policy, which is just not going to get better. It could the situation where the director is no longer able to give the commitment, no longer to be able to be engaged, something on his or her day job that says, I just can’t serve. It could be a fundamental conflict that just prevents that director from participating in at board meetings, it could be grave concerns about the strategy of the board. I think increasingly in today’s environment, it would be a political conflict where the board member is uncomfortable with the board’s exercise or lack of exercise of a social voice. All sorts of totally legitimate reasons why a director might say, I’m sorry, I have to step aside. I cannot make this work. Let me open my chair for someone who can.
Bill Hayes: And when you say it can be a tool for disrupting board functions, how can that be?
Michael Peregrine: I think Bill is the threat of resignation more than anything else. In my experience over the last five years in particular in participating in board meetings, I’ve been extremely disappointed in the exercise of the threat of resignation by otherwise well-meaning directors. It’s essentially I’m going to hold my breath and let myself turn blue until I get my way. So, I see these situations as not a principled action. But rather as a selfish action, either demanding that the director get his or her way or basically forcing attention on the director’s view as somehow more significant than those of others. It is a disappointing experience.
Bill Hayes: Would you say it is wise for a board to have a policy on the books that addresses director resignation and the proper processes for going about it.
Michael Peregrine: I absolutely do. I think it’s one of those things where you know it’s going to happen, and it’s really a part of the intra-board culture, I think, though, that there’s an understanding that, yes, we totally understand that there could be circumstances in which board members legitimately need to resign. We welcome that. We understand that. We support that. We have a process under state law for you to affect that, but here’s how that goes. But let’s also have an understanding if we’re going to make this work, if we to have effective intro board culture. We don’t need the 10-year-old threat to resign type of action, where it’s made for an unprincipled basis. And let’s just have an understanding here, and make that connection. If you do something like it, if you choose to make the threat of resignation, on the one hand, I suspect that yes, there can be legitimate reasons for threatening to resign. What I’ve seen in my experience is more illegitimate threats. And the board leadership can make clear that when you do that, if board leadership feels that you are wielding the threat as a selfish tool, well, we’ll circle back on that and direct our evaluations and the renomination process and things of that nature. There’s a way to address that conduct and let’s just, everybody be aware of that.
Bill Hayes: What legal considerations must directors keep in mind if they’re thinking about resigning from their board? Is it possible for a director to face liability connected to that decision?
Michael Peregrine: Well, let me kind of summarize what I think the law says and then where I think a law may go in that regard. There are, there’s some clear case law, and it’s been out there for quite a bit of time, which makes the statement that a director who resigns and essentially leaves the board in the lurch, who abandons the board with the resignation could be subject to liability. It’s the. Judge Strine, Pouda, Cole, Monty Python response. You can run away from the board, but you can’t hide. I think those are for extreme circumstances, and so I think the case law, where director liability for resignation is in extremely egregious circumstances, but we see extremely egregious circumstances powering all the care market litigation. Litigation. The other situation where I see the law evolving… And maybe I’m dead wrong on this, but I do believe that there will be an evolution of situations which attributes bad faith to certain types of resignation, where there be an inclination either by statute or case law, where directors, again, playing the 10-year-old, threaten to resign or cry wolf one too many times. And the courts in some type of subsequent fiduciary duty action view that as bad So I see the Pouda-Cole case is very clear. The bad faith arguments, I see that coming up on the horizon. I would not be surprised if we see that in the case law in Delaware, not Texas, in the next couple of years.
Bill Hayes: For directors who do resign, does the duty of loyalty remain with them after that resignation? What should they expect?
Michael Peregrine: I think that’s the hidden issue in all of this. Whether you resign legitimately or you resign again as a 10-year-old, your duty of loyalty, the courts have made very clear, continues on. Now, is it until death do us part? Maybe, but the courts haven’t tested that. But the concept is you owe a certain duty of loyal, but conflicts, especially this is a confidentiality aspect, and that doesn’t die when you leave the board. What the information that you came to as a board member needs to remain confidential regardless of whether you’re currently serving the board or not. And that can trip some resigning board members up in their subsequent board duty or subsequent employment. The stuff that you know from your prior board service you have to lock up and and not share that is owed that’s a loyalty that you continue to owe to the corporation you served as a Again, I think that’s a little landmine for directors who serve on lots of boards and move on from one to the other, especially if they’re perceived to be with companies that compete with each other.
Bill Hayes: That was Michael Peregreen of McDermott, Will& Emery. Next up, we’ll cover geopolitical conflict with Michael Montelongo. One of my great pleasures as editor-in-chief of directors and boards and private company director magazines is taking part in our editorial advisory board meetings. At these meetings, my job is basically to sit down with some of the nation’s most recognized directors and corporate governance professionals, ask them what they think the most important issues in the field are. Sit back as a brilliance and insight unspools. One of our editorial advisory board members is Michael Montelongo, a director of Civeo North America and a foremost expert on the topic of geopolitical conflict. Rather than keep all of the insight to ourselves, today we will speak with him about our current environment of geopolitical conflict across the globe. How it compares to previous points in history, and so much more. Michael, a little over two years ago, you wrote a piece for directors and boards titled How Global Upheaval Influences Board Decision Making. It spoke of the geopolitical crises going on at that time in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia, and what boards should be doing to help their companies deal with those flashpoints. With time having passed, we found out that those were not flashpoints, but more like new normals. Those crises still existing and new ones having popped up. So with the benefit of time passing, how do you think the nature of geopolitical risk has worsened, progressed, or evolved since 2022? Has your viewpoint on geopolitical risks been reinforced by what we’ve seen? Has it been altered?
Michael Montelongo: The short answer to your question, Bill, is the nature of geopolitical risk has evolved since we first addressed this topic. I penned the article that you cited in another one entitled, Patriotic Capitalism, to focus on the national security challenge that revisionist nations, Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, for example, represent to the United States and its allies. I said history did not end in 1989, but pause. Until the utopia we thought globalization ushered in was shattered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The US and its allies led our venerable insurance policy, aka our military dominance, lax, trading off guns for butter and allowing our deterrence posture to atrophy over time. That’s why we now have a redux of great power politics and conflicts, namely this century’s Cold War 2.0, as some commentators suggest. So, yes, what some consider flashpoints have proven to be enduring crises, shaping a new normal that businesses and governments must navigate. The Russia-Ukraine war, for example, has persisted far beyond initial expectations, embedding itself as a protracted conflict with lasting economic and security implications. Meanwhile, tensions in the Middle East have escalated further, particularly with the Israel-Gaza war, and broader regional instability. In East Asia, competition between the US and China remains a defining challenge. With Iran, or rather I should say with Taiwan, trade restrictions and technological decoupling continue to be friction points. To be clear, military confrontation has been a traditional form of geopolitical risk, and that’s what I focused on in my articles, because that form of risk is existential. Fast forward to the recent election in America and this new administration’s affinity for tariffs. As a tool for economic and diplomatic bargaining with trading partners, we now see geopolitical risk also encompasses threats to free trade and supply chains. What has become clearer over the past two years for me is that all these geopolitical risks are no longer isolated crises. They are interconnected and systemic. Great power competition, armed aggression, supply chain disruptions, energy security concerns, cyber threats have become enduring boardroom issues rather than temporary disruptions. Boards are realizing that geopolitical risks must be incorporated into long-term strategic planning rather than treated as one-off crisis. So in many ways, Bill, my viewpoint on this matter has been reinforced. The idea that companies must be agile, resilient, and proactive because of all of that I’ve just talked about. In their risk management is more evident than ever. Geopolitical risk requires continuous adaptation rather than reactive crisis management.
Bill Hayes: I’m interested in your views on geopolitical risk on the larger scale. Why is the situation around geopolitical risks so consequential, and how does it compare to times throughout history, whether that be the Cold War, World War II, or others?
Michael Montelongo: Very fair question, Bill, and I think geopolitical risk today is more complex, widespread, and unpredictable than at many points in modern history. While the Cold War, World War II, and other major conflicts, for example, had clearly defined rivalries, today’s geopolitical landscape is much more fragmented. It’s multipolar and shaped by new dimensions of power, such as cyber warfare, economic interdependence, and non-state acts. So yes, Bill, today’s geopolitical risk is absolutely consequential. We are operating in the unknown unknowns quadrant. Nothing else truly matters if this goes south or sideways. So for example, thanks to post-Cold War globalization, we have an interconnected global economy. Unlike in previous eras, today’s world is deeply economically interwoven. Supply chains stretch across multiple continents, making regional conflicts ripple across the global economy. The war in Ukraine, for example, didn’t just affect Eastern Europe. It disrupted global food and energy markets. Similarly, any military escalation in Taiwan could send shockwaves through global technology and semiconductor industries. We now have multipolar spheres of influence and power struggles. Unlike the Cold War. Which was largely a bipolar struggle between the US and the Soviet Union, today’s world is multipolar. The US, China, Russia, the European Union, and regional players like India and Iran all exert influence in different ways. This makes geopolitical calculations far more complicated. There isn’t a single dominant rivalry, but rather a web of competing interests. And now we have new frontiers of conflict, cyber, AI. In space, something that I can, all of these areas that I can relate to. Past geopolitical struggles were defined by military campaigns, espionage and economic sanctions. But today, nations can wage war in cyberspace, disrupt financial systems through hacking, and use AI to manipulate narratives in other countries. This digital dimension of geopolitical risk makes it more pervasive and harder to And being the Air Force CFO at one time gave me a first-hand appreciation for our considerable space capabilities that position us as the current dominant player. But China and Russia are racing very quickly to catch up and threaten us. International institutions no longer enjoy the cachet they once did. So during the Cold War, for example, institutions like NATO, the UN, and various Arms Control Treaties. Help navigate, or I should say mitigate, the worst risks. Today, many of these institutions face declining influence, with countries like China, Russia, and even some Western nations challenging global norms. The breakdown of these diplomatic mechanisms makes risk management so much harder. And finally, there are more frequent and overlapping crises. In the past, global conflicts often had distinct periods of tension followed by resolution or de-escalation, but today geopolitical crises don’t seem to resolve. They evolve and multiply. The Russia-Ukraine War hasn’t led to a clear settlement. Middle Eastern tensions continue to simmer, and U.S.-China competition remains a long-term structural challenge. Bill, the defining characteristic of today’s geopolitical risk environment is pervasive uncertainty. No clear end games to major conflicts. No dominant international order enforcing stability. No historical precedent for managing risks that range widely from cyber warfare to global supply chain disruptions. Again, for businesses, investors, and governments and boards, this means that geopolitical risk isn’t just a background concern. It’s a central factor in decision-making. Unlike past conflicts that had clearer boundaries, Today’s risks spill into markets, technology, and everyday life in ways that make resilience and adaptability so much more important than ever.
Bill Hayes: Why is our current landscape of geopolitical risks such an urgent concern for directors, boards, and their companies?
Michael Montelongo: Directly impacts nearly every facet of business strategy, operations and long-term growth. And again, unlike past periods where perhaps geopolitical risk was considered to be focused on specific industries like defense or energy, today, as I’ve mentioned, it touches all sectors. So let me elaborate. In supply chain, we find ourselves much more vulnerable and with business continuity as well. Global supply chains, for example, have been increasingly weaponized in geopolitical conflicts. So boards must ensure their companies have diversified supply chains resilience sourcing strategies and contingency plans in place to mitigate that disruption. There’s regulatory and compliance challenges. Governments worldwide are using sanctions, tariffs, and regulatory barriers as geopolitical tools. So, boards need to ensure robust compliance programs. Where new regulations can dramatically alter market access. We continue to have cyber security and data protection risks. Cyber warfare has become a central tool of geopolitical conflicts, unfortunately. So boards have a fiduciary duty to oversee strong cybersecurity measures, ensuring that organizations invest in threat detection, crisis response, and workforce training to protect against cyber threats. We continue, of course, to have market and investment volatility. Geopolitical tensions, of course, drive market instability. So boards must closely, with management now, to stress-test financial strategies, ensuring risk-adjusted investments and scenario planning for geopolitical shocks. Of course, we have stakeholder expectations and reputation risk. As you well know, Bill, more than previous eras. Some consumers, investors, and employees increasingly expect companies and CEOs and boards to take stands on global issues like human rights, environmental issues, and international conflicts. So boards must carefully balance these pressures, but while protecting shareholder value. And finally, we continue, of course, to have talent and workforce disruption. Global instability affects talent mobility, hiring, and workforce operations. So of course, boards need to be mindful of geopolitical risks that impact talent pipelines, especially for multinational corporations with operations in politically sensitive regions. Look, in response to all of this, there are several no regrets moves that companies can take to help address evolving issues and protect their organizations from protracted uncertainty. Perform scenario planning and risk assessments. Ensure political risks are regularly discussed in strategy meetings and engage in stress testing for worst case scenarios. Secondly, strengthen crisis governance. Create clear escalation plans for geopolitical disruptions, including who within the leadership is responsible for response coordination. Of course, enhance cyber resilience. Invest in cybersecurity infrastructure to protect against escalating state-sponsored cyber threats because there will be more of them and regular. Diversify your supply chains and market exposure. Do not be overly reliant on single-source suppliers from politically unstable regions. And finally, engage with policymakers. Consider having a stronger government affairs strategy. To stay ahead of policy changes that could potentially impact operations. Bill, here’s the bottom line. The fundamental dynamics that I outlined two years ago in the articles that you were talking about have not only persisted, but deepened. Boards today must recognize geopolitical risk is no longer an external concern. It’s a core business risk that must be integrated into governance strategy and long-term planning. Companies must institutionalize geopolitical risk management rather than treat it as an occasional disruption. Boards must be proactive, not reactive. Resilience in this environment is a competitive advantage. Given today’s landscape, companies with diversified supply chains, robust cybersecurity measures and flexible operations are gonna be in a better position to navigate all this uncertainty. And of course, we’re finding that economic and national security are increasingly intertwined with ongoing tensions between the U.S. And China, cyber threats, the weaponization of supply chains, companies have to align their strategies with evolving government policies and geopolitical realities. And finally, as I just mentioned, boards must balance all the pressures from the various constituencies that they have. We’ve got to be careful with growing pressure from shareholders, customers, and employees to take positions on global issues. I strongly advise directors to weigh these pressures carefully, ensuring that corporate responses align with long-term strategy while avoiding unnecessary reputational or regulatory
Bill Hayes: We just heard from Michael Montelongo. Next up are Susan Holliday and David Crosbie on cryptocurrency. If you were anything like me as it pertains to currency, you were probably just getting used to the idea of holding the chip up to the computer thingy when you buy your donut and coffee in the morning and totally miss the days when you would just hand over a dollar with a number on it and wait for the change. But remember that Brad Pitt quote. Cryptocurrency is getting a bit more complicated as well. Cryptocurrency is all the rage, with the street telling the tale of Fidelity Investments launching a new stablecoin, and the Economic Times detailing the SEC’s plan for upcoming regulations in the area. But how much does the board need to discuss, let alone know about cryptocurrency developments at this point? To find out, we are speaking with Susan Holliday. Executive in residence at Progress Partners and former director of Acrisure Re and David Crosbie, strategic advisor of Red Engage and former visiting fellow of the SEC. Susan, how much is the topic of cryptocurrency being discussed in the boardroom?
Susan Holliday: So I think it really depends on the sector and the company kind of where they’re at. So obviously outside of the kind of crypto native companies, it’s been a big topic in the world of payments for some time. So companies like Venmo, PayPal, they’ve been allowing users to purchase crypto tokens for several years. And I know you’ve also had directors from MasterCard at your events, for example, and they are using stable coins for some international payments operations. In terms of large banks, some of them have created private token services that have been extremely cautious about retail because of the regulatory risks, which we’re going to talk about a bit later. And recently I spoke with somebody actually from a community bank that was using stable coins and I was quite surprised about that. But it turns out that they have a big customer base of people and who have families and connections in Latin America. So again, a lot of international payments. So they were kind of pretty early adopters in this space. We’ve also seen a few insurance companies investing in Bitcoin in their treasuries, for example. Outside of these kind of particular financial services areas, I think not so much. And most generally, I would say the topic really came into the boardroom when there was concern about cyber attacks, and boards were discussing whether they needed to own Bitcoin in case there was a ransomware attack. So that was probably the only time it was discussed by majority of companies.
Bill Hayes: David, why do you think cryptocurrency is going to be more of a topic for boards going forward?
David Crosbie: So as a former technology expert in regulation with the Securities Exchange Commission, I worked on many of the large crypto cases over the last five years. FTX is a good example. And I saw the regulation going from really a fringe activity to center stage of what ACC was doing. And now you’re seeing it becoming the center of the new administration. That has effectively created an enormous carve out from traditional US securities laws. And that is why it’s important to boards. I can touch on three areas to start with. I can talk about memcoins, I can talked about stable coins, and I can talking about the betting and prediction markets. They’re all three areas where they have moved from being a regulatory grazer into being in a place where there’s regulatory clarity. Essentially, the Securities Exchange Commission issued a letter. Stating that, so the staff issued a letter stating that so-called Memcoins, coins like Doge, are not considered to be securities. And it effectively makes a way for companies to raise funds with a tradeable token that’s faster, cheaper, and with much lower regulatory requirements than any other way through the security system. In some ways, it’s effectively SPAC version 2. So boards need to be able to keep an eye on it because even if they don’t want to be able to do use it or be involved in it, one of their competitors or a new market entry might well and they will be operating in a very different way with a very difficult cost structure. We’ve already seen this occur in a couple of fringe examples. Another example might be stable coins as an intuitive payment rail. We’re seeing legislation going through Congress which would make them. Regulated in a way that’s acceptable for traditional banking sector. And you’re starting to see major banks like Bank of America look at entering this field. And their marketing muscle is like to drive strong adoption. So there’s going to be alternative payment systems, especially for international trade. So just the example that Susan came up with her community bank, where their customers were essentially selling money around the world. I think you’re going to see the same thing occurring. But what it’ll be both at the retail level. And probably far more importantly at the business level as a way of 24-7 transfer, particularly when you want to send money to smaller currencies where there’s less liquidity in the foreign exchange market. Another thing that you may well be seeing is tokens being issued as a ways of creating customer loyalty. There’s always been loyalty schemes such as airline miles, but now there’s this regulatory green light to dramatically increase their power and scope. So you could well see loyalty schemes where you would be able to take MI miles out, trade them, swap them, potentially even hedge them. The one we saw over the last election was predicting markets where crypto companies are effectively allowing people to either bet or hedge depending on how you view it. The outcome to events where traditionally there’s not be markets such as elections. So you… Could use those markets either as a source of information or as a way of offsetting risk. You could have taken a position on who was going to win the last election and you could have used that as part of your hedging strategy. Those are the examples which I see coming through at the moment. I see all of those as being important.
Bill Hayes: Susan, where exactly does board oversight for crypto issues fall? Is this an all board issue or one for a committee? And if the answer is a committee, which committee would be best equipped to handle it?
Susan Holliday: Yeah, so I think as we’ve just heard, crypto is now becoming much more of a strategic topic rather than something that’s kind of very fringe or very speculative or experimental. And companies may be looking at it in all sorts of different ways. So ultimately that means at some point it’s a full board topic, because if the company really wants to look seriously at the implications of crypto becoming more mainstream, all the board members need to know what’s going on. And I think now is the time to get familiar with these topics and kind of keep on top of the fast moving developments, because it’s going to be too late if someone has an idea to do something using crypto and the board has never thought about it and never disgusted and doesn’t have expertise. In terms of kind of more detailed work, I would say if a company wants to start getting involved with crypto in some way, the most obvious committee is probably risk. Now, as you know, I’m a big proponent of separate risk committees, but not all companies have one. And if they don’t, then risk is going to sit with audit. And for sure, there are some issues here about controls that need to be taken seriously if you’re getting involved with crypto, because we are talking about operating in a different environment from what companies and boards may be used to. If a company wants to do a deeper dive into what crypto might mean for them, this could also be a great topic if they have a technology committee and, for example. And either the board or the committee might want to bring in experts or potentially set up an advisory group to kind of do a bit more of a deep dive into what’s going on here and how it might affect them and then decide what’s relevant for the company to give further consideration to.
Bill Hayes: And David, why is it so important for boards not to be risk averse when it comes to crypto in particular?
David Crosbie: What we’re seeing is the rules around cryptocurrencies are becoming codified. You’re seeing that both in Europe, Asia, and in the US. And so it’s bringing crypto into the mainstream. We’ve got rules and regulations. They may not be the one that we expected even six months ago, but there’s now a much better set of rules and guidelines. And so the rate of adoption is going to accelerate. There’s going to be many more touch points between the crypto world and the traditional financial services world. And as I mentioned before, with, with organizations like Bank of America coming heavily into this space, it’s going drive adoption across the board. You’re obviously going to see different adoption, uh, take up, uh based on generational, uh acceptance. You there’s a younger generation where there is, they see no difference between physical and the virtual worlds, and they happily move backwards and forwards. And in many ways, crypto is the embodiment of physical money moved into the virtual world. And now what we’re seeing is those two worlds have merged for everybody. So it’s far more than just financial. It’s tightly wrapped around marketing and brand. It’s wrapped around companies’ brands. It is wrapped around entirely new brands coming to Just think of all the new words that are coming into usage, Memcoins being a good example, and how quickly a brand can be built around that. So it’s not just about buying Bitcoin or issuing tokens as a low-cost way of raising funds. Most companies probably not do these things, but there are so many other opportunities, in particular around fractalization of assets, this ability to be able to take a large liquid asset like a portfolio of property, which you would traditionally fractalize and sell into banks and private equity. You now have the ability to sell those into a much larger market. You are starting to see customer loyalty tokens and products coming into existence. You are seeing those wrapped around things like… Might be buying a designer handbag and you would get a virtual version of that handbag to operate in a virtual world and that would both be a guarantee of the authenticity of the physical item and also another manifestation of yourself. You see it around the things like the automatic payments for index-based insurance products, parametric insurance essentially. So in many of these cases, crypto is under the hood, but the end user will never really see it. But that doesn’t mean that the boards can’t ignore it. They need to understand and exercise oversight over what’s going on inside these wrappers. So when the marketing department comes up with an offer that’s wrapped around some form of token, the board needs to understand the financial implications of that token. They need to understand what would happen if it suddenly breaks free and starts being traded. You have to understand what happens if you have rapid rises or changes in the value. You also need to understanding what happens if there’s a problem with it, where there’s a security issue, the token gets stolen, the token get traded. There are a whole series of issues around the custody. That we’ll talk around at another time. So whenever board members think about these changes and developments, the adoption of crypto is accelerating and is here today.