How Hyperliquid Unlocks 24/7 Markets | Jake Chervinsky & MC Lader

Transcript

But I think we're at the very beginning of the hockey stick for decentralized perpetuals. And I think that per will basically take over the derivatives markets and DeFi will take over finance. So when you add those two things together, I do think Hyperlid has the promise to become not just the most successful crypto project of you know our generation but the most successful financial product of our generation. Nothing said on Empire is a recommendation to buy or sell any investments or products. This podcast is forformational purposes only and the views expressed by anyone on the show are solely their opinions, not financial advice or necessarily the views of Blockworks. Our hosts, guests, and the

Blockworks team may hold positions in the companies, funds, or projects [music] discussed. >> All right, welcome back everyone. I'm very very excited to have this episode. Um Jake is a longtime friend of the pod. He's been at come here a couple times talking about regulatory stuff. MC you are new to Empire but also really excited to have you on. Why don't you guys introduce yourselves? Uh I'll start. Jake is the now CEO of Hyperlquid Policy Center. We're going to be talking a lot about you know advocacy for DeFi on the hill. Um and MC your founder CEO of Native Market. So welcome to the show guys. Why don't you give you a quick introduction and then we'll set up the

discussion. >> Um, thanks for having me. Excited to be here for the first time. I'm MC Later, founder and co CEO of Native Markets, which is building the hyperlquid alliance stable coin USDH. Uh, before that I was president and CEO of Uniswap Labs for four years in 2021. um right after DeFi summer through lots of DeFi policy challenges um and a lot of growth and I started digital assets at Black Rockck bought Bitcoin 2011 was a special situations trader and investor at Goldman Sachs in the financial crisis which is what ignited my interest in DeFi and blockchain.

>> Awesome. And I'm Jake Travinsky. It's a pleasure to be back. I feel like I have a new job every time I talk to you Santi. Uh I am chief executive officer for the Hyperlquid Policy Center. And as a quick background, I was a lawyer in uh private practice for quite a long time doing regulatory compliance and government enforcement defense. I went all the way down the DeFi rabbit hole starting in 2019 as general counsel for Compound Labs where I helped to design the compound governance token and decentralized the compound protocol. Uh spent a couple years as chief policy officer for the blockchain association which is our industry's main trade group in DC. then spent a couple of years as chief legal officer for Variant uh an early stage venture firm and now very

pleased to be back in the policy world full-time and uh working on behalf of the hyperlquid ecosystem. >> Yeah. Well, look, we we've talked a lot about hyperlquid obviously uh what's been pretty interesting u since the uh Iran situation blowing up like a lot of people I think in Trafi is starting to say oh gosh like there's this there's these markets that exist over the weekend uh and and we can track oil and that's super interesting as an oracle. I've always felt that Trafi has used Bitcoin to to like hedge and and as a risk barometer. Uh but I'm curious like MC I mean you you come from uh you know what do your friends at Goldman special say? It's like are they talking about hyperlquid? Is this something that computes? Are hedge fun guys like paying attention or is it still mostly crypto natives that are just uh you know

punting oil because they they see Stan Dro Miller talk about copper and they want to long the [ __ ] out of it. >> Um I think Dreadfi uh folks investors are definitely paying attention. They may not be using it. they may not be actually using the chain the product trading the markets uh but that Bloomberg the Bloomberg articles and coverage uh from weekend before last uh were sent to me by people from all across my career and network who don't talk about crypto um saying like oh my gosh are these your markets are these this is what this is what you know you're working on talking about so I think that like 247 markets price discovery um per also as like an instrument and a product are getting a lot of attention from um both like it from everyone from HFT shops um to

individual hed to hedge funds and then tons of people who are just interested for their personal account, their PA. Um so yeah, I think it's a shift and look, we've we've all been in crypto for a long time. This that is new, right? It's and it's also more concrete and actionable than uh like LinkedIn posts about the future of tokenization which are also uh driven by a lot of potential possibility and real developments. But I think like something you can actually do, markets you can actually participate in that expand beyond crypto as an asset class is happening. >> Yeah. Jake, before I go to you, I mean just to give people some context, like RWA angle is interesting, right? I think it was Hip 3 that opened up markets around like gold, crude oil, silver, I think copper too. Uh now it's in certain days it's like almost 30% of the volume.

Um on the weekends we've seen pretty interesting spikes. Why why haven't why haven't your folks in Tradfi started using Hyperlid? like when you go talk to them like they're paying attention to it maybe as a oracle but they're not using it. Why is that? >> It's not all across the board. I mean there are there are serious trading firms that are trading on hyperlquid. Um uh so there are kind of global trading firms that are that are trading on hyperlquid. Um I think that part of what make what does make it appealing is that you just need stable coins in a price to create these markets and get started.

Right? So if you think about the trajectory of real world assets and tokenization, there's a lot of wood to chop um between what's possible today and having um what we think of as like the full stack of an asset on chain. So this is kind of a starting point. Um I think part of what is um a barrier for those who are new is honestly a lot of it's still just the user experience, right? If you're not a professional trading firm that is like bothering to set up your own operations and like instrumentation, then uh it's a little bit unfamiliar. and if you aren't already trading crypto similarly. Um and then I think a lot of the remaining questions about policy that I think are going to shift over the next year and and Jake will drive so much of that um also kind of leave some questions in

people's minds. >> Yeah. Well, just to give people both of you guys have fought three later agencies I think in your prior roles. Um Jake uh maybe over to you like you you you've you've like give us insight into the policy side like what drove your decision to you know lead this initiative from Hyperlquid um and and what are you seeing on the ground? >> Yeah, sure. And and I'll um I'll start by answering part of your last question, which is one reason why financial institutions aren't using Hyperlquid, at least from the United States, is that it's not lawful in the United States, to trade derivatives off exchange in a DeFi protocol like Hyperlquid. Right? So this is a a ver just a factor of how the commodity exchange act which is the law that the CFTC enforces operates which is

it requires basically all derivatives to trade on a centralized exchange that goes in and registers with the CFTC as a designated contract market or otherwise and it requires most people to use some type of broker like a futures commission merchant or an introducing broker in order to access the market and this just fundamentally doesn't work for DeFi. So this is why in part I wanted to get back into the policy fight because to me hyperlquid really is the promise of DeFi come true. You know, I've been working in this space for a number of years, and I was always looking for a product that people would want to use, not because they are ideologically aligned with, you know, the the crypto anarchist libertarian ideals of the early Bitcoiners, although, you know, certainly want those folks to use these

products as well, but to have a product where people want to use it because it's just fundamentally better than what Trafi can offer. And that, I think, is hyperlquid. And so the question is how do we sync up policy so that the most number of people in the world can benefit from that technology and that's a challenge that we have to take on in Washington and an opportunity that we have right now given the leadership of those three-letter agencies and four-letter agencies in the CFTC who now understand the opportunity in crypto and want to update laws and regulations so that people can use the technology.

Yeah, I think I've heard you say like look pers are pretty interesting novel instruments. Um, and arguably superior to like futures and options for many use cases, but like for for a listener that comes in and hears that and says, "I have no understanding what perks are." Like can can you just like give us a 101 on why that is and what you're seeing maybe from a from a policy perspective or like from a from a like why is this in instrument superior to a futures or options? Yeah. So I a couple reasons. Um but first I'll just say a a per is a superior financial product to a future or an option for basically all all ordinary traders, retail traders who don't want to have to

deal with the complexity of futures and options. First of all, futures and options are very difficult to price, right? They depart from the price of the underlying asset in somewhat complicated ways. They also have inefficiencies built into them. You have to roll futures as they expire if you want to keep the position open. For options, you have to think about how much leverage you're taking on. And all of the Greeks, which I I won't even, you know, try to to begin explaining because for most people, there's just no reason for them to try to understand h how options are priced and how the price changes over time. Per are a very simple product. They are designed to essentially perfectly track the value of the underlying asset without departing very much at all. and they allow people to get access to the economic exposure of that underlying asset also without

having to figure out buying and maybe custodying the spot asset itself. And they also allow people to take on leverage which you know for for many people is something that they need or want to do in a very safe and responsible way even though there may be other people who are doing that in a in a less safer or less responsible way. So pers really are a fundamentally better derivative than those other types of derivatives that are available right now through those regulated centralized exchanges that are up and running in the US. The other part of it is that DeFi is better underlying infrastructure than trady. Right? DeFi itself improves cost, improves speed, improves resilience and reliability for people who want to access the system who now don't have to deal with the additional fees of

intermediaries and the counterparty risk of, you know, dealing with um with the types of service providers that they have to rely on. So when you add these two innovations together, right, the innovation of the perpetual derivative with the innovation of DeFi, what you get is a fundamentally better financial system that is not just better for the individual trader, but is frankly an upgrade for the entire global financial system and global trade, which depends on the derivatives markets being very deep, very liquid, and very efficient. >> Yeah. MC, I want to go to you, but I guess like when I hear you say like these are superior instruments, like you know, we've been in crypto long enough to understand how interesting these are.

But when we go back to, you know, when the protocol was stress test back in October and you had the ADL, you know, to me that was like I think it was the first time um you know, hyperlquids like ADL kicked in. Um, and you could argue like some of the traders like just got closed out of their profitable positions and you know some people were just obviously caught off guard there and you could argue all day long whether it was right or not. I mean the protocol stayed solvent so it's still you know it worked but I think part of my appreciation like on the regulatory side is consumer protection and I think that's obviously something regulators really care about and it's always been one of those things

where like look crypto is very volatile asset class. Um, a lot of these things traders just come in here and click and don't really read the fine print. And that's not a problem of crypto, by the way, but just crypto gets scrutinized much more because, you know, for for a million reasons that we don't have to go into this pot. How do you balance the user experience and demand with proper guard rails um around leverage and around ADL and around like other limits that uh strike that balance or is your position just like let's be totally capitalist and less a fair and just like let animal spirits run a mock >> MC Jake for both of you guys [laughter]

obviously from both sides. You guys are having to think about this. I'm I'm so curious to get your >> I mean, look, I that's not like an area that it's an area that Jake in the policy center will have to kind of weigh in on and be working on with the hyperlid team, right? How they think about ADL, consumer protection, how DeFi intersects with um with uh regulation around the world. I can say from my perspective broadly on DeFi, like my view and especially at Uniswap was that like if you're building if you're building the best product, you want you want to retain your users. You want your users to grow. you don't want them to turn out because they're losing money or they lose trust or faith in how the system works even if it was because of their own choices that they had a bad

outcome. And so I think that like the best protocols teams um should build and over time proven to build uh for the best user outcomes and that includes uh what we think of as consumer protection. So like do people know the decisions that they're making when they make them? Um is it transparent kind of where you have risk? So, look, I think that there's still room for like research, evolution, experimentation, and like how these systems work. Um, and I think that now what I'm excited about this year is that like there's going to be an update of all these all this financial regulation and and financial infrastructure. um because we've had this kind of like um damn break over the last like year or so of like really no

um no kind of like collaborative progress in in introducing DeFi into either the regulatory framework or into um like traditional financial system and like financial services at scale that's changing now and so I think a lot of this stuff will start to get worked out and there are like professors at top universities around the world who are now writing papers about ADL and about how to think about what is there to be what is there to learn from the systems um that that users are more used to. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I mean I think MC totally nailed it and you know credit to her for you know building exactly the types of of products that she believes in and just described at native markets. I guess all I will add is to say for me the key to consumer protection is consumer choice.

Right? There is no such thing as consumer protection if the government is just telling people what they are and are not allowed to use. What we want is a robust market of competing products that give the consumer the choice to pick what works best for them. For some people, that's not going to be a system that subjects them to the risk of ADL. But for other people, it is. And what matters there is making sure they understand exactly what they are getting themselves into at the front end, right? And that is that is the beauty of DeFi in the first place is understanding what risks you are subject to so that if that risk materializes, you're not surprised by it. And I think it's very clear, you know, this is is no secret that the way that hyperlquid ensures its solvency is through ADL, which means that people who

are making money on a trade might not make as much money as they possibly could on that trade or as much as they could in a different venue. And to me, that is a totally fine and desirable trade-off to ensure the solveny of the protocol because the worst thing that happens from a consumer protection standpoint is people who are taking very limited risk in a protocol end up suffering losses because of some other risk created somewhere else in the system. And I think it's actually been quite amazing to see that ADL even though it is a fairly new and nent innovation and sort of new concept and way to manage risk in a system has been working really well right it has managed to ensure the solveny of the protocol.

It's not to say it can't be improved. Surely over the you know months and years it will be improved but I I think it would be a mistake to say this isn't how it's always worked in the past and therefore you know we should throw this out in the name of consumer protection by maintaining the status quo. >> Yeah. Certainly you can put to like uh if you're very profitable in a casino they'll cook you out. Um but uh I think we can all agree in a perfectly in in a transparent system like DeFi you at least can assess counterparty risk in real time as these things are trickling in and like anyone that went through 2008 or has seen the big you know you don't have a good understanding of counterparty risk. You don't have transparency into the solveny of your counter like Bear Sterns or Leman and I

think at least I definitely agree with you. So, so what is the just focusing a little bit on the policy side? Uh I do hear you like we had Rebecca on a couple weeks ago talking about the Clarity Act and the state of that. Not a lot was discussed around DeFi, but give us more uh insight into the state of DeFi regulation and what can we expect uh over the next, you know, one or two years in this crypto friendly administration. >> Sure. Well, uh, you know, not surprised you didn't get deep into DeFi in talking about the Clarity Act because the Clarity Act isn't about DeFi, right? The Clarity Act is about centralized spot markets and specifically it's about how do we properly regulate the issuer of a

new digital asset, right? Someone who is creating and selling a digital asset in an ICO or something like that. And then how do we regulate the secondary markets, right? the centralized exchanges and custodians and brokers who are in some way involved in trading in that asset. The bill is not meant to regulate DeFi. It's just far too early still now for us to understand where are the risks in DeFi. How do we address them through proper regulation in the form of federal statute in a way that is very unlikely to change for the next hundred years. Right? If we're going to pass a market structure bill just like the securities laws from the 1930s, we're going to be stuck with this thing for a really long time. So, we've got to make sure we get it right. So, what

we're trying to do in the Clarity Act is legislate what we really understand, which is what is the risk of a centralized exchange that has custody of its users funds and is maintaining a market in a very traditional sense. What we're not trying to do is regulate software developers who are building non-custodial protocols. And right now that is the sort of key uh challenge getting the Clarity Act across the line in the Senate among a few other issues that are still being worked out like stable coin yield for example. A main question is, are we going to put into statute protections for developers of non-custodial software so that they are not misclassified as money transmitters that would be required to KYC users,

something they are fundamentally incapable of doing on a pseudonmous blockchain, and to protect them from being mclassified as securities or commodity derivatives intermediaries, forcing them to perform functions that again they are not capable of doing because they do not have the same level of control over smart contracts as a traditional intermediary does in the traditional financial system. This is all still getting worked out in the Senate. I I think it's absolutely crucial that we ensure that those protections are in place because there is no crypto market structure if there's no useful crypto in the world. And in my view, there's no useful crypto in the world if we don't protect DeFi. So that's a key issue that's getting worked out in the bill right now.

>> ZKYNC is the bank stack of Ethereum. ZKsyncs Pervidium is the only Ethereum secured platform that is purpose-built for institutions that demand privacy, compliance, [music] and full control of their data. ZKSync enables financial institutions to [music] thrive in the digital assets economy by launching and monetizing their own chains, tokenize real world assets, build programmable markets, and settle crossborder in real [music] time. Visit zksync.io io to learn more about the bank stack of Ethereum and book a demo.

>> Um MC, I want to get more insight in native markets and that whole process because we covered it here and it felt like it was definitely favored by the community even though you had everyone under the sun want to win that uh bid. U give us more insight into that process. this I mean there there's a couple things that I want to double click on but just as a high level so folks that are not as familiar like maybe just spend a minute on native markets like your conception of it like what is it and then we can go into a little bit more. >> Yeah. So I I left Unisoft last summer to start native markets because I felt like there was this convergence happening that we're all experiencing now between uh DeFi um which I as Jay said it was so well like is about ultimately to me like

more open uh competitive and and inexpensive transparent financial services just convergence between DeFi, fintech, CFI and tradi. And it was kind of like all going to happen. And uh it was an opportunity to start a um to start a stable coin company or a new sort of like on truly onchain native from day one. Um uh what you might think of as almost a financial institution but doesn't look or feel anything like one that's building that's building products um onchain on DeFi taking advantage of that and that sort of like lower cost that that enables. Um and so I had uh gotten to know um Hyperlood's infrastructure from a competitive perspective just being like what is going on over there? How is this growing so fast? Why is it getting so much adoption like what should uh we know my

prior company be doing to kind of make sure that we are um attracting retaining users and was just incredibly impressed with how performant the chain was. And if I, you know, reflect on when I I started digital assets at Black Rockck in 2015. Uh, and so much of what we wanted to build then still hasn't materialized is only just now on the horizon because blockchains have been too slow, too expensive. Um, and have had a lot of market structure challenges and so hyper liquidized fast, super fast. um no uh network fees subsidized by the trading fees, so free transfers um uh cheap overall and um and having real liquidity and a clear market structure was incredibly compelling. So I was interested in building on Hyperlquid. That's why I decided to

build on it. Um the process you're talking about for USDH, the ticker. So the Hyperlquid team created a competitive RFP process to get the USDH ticker. Um I had just I you know I selfunded the company. We were working in my apartment in my kitchen table. We didn't have a website. Um but we uh that my co-founder Max was deep in the hyperlquid community and had been wanting to build a hyperlquid stable coin actually for like six months and had tried before. Um and that was how I uh reached out to him, found him. And so uh he and I basically our approach well our competitors and the people bidding in the process had a lot of resources um and um uh a lot of other products on other chains but we wanted to start the

company specifically to build a hyper a stable coin for hyperlquid and spent that week literally reaching out to any and every validator meeting them all talking to all the major token holders like running it like a a speedrun you know campaign basically to just say look this is an opportunity to bootstrap a whole new stable coin company with a team that is like DeFi native committed to DeFi and will prioritize the product. Um, and so we ended up winning and I think look I mean it was it was really it was an incredibly like intense uh week and process because like it wasn't clear what the governance process was going to be. Um wasn't clear how any of it was going to work. Um uh but I really appreciated it because I met so I met like so many more members of the hyper

local community and ecosystem rapidly all at once in a week, right? And I was so struck by um how kind of like rational and committed the user base was like the validators and also those who were um uh kind of especially early adopters and really wanted um kind of a a community that was like a little disillusioned by a lot of crypto so far but still wanted to believe in something and felt like u this could be a platform that pushed through a lot of what hasn't um led to materializing all the stuff we've hoped for for a long time. >> Yeah. Maybe to unpack a little bit of that, like what is the argument to have a native stable coin where you have USDT USDC?

Um, like why why do you need to have like USDH in this case? >> Well, at the time there wasn't another st there wasn't a stable coin that was actually like minted on the chain, right? So, the USDC was all bridged. Um, and like when we were launching Uni Chain at Uniswap, like we almost set our launch date around when we would have native stable coins because it felt like a a risk that we thought serious market participants wouldn't be comfortable with. So that for one was important. It seemed like that might uh that that was a gap. Um, the second was to share economics with the ecosystem. So we proposed that we'd share um half the yield uh which we do um to buy back the hype token. That's different from the other stable coins that are on

Hyperliquid. Um, so yeah, it's e it's economically aligned and consistent um as well as like lower risk uh and um and built designed and designed specifically for it specifically for per which as we said before are just basically stable coins and prices. >> Yeah. And so it really comes down to if you're trading in and out of pairs, oil, uh, you know, some other stuff in hyperl, you go back to USDH versus USDC or some other um, and and if you do that, you know, if you're a long-term holder of Hype, then you benefit because you you guys are directly aligned to, you know, sharing some of the interest in buying back Hyperliquid. Is that the appeal for traders?

>> Yeah, basically that's it. And then we also are we're building now our um uh we'll launch some products over the course of the next month that will make it like really easy just like a lot easier to like uh mint and redeem. So we've onboarded about 100 institutions and um power users so far who have uh instant free mint redeem. So you can go from your bank to the to the market within a couple minutes. Um and that is a much faster more seamless user experience than than you get with others. Um I think recently and last question Jake I want to let you chime in here. Uh I believe Circle um you know just got native deployment on the Hyper EVM. Um and how does that like why why would uh I guess what do the numbers

show in terms of like USDH versus USDC and and like since you got the mandate like how is that like what terms of liquidity volume have you guys seen since then? So USD is only supported in the hip 3 markets spot market. So if you think take a step back. So hyperlquid is hyper EVM which is um many different D5 protocols, AMMs um lending and borrowing um uh options. Uh so USD is used in all of those protocols. It's permissionless like USDC and USDT. And then um Hyper Hyper Core has the hip three markets. um and they choose one margin asset and seven of the 12 or so that have launched or are launching chose USDH as their margin asset. Uh and then the core uh

per that are approved by the validators are are still in USDC. Um and then HIPP 4 which is forthcoming outcome markets um will be in uh in in USDH. Uh so today look I mean today our growth has been all organic. Um many stable coins that are out there today are are um are you know growing in a lot of ways that are like not that sustainable frankly and not organic but are growing and all organic. It's about 90 million of TVL and just the hip h three markets. >> Got it. On the regulatory side Jake maybe you want to chime in here before I go there. Yeah, if you don't mind. I and and just to add a little bit of my experience um watching MC do her work and then also watching the Hyperlquid community, you know, embrace native

markets, but also how the hyperlquid community um has expressed sort of its vision for where it wants to go. And this this honestly is is one of the most important reasons why I decided I wanted to commit this, you know, next phase of my career to Hyperlid. You know, I've been in DeFi for a really long time, and I have not felt energy from a DeFi community like I have in Hyperlid in a really long time. And I I actually was involved a little bit uh when, you know, MC was putting forward the proposal because there was a lot of discussion in selecting the the winner for the USDH ticker about regulatory compliance and who was going to be best suited to satisfy the requirements of the Genius

Act. And there was frankly a lot of misunderstanding in that conversation about what it meant to be genius compliant quote unquote even though we still don't actually know what the rules are for the Genius Act. And so I you know made a few uh posts on on Twitter about this and it was just honestly amazing to see how number one people were deeply engaging with the substance of this choice and number two truly this was decentralized governance in its best form. It reminded me of of the very early days back in DeFi summer when decentralized governance was this, you know, bright idea that we had that we wanted to see come to fruition. And that really is the the energy in the hyperlquid community. I think it's it's unlike anything else in crypto today.

And I also think just to to address, you know, why do we need something like USDH? In addition to the reasons that MC said, I really think that Hyperlid is this uh sort of best form that we've seen of a group of unaffiliated dispersed developers, right? People who are not working at the same company, a decentralized group of developers building the same project together with the same vision for what it should become, right? And the way that the Hyperlid Labs team describes this and and the community does is the house of all finance, right? And it also reminds me of early days of Ethereum where the idea was look, we're all building this thing. We're not building it literally together because we're not working at the same company, but we're building

this this sort of grand vision of what this world's computer is going to be together. And I think, you know, that's that's worked to some degree with Ethereum, but I think one challenge is having sort of the same ideal of what you are driving toward. And in Hyperlid, there is the ideal of being a blockchain that can house any type of financial activity that can be produced on a public blockchain in a permissionless and decentralized way. And it's so important to have a stable coin built in that is missional aligned with Hyperlid's goals. And that's why personally I'm really excited for Native Markets to be building USDH.

>> Yeah. I mean, I'm going to get to it, but like I think Hyperlid's not offered to us people. Um, and you know, I want to address maybe the elephant in the room here, which is like how do you how do you like you have this USDH stable coin? Uh, I believe you guys don't have a US entity. Uh, Hyperlord has no US entity. So, how do you tread that line? Like, I mean, how do you how are you compliant? I appreciate like the Genius Act like is now law, but there's still a lot of things that need to be worked out. But um walk me through the that piece like you know you have the stable coin that is I think custodied by Black Rockck and Superstate. It's being

offered to people that u presumably are not in the US. Um how does that how does that work with the current like Genius Act? >> It's the same as USDC and Circle and every other stable coin, right? So it's like you can have a product that's available globally to users around the world but the bet I mean look our we put forward in the proposal that we were going to offer a genius ready um because as Jake said the genius rules and regulations haven't been fully written but genius ready um stable coin because our view my view was that like it would be important in the long run to become to be fully regulated in the US to have massive adoption. So even if you're not being offered to US users today, then you still want to be planning for that future where um where either there's

more clarity in the US for for per um uh but certainly that stable coins are are now have a regulatory regime that the US has led. So it's the same as USDC. So USDC is genius ready as well. Um so uh USDH is issued um by uh bridge which has money transmitter licenses and um has submitted for um the OC has just gotten the contingent approval for the office of the control of the currencies license to be a stable coin issuer. Um and then uh they and then we use as you said the reserves are managed by Black Rockck and Superstate for the onchain comport portion. Um it's custody of JP Morgan uh as access to um uh to banking rails in the US. So you can have a completely US compliant stable coin that is available

in in other countries. Um the the barrier is US users accessing hyperlquid uh the protocol and the front end. It's kind of future proofing I guess is what I would say. It's future proofing. >> Yeah. And and maybe also just to drill down and be a little bit more precise. Hyper core the perplex is not available to users. But if you say hyperlquid, you might also mean hypervm, which is an EVM compatible chain with many different products, many of which most of which are perfectly lawful for US persons to use. Right? USDH, as MC was saying, is perfectly lawful on Hyper EVM for anyone to use. The the reason why Hyper Core, which is again the Perex, is not available in the US, is because of this

issue that the Commodity Exchange Act does not allow derivatives to be traded off exchange. Now, that's something that we think that the CFTC has all the statutory authority that it needs to solve, but they haven't done that yet. And so, for that reason, there's a geoence on the hyperlquid front end to the DEX. But otherwise, you know, the laws are the same for Hyperlquid as they are for Ethereum and Salana and, you know, every other public permissionless blockchain. Much of that financial activity is perfectly lawful to be conducted in compliance with US laws and regulations. And we're moving forward just like you know others are moving forward with the SEC to get tokenized securities up on chain in a you know lawful and compliant way with you know opening up access for Americans to trade

purpose on hyperlquid as well. Yeah, maybe a question. This is obviously and I appreciate a lot of these proto like it's not just hyperlquid issue. It's like so on the front end piece. Um, so hyper liquid like that can't be used by US persons like and so can you walk me through like USDH like say that you have a p a US person that is used and hypervm or whatever and then they start using hyperlquid with a VPN or something and you you know that I don't know if that's the case like you have purview into that um but presumably like if if a user KYC's somewhere you know they're US people and they they c they have USDH in their wallet and then you see wallet

activity go in a hyperl liquid. Um, do you have a responsibility at that point to either censor, notify them, uh, report them? Because in that case, it's it's a gray area. I appreciate a lot of the stance in crypto has been like, hey, look, like we're not going to police it. Like the laws are the laws. We'll put a terms of service. You try to geoffence it, but people find a way to work around that. Um, as we've seen, I think the threeletter agencies would go after and have a problem with that, especially well- resourced like well-known entities like you know, some of which are your prior firms. So, like what what is the what is the responsibility of an issuer

or a protocol at that point if you know that your user is based in the US and is still using your protocol? >> So, so I'm not MC's lawyer, but I am happy to take take a first shot at that. Um, and I'm obviously not anyone's lawyer who's listening to this, so don't take any of what I'm saying as legal advice. Everyone everyone knows the drill. But I I I will start by saying um there is no obligation in US law currently for a stable coin issuer to identify the holder of a stable coin other than at the point of minting or redeeming the asset. Right? So, and this is true for every single stable coin issuer. There is no such requirement as end-to-end KYC for holders of stable coins. This is something that's been pro

proposed at some points and it's possible that in the implementation of the Genius Act, there may be additional KYC obligations beyond just the point of minting and redeeming. But my personal view, and again, this is my my personal view, not legal advice, is that it is not and should not be the obligation of a stable coin issuer or any other market participant in crypto to surveil without a warrant the financial activities of any other person unless they are obligated to do so by law. And I'm sure that MC will tell you that she's got the best lawyers in the world as as she definitely does and that they are absolutely responsive to requests by law enforcement. And I'm sure they're doing everything that they're asked to do. But I do not believe that it is our obligation to overcomply and to invade the privacy of people who are trying to

use these decentralized public and permissionless financial systems. So I'll leave it there, MC. I'll I'll let you answer the question for yourself. >> Yeah, I actually have a law degree, but uh I'm not my own lawyer. Um uh so look, Circle and USDC really led the way in many ways on this. And so again, like there are other stable coins that are on Hyperlook with all the same considerations. So stable coin issuers, as Jake said, um do have some obl if if you want to be genius compliant, you do have obligations. you have obligations to make sure that you're fully backed one to one, that you're managing reserves in certain ways um and that you um uh can uh freeze um uh for in compliance with US sanctions, but you don't have an obligation uh to know who

was holding your asset. In fact, you can't, right? Because um you don't uh you don't necessarily know all the information about about wallets. And that's consistent across stable coin issuers, including those that are genius ready or genius will be genius compliant. So uh we follow all those same rules and so have that um same level of compliance. Um again so uh but I also want to add there's a lot that you could I think USD will expand well beyond what we think of as hyperlquid today. I mean Hyperlquid is an extremely performant cheap chain and there's tons of other applications for stable coins uh and not least among you know payments and there's so much excitement about payments and uh transfers and hyperlord are actually free because again the cost of the chain is is covered by the fees generated from trading. So I think

there's a tremendous amount there's a lot we can do and build um with USDH that is actually well beyond pers and again um the vast majority of um uh well not the vast majority but like much of the activity today is in hypervm and so it's not even actually uh in pers. >> Yeah. By the way I mean the reason I asked that question is long-term investor in DeFi and I get asked this question by founders quite a bit. Um but uh nonetheless I'm curious now transitioning a little bit more maybe a lighter points on the conversation like what what is I mean both of you guys have dedicated now your careers to building on Hyperlid um we touched on this earlier but give us the like what is your view on where Hyperlid goes over the next kind of three years obviously

seen a lot of activity on with HIP 3 uh but yeah just kind of curious um what you on the both not just policy side but also So just where markets go like markets on everything kind of thesis. >> Yeah. Look, I think Hyperlid's already leading will continue to lead in like 24/7 markets on uh on everything, but especially for what we think of as real world assets. Um and because you can have spot and derivatives essentially in the same uh in the same um surface area that that will be so much more effective in driving adoption of like onchain trading and uh and DeFi's infrastructure. So um I think what we what we do to get there is we know in native markets we're trying to build

simpler user experience and also stable coin applications. Um uh Jake's work is going to be critical in um helping make sure that uh the benefits of DeFi and Hyperlid um are represented and understood and can be adopted broadly. Um so yeah, I think in a couple years it's just going to keep growing and I think we'll have more um certainly more builders, but most importantly like more liquidity and more users from all over the world. >> Yeah. Um, I agree with that. I I think that often in crypto we try to come up with the next big thing and to me hyperlquid is already doing the thing that is going to become absolutely massive which is decentralized perpetual derivatives trading. I like I said I think perdally better derivative than futures and options for the vast

majority not everyone but for the vast majority of traders. I think DeFi is a fundamentally better underlying infrastructure for finance than basically everything in tradi. I think very very few people are aware of the opportunity in hyperlquid and very few people are currently able to access it both because of US policy but also because of the user experience uh uh improvements that are needed as as MC was saying but I think we're at the very beginning of the hockey stick for decentralized perpetuals and I think that per will basically take over the derivatives markets and DeFi will take over finance so when you add those two things together I do think hyperlid has the promise to become become not just the most successful crypto project of

you know our generation but the most successful financial product of our generation. I think if you add to that Hyper EVM which is an open and permissionless environment for other developers to come and build their own products that benefit from being in that same environment connected to a fully onchain central limit order book something that we have not seen succeed in DeFi before. There's no telling what other types of financial applications will will be invented by the random developer who no one saw coming. And so the perplex itself is an unbelievably massive opportunity. And then there will be other unanticipated unexpected amazing opportunities that flow from that as well.

>> God damn Jake. I mean you're hyperbolic language there but not very lawyerly but I get it. Look, I want to get both of your take on like what Jake on the policy side like what will it take for Hyperliquid to like be available for US users. I mean obviously like it was early investment poly market like they now enter the US after many many years of not being able to serve US customers. Um what's it going to take for US people to be able to interact with Hyperlid? >> It's a great question. Um I I think it requires rule making first from the CFTC and then potentially from the SEC as well. And um without giving you all the nuance of the legal issues, as I mentioned, the Commodity Exchange Act requires at this moment derivatives for

the most part to trade on centralized exchanges that can register as a designated contract market, which no DeFi protocol can do. So, for starters, what we need to do is for the CFTC to write new rules that apply to onchain markets that essentially say, "Here are all the risks that we were trying to address with the rules that are imposed on DCMS when they go into register. Here is how we can address the same underlying risks in a decentralized environment without having that same type of registration." Right? The goal is not let's just take on risk that we didn't want to take on before because it's too bad and the opportunity in DeFi is just too great. Right? That that's not the argument. The argument is that

DeFi by virtue of its technological nature inherently addresses many of those risks without the need for imposing regulation on an intermediary. We then need to take that same concept and apply it to every other level of the tech stack. So, for example, that would also apply to the provider of the front-end interface who is not acting as a traditional introducing broker or futures commission merchant. They're not taking custody of user funds. They're not exercising discretion on behalf of the user how the user's assets should be invested. Nonetheless, it may be that there are some regulatory compliance obligations that should apply in order for the front-end provider not to be registered with the CFTC. And then what

we need is an exemption from the requirement that the contract itself must trade on an exchange. Right? What we have to say is these things don't need to be on surveiled intermediated systems in order for the regulator to have a good understanding of where the risks are. Because in this environment, a public blockchain, the regulator can just look at the chain and see every single transaction in real time and assess the risk in that way, not by getting reports from, you know, the development team that built the protocol. So there's a package of exemptive relief that we need from the CFTC in order to open up the US market for access to DeFi purp. We then need the same thing from the SEC when it comes to equity per, right? And as we've

been talking about HIPP 3, equity per super exciting from a technical perspective really very similar on hyperlquid to commodity per right the main difference is just what is the reference asset underlying the perp but in US law very different right the federal securities laws treat securitybased swaps very differently from commodity derivatives so we need the SEC to do that work as well. >> Yeah. Um MC, I want to get your perspective. I mean, stablecoin wars are all the rage uh these days. I mean, there's just uh a a lot of people have strong opinions about how stable coin, you know, who's going to dominate. Uh what is your I

mean, you started and at the time there's a plethora of competitors. Uh you've been very f I think the only one that's been super focused. I mean, I guess like Tron had I mean, US USDT like Tether had Tron and Tron was instrumental in in in you know, USDT getting adopted and that's why in large part in my estimation they've held like pretty big market share because they've done a lot of the heavy lifting. Um USDC is kind of fighting back and I think they've gotten some interesting stuff cooking. But I'm curious what is um what's your view on stable coins? Like is it is this going to be like a igopoly? Is this going to be a monopoly or is there is it going to just be a plethora of stable coins? How do you compete? Is the yield going to be like Tether obviously doesn't share yield

with users? That that doesn't matter. So, I'm curious like as a builder like how do you see the stable coin market evolving? And um yeah, what gives what gives defensibility to your protocol and and your stable coin versus others? >> Yeah. Well, first of all, it's so much fun to be building stable coin and instable coins right now because it's changing so much. Like, it's changing so much and so fast. And it's like as like a founder and a builder, it's just it's like so energizing to build where like the industry structure, the market structure, like the rules, um what users want, what the use cases are, like are all changing really fast all at once.

And I mean just think as you mentioned, there's essentially a duoplay right now of two two leading players and they have different business models. And so that to me demonstrates the the range of opportunity to build stable coin businesses, right? if the two leading players actually make money in different ways from somewhat different user bases. Uh and we have only just begun the potential that was unlocked when Genius passed and now every person or any person around the world with an internet connection can have access to a dollar account. Um, so I think there's but there's still a huge amount of innovation and change that has to happen to go from today's level of use case which is really still for mostly for crypto trading even though some others are growing and collateral and crypto markets to the total addressable market that you know people talk about on

Twitter and social media uh where you know any and all payment flows uh any and all the world's collateral can be stable coins. There's a bunch of stuff that has to change. We need to have ways to have customizable um uh transparency or confidentiality, right? If you think about moving different kinds of money flows and use cases, uh we need to you need to address for the fact that these transactions are permanent and have some recoverability. You need to address data the fact that data doesn't necessarily move with the stable coin uh the way that it does with payments or other kinds of um of um of money movement. Um so anyway, that that's just a handful.

And then also how do you couple it with like identity and other forms of um uh other forms of um uh things that ultimately achieve compliance for different kinds of actors who have different compliance obligations. So that's a lot of those are big areas of innovation that no single player has cracked. Uh there are now individual companies springing up to attack them. Um uh but we have to as as a as a field as a collection of companies address all of those to realize like the full potential of stable coins and that can be like all the world's money. So it's pretty big. Um, and in Miami, the most important thing was focus and focusing on a user base and a uh user base and an ecosystem that was going that had the right sort of um had a use case that was already uh where they already needed a

stable coin that was focused on designing for it for the user for the uh markets. Um but that was going to grow. Yeah, I'll tell you from our perspective like my whole thesis is I want to buy a traditional business and slap it with this technology and make it more efficient like deeply unsexy businesses. But um in our fieldwork uh I think I think the crypto industry like overestimates where stable coins fit in in in many many businesses. uh and the AI will hallucinate will tell you yeah you can really make you know FX markets like FX business is really really efficient and and at you know I can tell you from from our work like there's there's a very narrow but very specific cases where a stablecoin really does wonders for a business um but I'm curious like on the B2B side I think

you're seeing a lot of traction I think that's where like if you look at the Artemis reports like that's where most or the visa on chain analytics reports like there there's just a lot of really interesting stuff happening on the B2B side uh treasury management side. Um, what is like your most controversial take on stable coins that perhaps other people just good or bad, right? I'm just kind of curious like you live and breathe this 24/7, but what is the most you hear someone talk about stable coins, you're like, "Yeah, that's definitely wrong." Um, or or or something that is very underappreciated that perhaps we should discuss here.

>> Um, I maybe two. One is that like I think that in time it's not clear that it's it's not clear if we'll have just Genius as the regulator global regulatory framework. Like we might have others pop up that um are appropriate for different stable coin applications. So that's part of why uh we built USD. we're not we didn't we're not pursuing becoming an issuer ourselves because it could be that um as genus rules are written and as use cases develop uh there are you know whether it's other governments uh and money centers around the world that come up with other rules um I think that that's not done that's one um and then um yeah look I I think that the other I would say is that like

many stable coin business today are are destroying their business at the outset [laughter] and so like right they're just like not they're just trying to um they're assuming that power law rules from software are going to apply to what they're doing and they're giving away everything or they're not they're not building sustainably. Um, and I think that that will lead to a bunch of companies that like don't necessarily have product market fit because you can't tell. >> Yeah, Jake, I want to go to you in a minute, but I I've heard this criticism from Trady folks which is like honestly stable coins like I get it, they're a digital receipt, but they still have a whole set of like you know you've seen the meme of like like you know a huge complicated machine. It's like threading by like one single thing and it's very

fragile. There is still risks when you talk about like stable coins whether the issuer the custody of it the you know deep pegging event you have to trust the audit and the reserve backing. There's like a number of things that look not like impossible or not like you know they still make stable coins great in many ways. Um, but I'm curious like say that you couldn't deploy in h on hyperlquid and you had to do totally something else. Where would you be going and and and why?

>> Um well I think when I was like really pretty focused on this uh and I just was focused on it and I didn't really think about what I would do next. Uh what I would do next probably is find another I think that you need to find a specific use case that like already has some level of adoption where being uh being faster, cheaper is going to make a difference. Um I think that those will emerge with real world assets and tokenized assets but they don't quite exist yet. I think payments is um uh is really crowded but you need to have a very specific kind of uh niche corridor use case set of users. Um, so, uh, yeah, I probably would have looked next at at other like scaled markets and trading markets just because also that's what I'm interested in. It's my background.

Um, and I think that like payments, the distribution questions and payments, um, there are other players that might have an advantage in distribution. Um, a lot of the incumbents, >> Jake, before I go to you, I want to double click on something you said earlier around you feel like a lot of stables are destroying their business model. I think we certainly saw that in the RFP like everyone was just willing to go to bare minimum or lose money on to win the contract but they didn't. Um I think like Agors of the world and PayPal even came out of dormcancy and just said hey guys we want to throw our hat in the ring and um is this a race to the bottom when it comes to stable coin like like the core business model of a stable coin issuer?

Basically, a lot of people are saying, look, it the the fee compression is very real and you just sort of have to believe the value added services on top of that will like make up for it, but it's very much like on the come. Um, I'm curious like I is that going to be the case that like future stable coin like the market just becomes more competitive. So, if you have distribution or if you own a customer relationship or you're very entrenched in an ecosystem where you have loyalty like that makes up for itself. But um or is it just the case that it will just continue to be very very much competitive for for just the underlying the traditional business model of the stable coin issue.

>> Are you asking me? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The economics issue I think you could argue like very much have been degrading even though Tether has continued to just maintain its dominance. Everyone else is kind of fighting for that pot that will grow for sure but the take rate I guess goes down. uh um and you're sharing the interest and yeah >> but I think it should like I mean so there's two different ways there's a way to say the take rate goes down in the way that it should because of competition and then there's also where are where are um where are teams paying to grow in a way that is like really unsustainable right and those are two different things and that was I was trying to say when you asked me um some of my takes is that I think you're seeing a lot of players who are trying

to just achieve a certain level of distribution and are paying for people who don't really actually want their stable coin don't really want to use it Right. And so um I don't think that will last. Uh but I think that like yeah you have to you have to um get to a certain level of scale and not pace and growth or keep your operations extremely efficient. Um but you can do that right. Uh and as you said there are more operations and there certainly more risk management in uh launching and running a stable coin than uh maybe was broadly recognized in the market in like the fall when many many companies all want to launch their own stable coins. But I think that's being digested and internalized quite quickly. Um and so uh you know many of the branded stable coins um haven't gotten tremendous

haven't gotten that much adoption um and are I think not necessarily going to going to pay for themselves. Um so uh so look I think we'll see we'll see these sort of like closed loop stable coins that will work as as driving efficiency or driving incremental revenue for fintech businesses or for financial institutions. Um I think that uh we'll see some that have a very specific focus distribution focus um like like we do like USDH does. Um I mean a lot of what you said where you said that you know you guys are integrating stable coins or um uh blockchain and crypto in um more traditional businesses and see the limitations of the use case. That's what what I was trying to get at when I said there's actually a lot of innovation that has to happen to make stable coins like appropriate as the solution for a

lot of money movement or um uses of dollars today. Yeah, Jake, you've been quiet for a while and that's my fault, but I'm curious like as we round up the the app like um anything on the policy side that is top of mind or you're really excited about or that we haven't discussed? >> I uh am happy to be quiet and and you know I'm not an expert on stable coins and I love listening to people who know more than me talk about them. Um because I do think that there the first obvious use case for crypto and I do think that we underestimate as I said before how much activity will move on chain and just how obvious it is that you know these assets will get used. The business model of course is is a different matter. I think to that point we're

underestimating how much of the financial market will move on chain thanks to the work that the SEC has been doing over the last year. So, you know, uh, Chair Atkins and the crypto task force for the last year or so have been working on project crypto. They've been very explicit that the goal of project crypto is to move the financial markets on chain and they've been working on a number of different uh priorities, but two that I think are are worth calling out that hopefully we'll see come to fruition fairly soon. One is around uh token taxonomy. of some sort of safe harbor or distinction between what types of assets are securities under the Howy test, something that thankfully we've not had to talk about as much as we used

to over the last year, and [snorts] which of them are commodities properly within the the CFTC's jurisdiction uh over the the spot markets under their anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority. Um the second is around tokenized securities. So, how are we going to move actual securities on chain in a meaningful way? And my view, you know, always has been, as I've said, that DeFi and, you know, onchain finance is just fundamentally better in so many ways than the traditional securities market, especially the infrastructure developed for a pre-digital era, which is still sort of, you know, stuck with us in in the form of many legacy incumbents that slow down the system and, you know, extract value from the system in a way that is not additive. I

think that this SEC really wants to upgrade the financial system in that way and hopefully uh in the near term we're going to see an innovation exemption or some other type of exemptive relief or rulemaking or guidance from the SEC that really starts to allow tokenized securities and other assets like that to thrive on chain and I think that'll be very exciting for all of us. >> Yeah. Maybe last question. And I mean I think um there's been obviously a lot of uh conversation and controversy around the Clarity Act. Um um you know Coinbase has you know stirred up the pot in many ways and uh you know does that worry you? Like obviously there's a lot of um willingness from this administration

night and day from prior administration. Um two questions. one like is the clarity act uh like are we exhausting some sort of goodwill by like not passing that or making it more difficult in your conversation with regulators like are they um more like are they losing patience or and the second question is what happens after this administration because there's a lot of talk around hey look uh if if you have a different administration maybe a different party um are they going to try to unwind or just go back to the prior model? Is that

possible? Like how do you see that risk uh in the case where like you know you have a very different administration? >> Um I'll say a few things. I'll start by saying everyone wants to get market structure legislation done. We we've been working on this I mean for the last year but honestly for many many years, right? This is probably the sixth time that I've worked on a market structure bill going back to the I can give you all the names of all the market structure bills that I've worked on over the years, right? Um, so everyone wants to get this done. I I don't think that the regulators, the CFTC and the SEC are sitting around waiting for the bill to get done. I think they, you know, they would love to have the added authority they would get from the bill, but they

have plenty of authority now and a ton of work to do this year and next year and the year after that. So, I don't think they're sitting around waiting for a bill to get done, feeling put out because Congress hasn't gotten the bill done yet. I I'll also say um as much as I want to get a bill done, it needs to be a good bill, right? And I' I've said this before and I'll say it again. It is better for us to have no market structure bill than a bad bill that makes the situation worse for us. And when we think about something like stable coin yield for example, not necessarily the the issue that is closest to the work that I'm doing, but I think it's very important that the holders of stable coins be able to earn yields on those stable coins. And I

think there is no good reason to prevent that other than the existing banking system wants to maintain a regulatory mode to protect their business model against innovation. And I don't think that we should legislate that way. And similarly to your question about what happens in the next administration, the main benefit of getting market structure legislation done in my view, aside from setting up a well- reggulated market that gives investors a sense of confidence and lays down helpful ground rules for developers and issuers to build products and and launch new assets is to protect the industry from a return to a Gary Gendler who wants to destroy this industry in the guise of regulation but actually seeking to ban the

technology from the country. And the problem is in any version of market structure legislation that we do, we will by necessity be expanding the authority of the agencies over crypto. This is why I say over and over again, to me, the most important priority in market structure legislation is protecting DeFi developers from being mclassified as money transmitters or as intermediaries because otherwise we will get to that next administration having handed over authority to regulate DeFi and then Gary Gendler 2.0 know or his or her compatriots at the Department of Justice will go after every other DeFi developer the same way they have after Roman Storm saying that Roman Storm

committed a crime by building non-custodial software that he did not control that was abused by some bad actor after he had launched that technology and that's the end of crypto in the United States. So to me, we want to get a market structure bill done, but the best way to protect ourselves from a return to a hostile administration trying to ban crypto isn't a market structure bill that gives the agencies unlimited authority to regulate and ban crypto however they want. So to me, that is the priority in looking at the Clarity Act. >> Yeah. Look guys, we're on the hour. I promised we'd keep it efficient of your time. I know you guys incredibly busy.

Anything else like parting thoughts? Uh, you know, it's been real real treat. I mean, Hyperlid, I could tell you just something you guys said earlier. I was uh when when the warrant broke out uh two weekends ago, I was uh over the weekend, I was sitting with a PM and I was they were debating what Monday was going to look like in the markets. I'm like, "Guys, uh um have we looked at this?" And they're like, you could just see the future, right, by their reaction. There's still reasons to your point like why they don't use it or don't want to use it. But it was just like I I think you said it Jake which is the only time I've felt that was back when I was a parapy I would tell people go use a stable coin and that was the pitch to convert them as LPS. They were

like they'd come back and say holy [ __ ] I never want to send a wire transfer again. And I feel like uh for better or for worse that's like the we had to tokenize commodities at a time where everyone wants is a commodities expert and it's all the rage that uh it's really exciting honestly. I mean obviously there's still a lot of stuff on the technology side on the regulatory side needs to be figured out but you see the future if if you've traded on hyperlquid I feel like um anything else you guys want to touch on parting thoughts? No, I look I agree. I've um we've been in this space for almost 10 years and it's exciting to feel like all the stuff we hope for is finally becoming uh can become real and more useful. So um yeah, I think this is really still just the

beginning. >> I agree with that and I'll just say um I think everyone is in sort of a bare market mood right now. I think you know sentiment is sort of low. Um but you know having gone through a handful of cycles I will say it is usually at this moment when sentiment is low that the most exciting things are happening and you just have to stay engaged and pay attention to those things and for me at this moment that thing is hyperlquid. So I'm really excited to be you know working in the ecosystem and frankly very excited to push policy forward not just for Hyperlid but for the entire DeFi industry. You know I'm hoping that many different DeFi projects you know in the Hyperlid ecosystem and outside of it will thrive. there's, you know, plenty of room for for many different projects to succeed and I think we will see that

happen over time. >> No doubt. Just don't get liquidated. Uh, but also let's not forget Jake, you were at Compound. Compound was an early pioneer in the money market space. Um, and MC, you've obviously bought Bitcoin in 2011 and we're in Black Rockck. So, it's really exciting to see folks like you have been around in the space like continue to double down your careers and focus on this specific protocol, Hyperlquid. And so anyways, thanks for putting up um thanks for h coming on and having a good conversation. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for having us.