The Ongoing Battle For Memecoin Market Share | Danny & Westie Power Hour

Transcript

And this is a typical crypto thing where the students you see something that's successful, you see a million copycats rush in to try and take advantage of like that success and maybe they get some sort of percentage of the market share that's been created. And Pump Fun, like we already know makes like crazy money on on their launchpad. And so it makes sense why you see competitors and particular rate radium who owns the like LP liquidity of any graduated token on Pump Fun.

And and knew that Pump Fun was going to create their own AMM like for them to get into this game. The question is like how do you like what's the strategy here? You can't just just come in and have a similar product. You need some sort of differentiation on boarding strategy to make sure you can capture market share right away. Nothing said on ZeroX Research is a recommendation to buy or sell securities or tokens. This podcast is for informational purposes only and any views expressed by anyone on the show are solely our opinions, not financial advice. Bocaccio, Ryan, and our guests may hold positions in the companies, funds, or projects discussed. Hey guys, welcome back to another episode of ZeroX

Research. Today I am joined once again by Westie for another Danny and Westie power hour bringing it to you here, not live, pre-recorded uh from our home studios. Uh how you doing, Westie? Doing pretty good. Can't complain. Got through another week in this crazy industry. A lot to talk about. Westie bought the bottom, he sold the top, he rebought the bottom, he's thinking about reselling the top. Um before we get into anything uh we got to talk about permissionless.

It's coming up end of June, 24th through the 26th. We want to see you there in New York. Uh Westie and I will both be there. A bunch of other people will be there. A Our fearless leader Block will be there. Ryan Cashflow is Connor. Plenty others. Um so if you want to come meet some folks from around Blockworks, but also around the industry, stay up-to-date with what's going on. Uh 0X10 is the code. Link in the description as always. Get your tickets. Come out. See us there. Uh buy plenty of tickets using 0X10 because, you know, we want to we want the we want the the credit. We want the the clout over all the other podcasts, uh which might be

hard, you know. Forward Guidance, they're kind of a behemoth, but you know, I know you guys I know you 0X Research listeners can do it. Uh we got a we got a cult following, so all of our listeners better, you know, better use our code and and show up. I'm hearing the either the the Blockworks Research or the 0X Research booth is going to be banging, uh Permissionless, so come through. We are absolutely cooking. There's talk of some crazy things going on. There's talk of a dunk tank. Uh you might get to dunk Bocaccio yourself at this event. It would be absolutely insane.

Uh we'll see if it happens. You're not going to find out unless you're there, so we'll see you there end of June. 0X10. Uh let's let's jump into it. Uh as always, I think we can talk markets a little bit. I feel like every time I have you on, Westy, I like we like to talk and just get your thoughts cuz the the you know, the chat, the Telegram, the the audience always wants to hear from you. Um how are you feeling right now? I know um probably a lot of people that stay up-to-date in the 0X Research Telegram are aware of the the ongoing thesis of uh you know, bidding and holding some of the strongest assets.

Uh hot air rises, but uh how are you feeling right now? How are you feeling going forward? Yeah. So how I'm feeling now is a little different than I was let's say, a few weeks ago. Um yeah, I was able to like correctly identify a bottom as it was happening in real time in the zero x chat, so alpha for all the chads in there, but yeah, basically my target at that point was like 95,000 on Bitcoin and we got there this week.

And so at this point I can't say with any confidence like which direction I think we're headed. Um Bitcoin continues to be extremely strong in the face of like continued macro headwinds with relative strength against US equities and just every day continues to outperform and honest to my amazement, really. Um so it's hard to ignore Bitcoin's strength on a relative basis, um but we're also at a weird inflection point with the stock rally of like people not being sure if there's going to be any follow-through or not. And so at this point it's definitely at least in the short term a lot of

uncertainty and and to me probably the most uncertainty on multiple time frames that the market's probably had in a long time. Like to me like very long term Bitcoin is like in crypto is an incredible bet still in my mind, but it's like this short term of like the next few months and then medium term of the next year or two that's still like a huge question mark just because of all that's happening in macro. Um but then there's a lot of interesting or or rather uninteresting things which we'll talk about in this pod of like stuff going on within the crypto industry.

Uh like good things being stable coins continuing to rise and and hopefully we get some legislation passed soon on that front. Um but in terms of other innovation, we are kind of in a weird mode right now where people I think are attaching themselves to the clearly beneficial things of the cycle, at least from a cash flow perspective, which have been meme coins and meme coin trading and perps trading. So, like those continue to do well in sort of this pocket. Um like certain memes such as far coin, you know, hot or otherwise leading the way and and hyper liquid also getting a pretty strong bid. But beyond that, in

terms of new things, I feel like the market and also just me not really excited about what's going on elsewhere. Um but yeah, that's a long rant of overall how I feel at the moment about the market. That's fair. I think um the timeline has been riddled with um you know, the crime season either allegations or revelations. Um you know, move has been a chief one there. Uh there's been a lot of recent raises or information about past raises, current raises that I don't know pe- pe- people have issue with. Some debates about do VCs matter? Like if you can't outperform

Bitcoin, what have you? There is a there is a lot of uh I think pessimism is uh top of mind for I think for a lot of people. And maybe that's expected cuz we're on the sort of the the back half of the the downward sloping curve after a bit of a blow off in uh in excitement earlier this year, end of last year. Um I guess one of the big ones right now is there has seemingly been a shift on the Ethereum side of things. The ETH Foundation Uh it's funny because there's I don't think there's a coherent like phrase or word to describe what is happening because if if you call this an ETH pivot, some of the people who are like strident ETH supporters will say,

"No, it's not a pivot. This was always the plan." Um and then others will say, "No, this is clearly a pivot. They're they're massively changing direction." Um but but I get I think the main sort of gist of what's going on is we are starting to see a more clear picture of uh one, some some new people in at the EF, changing some practices, like more communication, um things along those lines, opening up some of the like maybe past issues that that foundation has had. But then two, um really nailing down like what's the strategy for ETH going over the next like year or two and being a bit more pointed about like you know, the network

and L1 potentially needs to scale a lot more than we were previously anticipating or or thinking we ever should. Um and and putting that on a much shorter and faster timeline. Um so looking at, you know, orders of magnitude of potential like scaling in, you know, be it a year or two, rather than like a five or seven-year plan, which I think a lot of people in the industry have have grown used to um from that organization. Uh I guess I want to kick it over to you. I mean and maybe we can start start with the simplest one, which I think is kind of stupid even debate, but like there's there's argument over whether this is a pivot or not. People Some people think that like this is the plan all along and uh and other people say, "This is a clear pivot." So, what what's your take

here? Yeah, I've so many thoughts on the ETH pivot in general, just So, before I I focused on data and product at Blockworks, like all of my research centered around Ethereum, uh you know, rollups, MEV, liquid staking, et cetera. And I felt like I was banging my head against the wall for multiple years trying to get my voice heard of like this road map is not going to work. Like there's or there's going to be specific downfalls or or trade-offs being made that no one is noticing.

And that's at the roll-up level. Like I even had some comments on MEV boost that, you know, predicted that like uh builder searchers in these like behemoths were going to emerge when that wasn't really the talking point. So, yeah, I have a lot of like thoughts on ETH finally coming to a head of like we things need to change. And yeah, I I saw that one tweet from from Sassal basically saying, "No, this isn't a pivot. Like we've we've always been scaling the L1. Like that's always been in the road map.

I don't know what anyone is saying, but I mean, it's pretty obvious that this is a pivot. Not necessarily like a complete 180 pivot, but it's a complete pivot in the prioritization of the road map and like engineering resources, but also prioritization in the culture of Ethereum and the EF. In terms of like what are the the things that we need to focus on more and also, like you said, timelines being a huge component of of like this this isn't something we can put on a five-year, seven-year road map.

The these changes need to be implemented way faster than we currently are because there's very real and pressing competition that moves quicker than we do. So, that being said, yeah, it this is entirely a pivot. And it's one that I I absolutely love what's happening. Like obviously over time we've seen slowly but surely the Ethereum community and the foundation coming to terms with maybe we need to actually think about scaling the L1 and and rethink our our framing and our road map to the Bankless episode where Dankrad and Ansgar were very clear in that things need to change.

And there was a lot of talk on like we're we're going to try and change. And now we're in the phase of like show me that we're actually going to make this change. Like it's very easy to to say, "Oh, yeah, we're going to have a 2-year road map for this." But now it's about actually putting the pedal to the metal. But the more that things come out, the more there is sort of action and momentum. For me I've been following Dankrad for years now and he's always been my favorite Ethereum researcher. Like dude's a gigabrain. Um and in particular his most recent posts on the EthResearch forums to me pumped me up, which was basically him verbatim saying, "The current way of doing things

is likely to make Ethereum irrelevant over the next 5 to 10 years." Very explicitly saying, "If we do not make this pivot and focus on scaling the L1, we may be irrelevant in 5 to 10 years, which is not something anyone has ever admitted from the Ethereum camp." And it was definitely I think intentional as a gut punch to the rest of the Ethereum community, developers, foundation of like, "We need to do this now or else."

Um and in that blog post they outlined basically how they get to 100x scaling uh within the next 2 years and 2 to 4 years basically. And maybe yeah, 1,000x. Um I think there's another question of is this feasible? Because within his road map he has real-time proving or at the very least proving within uh one block uh for Ethereum, which right now is 12 seconds, but I hope as part of this pivot, they also reduce the block times.

So, it has sort of real-time proving, although it's not completely real-time within this road map, which he suggests is like within the year going to happen. So, it's yeah, the road map at the very least it's dependent on certain advancements uh within the engineering and and tech space, and so there's sort of questions around that. And there's also questions around has the Ethereum Foundation actually like are they actually going to implement things as fast as they say they want to?

I I feel like if you were to make a bet every hard fork that it gets pushed back double the amount of time. Like in every previous hard fork, like you've typically been right. Like they're always so late. Even on their conservative timelines. So, there's still a lot of questions on can it be done from a practical angle, and then there's obviously like is it too late to pivot with respect to competitors, which is another question. Um yeah, I'm not sure where you want to take this next, but that's like a long rant to say excited about the pivot, and now it's like can they actually follow through?

Yeah, I like that. Um you answered the question by not answering it by just assuming it is a pivot, which I think is is funny, but I also think it's fair. Um cuz I'd agree with you there. I think the big the big thing there's a lot sort of circling around here. Like um you know, for a long time discussions were were not even you know, we're very focused on rollups, L2s allowing them to scale execution in place of the layer one and recently like over the past year or so largely with bases rise has been like well we're not even scaling you know blobs or our you know our DA service to

these rollups fast enough for them to even do what we'd like them to do um and that led to a lot of problems one you know people are upset at the you know stagnation of the L1 but then there you know people were becoming upset at the stagnation of the L2s as well running into strict limitations because you know we were not also scaling the services to them as well so so I think and as part of that like there's been these conversations for a long time now of you know our mainnet and L2s like competitive do they it does it benefit each other if you scale one or the other is that like good or bad

for the other are they like vampiric like sucking the blood off of ETH we don't have to get too much into that but it I think as part of this change in stance and like pivot there is very clearly going to be like a change in how other actors within the space are going to approach building going forward almost certainly right if for example if there had been no priority ever on L2s and ETH would have just been scaling you know today would look very different now in a world where we're committing to you know maybe scaling the L1 a certain amount maybe scaling you know DA and other services a certain amount that's going to play into the you know if you want to call them business

decisions of other actors building either on the chain or wanting to maybe build a rollup or some other sort of thing on top of either using ETH it changes how that plays I guess maybe the maybe the one question to get to is like how do you see this playing out? Like I see comments and something that I've thought for a long time actually with how Ethereum had been moving was that inevitably like a base for example would move off of Ethereum at some point because they just weren't keeping up with you know base wants to do like 10 100 x scaling improvements like every year and you know if ETH was not keeping up with that not not from a DA perspective not from any other perspective and so it's like it it seems

kind of natural that at some point they would just outpace them and and go to a different solution or build their own thing whatever it would be. Um How do you feel about this picture going forward like if we're going to scale the L1 if we're going to also scale blobs too and like maybe we're going to you know bump up the speeds of both of these things like is everything going to stay the same are L2s and L1s still going to be just like as they were do we expect more competition are L2s going to move away now uh how are you thinking about it? Yeah so on the question of whether L2s in terms of whether posting our data uh like whether they're going to change that is entirely dependent on blob and

blob pricing and the road map even though there's going to be more of a focus on the L1 and scaling the L1 the like blob road road map if you will hasn't changed and so that question remains the same uh no matter what sort of path they went down. So to me like that question is kind of somewhat irrelevant when it comes to this pivot talk just in terms of like uh thinking through different scenarios and like what this means like what scaling that one actually means for rollups.

This is definitely part of a broader question which is like is having a stronger L1 like better for L2s and rollups or is it actually worse off because now you have a new competing execution layer? And I I think when you think about it deeply, for the most part, it's actually beneficial to have like um a stronger L1 for L2s because L2s get much stronger properties. So, if you reduce the block time, reduce finality, uh and have more like valuable state at the L1, then plugging into that becomes more valuable because now you as a

rollup have, you know, shorter finality, stronger guarantees, more assets uh that can be bridged over. Um so, in general, it's more beneficial in terms of like having an execution layer that's now competing. If you look at even the most optimistic uh projections, like even if they get to over like a thousand TPS, most rollups can at least two years from now, especially those that are like taking the pure rollup route of like we're going to have a single or maybe a couple sequencers and just like make this thing go crazy, you know, like have like crazy TPS. For those rollups, like it's not really

competitive because the type of applications that are going to going to be building there are not also going to be building on the L1. What the L1 will be competitive with are these like EVM clones of Geth that have like no differentiation um from any meaningful standpoint, whether that be scale, uh architecture, like enshrined applications. Like there needs to be some sort of moat that you're creating. And so, if you're one of these the like copy-pasta clones, like that's completely competitive.

But, at the same time, if that's what you were building anyway, like you were probably doomed for failure because you weren't creating any specific modes or value propositions against any other roll out. So, in the whole I'd say having a stronger L1 is better for L2s in that like if anything it makes the compelling case to build an L2 like yeah, more compelling than otherwise in that like this blob conversation or where you post your data remains the same. Like if you're super performant you're going to use Celestia anyway.

So, I think net net this is beneficial for roll ups and beneficial for Ethereum. I think that's a fair take. I it really taps into like some core things here just in like if you scale the L1, you're you know, adding a ton more supply to the market in terms of like block space or what have you. Um it doesn't necessarily change the demand equation for any of the other things that are happening in the space. You know, Coinbase is probably always going to be able to pull the demand lever for their application because they can, you know, use their distribution funnels to send users onto their onto their chain and and use apps on there and make it seamless like

within the Coinbase app for example. Other like you said, copy pasters that spit something out over a weekend and don't differentiate and don't have any drivers to to get people to use the apps there, um they're going to struggle in either either paradigm here. So, it doesn't change much. So, I think that I think that's a fair take all around. Um one of the other big things we're seeing, uh I think this is a little bit silly, but I want to call it out cuz I'm seeing a lot more conversation along these lines is um Ryan Sean Adams has come back from a little bit of a break, it seems, but alongside this like ETH pivot talk, uh he's promoting a a little bit of a different take that people

should um be more even more memetic and even more like religiously fevered behind ETH, and that is a major reason for why it has failed so far, not because it technologically could not keep up with competitors, but because people didn't meme it hard enough. Um I I think is really the gist of of this piece, um which I I I find kind of silly. Um you know, sure, in a raging COVID-style, everyone has money to throw around, and like you know, we've seen it with XRP as well, right?

Like the the people get on TikTok, they say XRP to 10K, and I'm sure that convinces, you know, some people that want to you know, throw their money into a speculative gamble um to to do so, but like fundamentally over the long term, I I don't know that that's going to be a sustainable viewpoint worth holding here. Uh curious your thoughts, cuz I think if you look at any meme coin, you'd go, well, this would be an awful strategy for an a long-term asset. Um what are your what are your what are your takeaways?

Yeah, I actually quote-tweeted this one basically along the lines of like oh, like our purity tests weren't enough. Like we need we need to triple down. Like if you're caught selling your ETH, like public flogging. Like if you're talking about Solana, like death penalty. And that was basically the vibe I got from this post. There was this also similar Bankless episode from Sam K of Frax talking about similar things, where it's basically like F the DCA.

Like we should be entirely talking about this like memetic this like it's like other aspect of ETH, this like commodity money. It's like basically the fairy dust, like all the stuff that's entirely what we make of it. And I I think it's like it's a reasonable thought process to get to of like, okay, I've looked at the fundamentals of this thing. Like it shouldn't be worth what it's worth. Therefore, in order for it to be worth more, we need to add this like speculative memetic premium to it because as we've sort of seen after the

glass was shattered in COVID of like zero interest rates, stimmies of like all the assets that did extremely well. But did so because of some like animal spirits memetic like additional premium to what the actual fundamentals of these businesses are. And Tesla is like a perfect example of like a trillion-dollar company that may not be trading perfectly in line with actual fundamentals because there is this like cults like memetic aspect. So it makes sense why you would want to recreate that. The problem is is once you you say this is the strategy, it doesn't work.

Like it needs to be covert and it needs to like the people need to basically believe in some bigger mission. But as soon as you like break the glass of like no, we're only believing it to like create this like self-fulfilling prophecy, it doesn't work. Like that's just not how these things actually operate. I think what this basically gets to is like the admission that on a pure fundamental basis it shouldn't be worth what it's worth. And I did another post similar to this where I think all L1s are going to also face this issue where there's been this like quote unquote L1 premium or this like premium for like blockchains in general that they might

capture some like far out there future value and so based on like their fundamentals they're trading way over their skis and at a certain point they're going to come back to reality of like these things don't make as much money as we think and the only ones that make a lot of money are ones with a lot of speculative fever on that chain because people are willing to pay uh for premium block space. Um So yeah, that's that's basically what I think about this is they've came they've come to terms. This thing is overvalued and they're trying their best to create some sort of way to give it value and I just I think it's it's going to not not work as intended.

Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. I think if you come you're coming from a position where maybe at some point or at one point, you know, there was a high amount of belief in the fundamentals behind something plus the speculative premium maybe on top of that. Um but if you're getting to a point where you're saying we failed and it's because we weren't speculative enough, it's I think it's just as you're saying it implies that the fundamental foundation there is even weaker than you thought in the first place which it that it's just not I don't think it's a good look to be broadcasting and I don't being so like openly like let's really turn this thing into a meme coin that that doesn't seem that's not going to be a long-term winning strategy. I mean, if you studied

as I mentioned any long any any meme coins chart over the long run, um you know, they they tend to look pretty spiky. Uh you know, even the king of all of them with doge or maybe Bitcoin if you call it that one. Um they uh you know, they have their crazy runs and and and high peaks, but uh then they're beset with years and months of decline and and and nothingness happening. Um, and all the smaller ones, right? It's it's usually flashes in the pan. Uh, so when there can be fundamentals, it's a bit silly to toss that aside for pure speculation, I would say.

Um, and and I I think you made a good point as well, like about the broader industry. And and I think some of that is related to some of the sentiment right now of like the market structure, people being upset at like VCs, being upset at like all of these raises and new projects that like, you know, raise X amount at X valuation and then they drop the token at one or two or five billion FDV and it's like, well, no one in the liquid market is going to with like any rational sense of the world is going to buy that. So, it's quite literally going to be a down only chart until it's minus 95% or what have you.

Um, which is not That's not great for uh, just looking from like the outside POV in at like the broader industry. Like it it just kind of asked like, what does it say about everything else that's here? Um, Okay, I think uh, maybe one last point on ETH that I'll just drop as a cherry on top, but I just I find it very silly that, you know, months ago, I think this was starting to become a discussion again, right? Like, let's scale, you know, solo home stickers. Like, maybe we need to rethink like them limiting the rest of the network. Um, you know, Max Resnick was a pretty big proponent of a lot more scaling and doing it a lot more quickly.

And then he, like, I think sort of his camp was shunned and not that he was necessarily ousted, but I I think he was kind of like, well, what the hell's the point of even trying if if everyone's going to gang up on me and and not want to work towards this. Um, and he moved over to Anza and work instead of started working on Solana. I think it's just very I don't know, it's very funny to see that they finally come around after shunning him away from the ecosystem and like that view view to come to the same set of views you know, a few months later.

Yeah, I'm sure he's feeling very very vindicated right now. Um but yeah, I think I think the prevailing opinion now is like he was kind of a dick about it, but he was right. He was totally right. Uh most of what he was talking about was definitely like lowering the block time given its impacts on MEV, but also scaling L1. And like I completely agreed with both of those points at that time and still agree with those points. So Yep, he dropped a short tweet tweet here I'm just going over this. Congrats to ETH on finally committing to scaling the L1. So yeah, I think he's definitely Uh I don't know if this is so much of like

a victory for him cuz it's probably a little bit bitter sweet, but uh either way it's like, you know, hey hey they finally came around to realizing what I had been saying and that's that's got to be a little bit vindicating at the very least. Um and also an important piece of what he said is like the like gas is basically an arbitrary constant within Ethereum and we just set it arbitrarily based on what we thought was a limit on like certain hardware because they wanted basically Raspberry Pis to be able to run nodes and validators. But what Storm of Paradigm recently found is like the current gas limit is way lower than what it even could be at this moment given

conservative uh estimates. So yeah, like it's like as obvious as it can be. Let's increase the gas limit. Let's do it. So Yes, this I'll actually pull this one up as well cuz this was a really good one. Um I I tweeted about this as begging the question why did no one ever uh grab this data before or test this, but um yeah, so just like you said, Storm dropped some data here indicating that all the node clients could support a substantially higher gas limit, something like 80 to 280 times what we're currently seeing today. So, um it wouldn't be crazy to start looking at like 10, 20, 50x

increases potentially in short order, um assuming that most of these clients would would have no issue and and some headroom above that. Um It it kind of begged the question like why nobody was looking here for years and only now we get this type of analysis. Um And I think part of that was just the priorities. It's like I don't know why there was such this idea to completely give up on scaling the L1 at all, but um there was definitely a pivot away from that at all and now we finally pivoted back and we're getting some data and some some real ideas to actually go ahead and do so. So, that's refreshing.

We'll see uh if the timelines that are being thrown around hold up and we'll see if some of the changes come through and if they do, I think it'll be exciting. There might be a little bit of like a revival of ETH mainnet things potentially in the future if that does happen. Yeah, I'm totally rooting for it, too. Like a a better Ethereum is better for everyone in this industry, so yeah, very very much hoping they succeed. Yeah, especially with a large majority of like DeFi capital capital and TVL still on ETH, like, you know, I mean, there are times when I mean, actually right for for in recent times it's been um fairly usable because gas fees have been so low that the because demand has been so low, um but to scale and have fees below with high demand would be

um far more interesting, I think, right? Wanting to use the chain and being able to and not being priced out um would be a far more rewarding experience, I think. What's up, guys? Today we're joined by Antonio from DYDX. Antonio, thank you so much for coming on again. Thank you for having me. I'm curious what you think the landscape for perpetuals will be over the next few years. Um, we typically see a lot of platforms and mercenary um, liquidity going from one to another. How do you How do you see that shape up? So, there is mercenary liquidity to some extent. I think that's that's one way to articulate it. I think the the other way to articulate it is what I was mentioning before in terms of the the bulk of the liquidity will go where the

users are rather than the other way around. Um, and it's two-sided marketplace and it's something you absolutely have to bootstrap liquidity. I just feel pretty good about where we're at on the liquidity side, actually. Um, and liquidity will continue to improve from here as users come in as the platform grows. So, really the focus is more on attracting those end users, all of those individual traders. And there's a wide spectrum here from relatively retail users to pretty sophisticated but individual users. Um, so in terms of how the landscape will evolve over time, it's it's similar to what I was saying before. Um, it's a space that's really is finding product market fit now, certainly at least with the products like us or like

Hyperliquid. Um, I'm sure there will be more of those types of things over time. I know there are a lot of perp DEXes, but they were the two main ones that are focused on this kind of order book trading model. That's That's more similar and to me at least has more obvious product market fit. Um, but it'll become more of this competition phase for this landscape and that's great for users. And I think this will drive a lot of great features, will drive both sides and then everybody who's competing in this market just to build the best possible product, to offer the best possible go-to-market strategies, best possible incentives, all these kind of things for end users.

Um, but I I think it it will evolve over time, right? Like if you actually look at the market structure of centralized exchanges and DeFi, it should be the same. And even if you look at spot DeFi, like it is the same. Um there's a pretty wide distribution of of things that are used. It's like roughly Binance has like 50% of the market share, like OKX and a couple others have like, you know, 10 to 25% each. Um and then there is there's a long tail after that. And so I think that's what this market will look like, too. And I think one of the things we have going for us at dYdX is we are very long-term focused. Like we've been around I've been around at dYdX for almost 8 years at this point. Um so

we're not going anywhere. That's for sure. And the the second thing is it really allows us to take a long-term approach towards what we're doing. And in my opinion, this marketplace of perp decks is is really going to be one, probably two to three years from now, I would say. And that's not to say what's happening now isn't important or isn't perhaps like an indicator of of what's to come, but it's really going to be a lot of changes up until that point, I think. And then after that, there gets to be these entrenched market structures and entrenched liquidity and user bases where it becomes hard to disrupt after that, right? Like if you're building like a spot decks today, it's it's kind of hard to just come in and compete with Uniswap or something. Um or if you're building a centralized exchange, like

you can have all the same features as Binance, but nobody's going to use your thing. Um and so I think it's like that type of dynamic that I'm expecting more two to three years from now. And so it's very important for us to go out and execute over that amount of time um to really regain a lot of the market share that we had. And and I think we have the opportunity to do that. Um you know, I won't dive too too deeply into this, and I'm not saying it's all this, but like there's obvious dynamics and in DeFi especially around token launches, like when the dYdX token was launched a number of years ago, too, like that was by far the biggest growth era for DYDX so far. And then you kind of see for the next like two to four years generally after a token is launched, it's a bit of

a drag on the ecosystem. It's like there are certain price dynamics, there are certain just brand dynamics around like how do people interpret your brand based off of that. So we're kind of at what I would classify the local minimum of that cycle. And then after that, after you know, unlocks are done, after all these sort of things, then the token is from free after that. And it's able to just move at what you move and move at the be valued at what it should be valued at outside of market dynamics. And so I think we're we're entering like that phase. The point I'm making here is we're just at a completely different phase with this and it's challenging to compete against things that have a new token.

And obviously, you know, like we had 15 billion dollars of trading volume too when the DYDX token was launched. And not to say it's all that, like there absolutely are great things that hyper liquid is doing from a product perspective, from a branding perspective. But that is a dynamic and I think that dynamic will be most prevalent this year. And so again, that's really why I bring it back to the long term and bring it back to like, you know, I the way I think about this is if I were genuinely like, oh this market is going to be won in the next year, like I would genuinely be like, hey we're in like a pretty tough spot, like how are we going to come back in the next year or so. But and everyone should decide for themselves, but at least I believe that this market is really not going to

be won for two to three years plus and then the bulk of how valuable these things are going to be is going to be like the 10 years after that where you get this entrenched market position and it's you have the network effects. And we're going to be And so the question is like who is going to be like what what is the order going to be like of, you know, the top three or four or five that actually matter in that two to three years? And then second of all, are these things going to have longevity? And it's not just enough to be the biggest in two to three years from now. You have to actually stand the test of 10 years, 20 years to to profit from that market position. So, I think that's really the framework that I look at for how should

these things be valued in the long term? Um and why I still feel like there is a huge opportunity for us. And just to finish that thought as well, longevity is something that is pretty rare in crypto. And so, I think this actually the second part of my premise here, if you take it as it is, of like, "Hey, what's actually going to be here in 10 years from now and 20 years from now?" is a question worth asking as well. And I'm absolutely not like saying yes or no, like certain things will or won't be here, but I think it's a question worth asking and it's something that not a lot of products in crypto actually have this kind of longevity and this kind of trust. And we have really built that at dYdX and that's something I'm proud of and and something we will maintain for

many years to come. Oh, that makes a lot of sense and completely agree with you on the um token dynamics affecting protocol volumes. I think we see this across all products um with new token launches that there is increased volume and it makes a lot of sense. I guess speaking of demand and the the more profitable side of things over the past year at this point, um Radium Launch Lab has the is the counterpunch to Pump Fun uh launching their own AMM. Um so, Pump Fun essentially kind of not rug pulled, but essentially rug pulled Radium um being that they took away their graduation design um of tokens that launch on Pump Fun graduating to Radium at some market

market cap, now go to Pump Fun's own native decks. So, Radium the announcement came a while back, but they uh and they launched this product back in late March. Um but I don't think we've had a good chance to really dig super into it and there's been some more um movement on this recently, but Radium's own launch lab, which is their launchpad product, um has been exploring like some different ways to potentially scale this and like fight back or like capture market share from Pump. And one of those has been like rebranded versions of the launchpad. So, the a big one in the past like 2 weeks has been Bonk or Bonk-based bonk.fun, I think essentially is what it is called. Um

and a lot of like you know, Bonk associated or like Bonk community members have been um kind of rallying around this one. Uh we have some data. I'm going to pull it up. Wes, yeah, I'll let you go ahead though. Like, I think one of the big questions that I have is like I think it's interesting that Radium's going after this model of like these using their they're sort of taking the Morpho approach here, right? Where they build an architecture here that's like kind of modular and then let other brands put their branding and identity um identity on top of it and let them like build their own version of it, maybe capture some portion of the fees and then take some some base rate below that for themselves. That's basically the Morpho model with with vaults.

Um I think that's interesting applying it here. I get I think the bigger question at play is like is it going to work? Like, is Pump is the Pump brand and identity and like user mindshare around that product so strong? Um can just like a slightly modified launchpad product change any of that PR? Caveat. Yeah, I think this also gets into a a broader question because like, I'd say Radium's launch lab might be the most prominent of these like competitors to Pump Fun, but there's a a ton popping up right now.

Um be and this is a typical crypto thing where as soon as you see something that's successful, you see a million copycats rush in to try and take advantage of like that success and maybe they get some sort of percentage of the market share that's been created. And Pump Fun, like we already know, makes like crazy money on on their launchpad. And so it makes sense why you see competitors, in particular Ray- Radium, who owns the like LP liquidity of any graduated token on Pump Fun.

And And knew that Pump Fun was going to create their own AMM, like for them to get into this game. The question is like how do you like what's the strategy here? You can't just just come in and have a similar product. You need some sort of differentiation, onboarding strategy to make sure you can capture market share right away. And I think this kind of model of allowing other brands to to tap into what they have, I think it's like a pretty pretty viable and an interesting model um because like even if you as Radium don't have necessarily have the strongest relationship with the the end user, you can you can attract other people that do have very strong

associations, especially those within the sort of meme coin sort of sector, Bonk being the perfect example of having, you know, this brand that people that users associate with with like community members, with followings that are trusted to have this launchpad and to sort of flow through you. And you there's a partnership based on they have distribution, you have the tech and the the liquidity. And it's like a perfect match made in heaven, so it makes a ton of sense to me.

Um and yeah, you have our our dashboard up here and it seems like you know, they've been doing a pretty good job, especially when since Bonk Bot went live. Um there've been a ton of new tokens launched uh on on lab. Um yeah, I'm definitely interested to see if this sustains over time. Yeah, the the other I think the only other the big thing that they did is they added some more uh, customizability to the launches. So, as a token creator, you can make some changes to what the curve, the bonding curve, looks like, um, the amount of supply that's, you know, left for the liquidity pool at the

end. Um, some different things like that, right? Like the the supply of the tokens. Some of these different different parameters you can play around with, whereas on pump fun, it is still a standard model. As far as I'm aware, they have not made any tweaks there, and they're still operating on their, you know, it's 1 billion supply every time. The the amount required to uh, make it through the bonding curve graduate is always the same. Um, there's no differentiation there. That's actually kind of been a strength for pump. Um, the consistency of their like standard, and the fact that like when you see a a pump token contract contract ending, um, you can feel pretty confident about like the properties of what that token and like that contract address mean.

Um, you know, not that you can't be dumped on by other people, but there's, you know, nobody's going to rug pull the liquidity, things like that. Um, now, you know, a large enough holder could sell all their tokens and, you know, massively, you know, FSH the chart on you, but uh, that's sort of the nature of uh, permissionless trading. Uh, in the case Radium's kind of giving that piece up by having more customizability, but I think they're they're sort of making a bet that it might open up like more playing fields and like different types of uh, token ideas and like, you know, it goes hand in hand, I think, with this like allowing these other brands to have their like branded versions of this of

the launch lab product. Um, if they can then also have like different uh token customization setups. Um and maybe that reintroduces like more demand for different like games to be played with tokens, which it it essentially is all games. You know, we're either playing with like something that's funny, like it's just a funny meme and it and it runs up on that, or like news-based tokens, or a creator launches a token that's associated to them, different different things like that. Um so maybe this opens up more avenues and they can play around with with some of those ideas. Uh the data is interesting because the immediate launch was like not super crazy. Like I think launch lab had like a few good days um of uh quite a few launches and like a a

fair amount of volume. You can see that reflected here, like the fees, the amount of volume early on. They were doing in the millions, if not um you know, eight-figure plus days of volume. And then it it kind of dried out for a bit, and then the bonk fun drop uh was another big like flash in the pan for them. But we're seeing that drift off already, and it's been about a week. And I I guess it just has me wondering like are they doomed to kind of repeat that over and over again, or is there a point where they can maybe continue to onboard some bigger names that build like a sustainable like upward trend here to compete with pump. One of the the big areas that stick out to me is like Jupiter, for example, you know, they

bought a stake in Moonshot, and Moonshot has its own launchpad. They haven't really done anything with that. Like I feel like it's Moonshot's kind of gone by the wayside ever since the the Trump token launch. That was kind of their shining moment, and they printed handsomely off of the transaction fees there, but um since then, I don't think they've really had like much maintaining mindshare. It does make me wonder though if other trading bots might consider making like a branded launch lab launchpad for their own, you know, to integrate within their own bot, and and allow users to, you know, not only trade trade memes in, you know, inside of a trading bot, but then also create and launch tokens directly. And then they could capture a portion of those fees, you know, alongside Radium. Um I think

that could be interesting. Maybe they're already pursuing this. Um like the I think there's there's always been a lot of different interesting ideas here. Like should Radium even have have their own trading bot in the first place? Um but this opens up another angle where maybe they could partner with some trading bots um and drive volume directly to their product versus pump. Yeah, there there's so many market structure questions when it comes to these like new launchpads launching, which is yeah. The ultimate question is how do you drive value to your launchpad? But there's multiple methods to go because there's there's this constant tug-of-war of where does the value actually accrue? Is it like these

launchpads directly or is it the aggregators, like these trading platforms that sort of route through these platforms? So once you have multiple to choose from, do they just aggre all of them? In which case, like how do you actually change user behavior? Are you targeting the like the the people that are constantly creating new tokens? Give them incentives to come. Are you like working directly with these trading platforms or building your own to try and like showcase yours more than others?

And then there's like interesting questions of like you think through scenarios and you're like, "Okay, let's say you know, Trump had says like some sort of weird catchphrase on TV and people start creating tokens of that catchphrase and it starts catching on." Where is the canonical token going to come from, right? Like if you as a platform, you're you're fighting for memes to emerge from your thing. And so like what kind of like things go into with what tokens emerge? Like there's so many different factors, but do people trust one platform over another? Like if it comes from Pump, then does it have a bigger stamp of approval?

Is it just these like these external like people trying to wash trading? Is it literally just a volume game? If so, like what can you do like increase the volume of your platform versus others? Like there's so many like nuance and small like points in this like new emerging game like trading venue where the problem is hard and complex and it's going to be really interesting to see it all play out. My my gut tells me that Pump Fun has some sort of lead and like brand association here, but at the same time like of any possible sector, you would think of meme coin

traders are the easiest to like to switch up their behavior to a new platform. Uh but yeah, so I I just have a lot of open questions. I'm super excited as like a third point like a third-party viewer to see how the market evolves over time and I think especially Pump Fun and Radium both have very viable uh like market strategies and placements of where they are currently. Yep. Yeah, I want to echo everything you said and just re-highlight back to and just because I've written about trading bots uh well, I dropped a report back in March and we'll be dropping another one next

week, but uh highlighting the value of them in this in this equation here. Uh I love that we have this chart here that shows external trading platform volume through Pump Fun. Um we have it for Radium Launch Lab as well, but I think it's more informative when we look at Pump Fun specifically, but it I I just think it's really interesting to note that you know, depending on the time this kind of fluctuates, but upwards of, you know, anywhere from 35% sometimes as low as 25%, but generally around a third of volume that flows through or is traded on pump fun tokens is coming from largely trading bots. Now, we also have like Phantom represented here. Um though

it's it's a very small smaller portion. And then you have to imagine that Jupiter is a pretty large portion of tokens as well, but uh it is this is one reason why I highlighted that potential idea of like, you know, if you look at Axium or, you know, uh Photon. Why am I blanking on Oh, yeah, Photon is that other big one there. Axium, Photon, like Bull X up until recently their their volumes have been dropping off a little bit, but like a couple of these big bots if Radium were to have have them launch their own branded launchpads using Launch Lab, like it could be pretty

meaningful just given the amount of volume that flows through these types of users to pump fun today. Um obviously the one thing we know about Pump Fun is there are like a a small set of creators that are making, you know, hundreds if not thousands of tokens a day. Um so, there might be a ton of activity that's just flowing through like a small set of users. Um you know, we see power law in a lot of these types of things, but if you can get some of those core users that, you know, use these trading bots and do a ton of volume on memes to, um you know, use a you know, a branded Axium or branded Photon uh launchpad product like just directly within the app that they're already using, um that might be enough to like shift some behavior away. Uh so, I I think that's a

potential ace that they could have if if, you know, these platforms are open to doing a partnership like that. And it could be it could Could interesting. It could shake things up. Um, one other thing maybe to mention, Boop. Boop is on the timeline. It's a similar vein here, another launchpad product. Um, though this one got a little bit of like controversy around it. And so the big thing with Boop is, um, some maybe strange criteria for uh, an airdrop associated with this launchpad. And basically, if you were in the snapshot or were to receive tokens as a creator, um, it would ask you to launch a token in

order to claim your airdrop. And then for your airdrop to get released to you, it would have to have to reach a certain market cap. Um, and then that would like reduce the amount of time until you get to like receive your airdrop. Um, and then for lower, you know, lower token tiers, you know, so creators who were going to receive like a $200,000 airdrop, you know, they needed to launch a a token and have it hit a certain market cap to get that released sooner. For people with like maybe a couple hundred bucks, the, uh, stipulation was that you would then, you know, spend like half a sole or a sole buying tokens on the platform. And then they would, un, you know, unlock your airdrop and give it to you. Um, but it seems like there were also some limits like, you know, only a certain amount of people

can get an airdrop of this tier. And so, there was like a ton of gamification around this. It's very odd. But one of the big things was like it it opened up this debate again of, you know, should creators with like their doxed you know, Twitter accounts be creating these tokens that are worthless and then like dumping them on their followers. Dude, this airdrop was so devious. Like, this was so like dystopian. But, like I said earlier, because there's so many new launchpads coming to market, you need some differentiation. You need viral components. You need to change user to I don't know if this will long-term change any user behavior, but it's at

least interesting to get people using the platform and talking about Boob. What a silly name. Um but yeah, I was curious on the math because some people were getting crazy air drops, like six-figure air drops. The problem was Boob as a token only had so much liquidity in it. It's like a very small fraction of the floating supply. And so when the 30 days was up for anyone to get their air drop, it like the token price is probably going to be much less than it is now because you can only trade it on chain.

Um and so I did some math. I'm like, okay, obviously the game theory is you you want to get this thing as soon as possible, but you don't like you want to spend as little as possible or like ruin your reputation as little as possible. So I actually did the math. If you were to basically manipulate your token price to 5 million in market cap, which was the the limit to have basically all of your 30-day waiting period wiped out, you'd only need to spend like 13 and 1/2 thousand dollars because you needed to spend enough to get it off the bonding curve then that was burned burned forever and then you could just buy all of your token at 5 million once it gets there and you're unlocked and you just

sell it all again. And to do that, yeah, it would only cost like 13 and 1/2 thousand. So if your air drop was like like bold here, which was 200 grand, it was actually in your best interest as long as you had 103,000 dollars on the sidelines or you maybe got a loan, then you'd be able to do that little trick uh and get your Boob immediately and sell it before others, which I thought like I always love to run through scenarios. Um like what is positive EV? What how do you like actually um manipulate a certain scenario so that you you know you can benefit like it's always fun to go through scenarios like this. I thought that was super interesting too that I don't know if they like did the math

on whether this would be like civil level. Um yeah. What I think it's funny and I think you're right that like it is different at the very least like let's say a ton of creators had played into this right it it was ton of mind share like you could have seen you know a bunch of creator based tokens getting pumped up um and all over the feed as a result. I think a lot of them had the opinion as bold here of like I don't want to launch token with my name on it. Um it's funny that I think when you game theory out like how to best approach the airdrop as a creator with a large drop it basically incentivizes you to pump and dump a token.

Um I think it's a like and it and it really just highlights the I mean you said it yourself like if you you only have to spend 13k and if a lot ton of these larger creators were going to receive an airdrop of you know 200k 300k 100k it's like it just it highlights that incentive scheme that we see in a lot of cases where um simply just shilling a ticker on the timeline can be all it takes to get a massive you know payday for a creator with a large following and then they can just dump the thing. Um either implicitly or or explicitly either they're buying the token and then dumping it or they're being paid to shill something and then dump it on their audience essentially.

Um so it I it's a little like funny and perverse to like basically bake up a model that directly incentivizes that exact behavior as you've outlined. Yeah and also I don't think there's anything wrong with making a token as long as you were explicitly clear this has no value. I'm making it because I'm getting an airdrop. As soon as you try and pump the token, that's when like there's issues. So, yeah, to me it's like, "Hey, I'm going to I'm going to mint this token. It's worth this. Do not buy it. I'm just going to sell my airdrop whenever I get it. Please do not buy this token." Like if you said that, I think from like a moral standpoint, you have you should

have no issues. You got free money. You're following the rules and you are not doing anyone dirty. You're honest to any potential market participant. I think yeah, just the fact that they even tried to do that though, it's like, like I said, just devious. Like it's it's worth I can see why they did it, but I I don't like it. I don't like it at all. The uh the meme coin space is getting really competitive. The uh trading space has been competitive for a long time now. So, you know, I think people are open to trying anything. And even like we're seeing PumpFun at the top of the pack, like they're playing around with different ideas, right? Like they've they're bringing they've brought streaming back.

They did a mobile app. They're they launched their mobile app a couple months ago. Um you know, they're playing around with some of the features in there, including like private chats and and different things like that. I'm imagining they're going to try to lean in more and more to some of those social features. Um as Ryan Connor likes to say, you know, he thinks PumpFun and like Twitter and TG is like the equivalent of you know, sports betting and uh Barstool and you know, iMessage groups. Um and it is pretty similar, right? Like people they rally around these different memes, these communities. They message their friends. They say, "Hey, I made 100 bucks. Hey, I lost 1,000 bucks."

Like Um so, Pump is definitely leaning into that angle. Like if they can capture more and more of the social piece that's connected to the trading piece then uh it's it's going to be a bit more of an integrated ecosystem for them. Um I guess maybe only one other thing to comment on if you have any big takes or not is there were a ton of new layer one raises announced this week if if by intention to add like fuel to the flames and like people were already upset about like G move and and you know some revelation revelations coming out about different projects. Um I'll just list off three of those camp network supposedly

an IP focused layer one blockchain maybe like story protocol uh and then through which is the coming from onto labs or into or onto I don't know how they're pronouncing it but um that is the like maybe SVM fire dancer is adjacent not super clear but probably going to be some high throughput chain where the the founder is the ex fire dancer lead engineer Liam Heeger. Um there was a lawsuit actually jump sue I believe it was jump sued him after he left the organization to then go and found this effort so they settled and they're good to roll and they've announced through so clearly

that's not going to be an issue and they're moving forward. Um and then Miden is another one. Uh supposedly like a ZK based chain with like public and private transactions with client side execution. They call it an edge blockchain. Um which is maybe a little funny. Um I don't know do you have any big takeaways here is this just like more of the same can we expect anything exciting? I think the one that maybe sticks out at me a little bit at the moment is through and seeing what onto labs can do and and what Liam can do.

Just knowing that he worked at fire dancer and was a lead engineer on on that uh, that that client. Sorry, I was looking for that word. Um, I think gives a lot of weight and like credibility to what he's building. Um, but it's it's pretty sparse and light on details today. Yeah, I don't have too much to say necessarily on the individual chains themselves. I wouldn't say any of them are are particularly inspiring.

I mean, another IP chain, another SVM fork, and Miden was like originally I believe originally acquired by Polygon, taken in-house, and now it's like being pushed outside, um, in the same way I'm blanking on their DA layers name. Uh, they did basically the same thing for them. Yeah. They did that with their They did that with like Hermes as well. Yeah, they like acquired a bunch of chains that were going to be the swift the swift knife, yeah, yeah, layer two, and then, yeah, now each of those is becoming their own project.

Which is interesting in its own right, but to me it's like, okay, it's a broader question of why are a bunch of L1s launching? This is a a big question I was thinking about, and I think there's two things that are driving this. One has been this long-standing, at least perceived, quote unquote, L1 premium, that if you launch like an L1 with your own validator set, that for some reason you should have some sort of premium versus any other chain, like an L2, L3, etc., which I'll argue doesn't really exist in a in a moment.

Uh, but another piece that I think is super interesting is this in my head is sort of the the the opposite of what we saw a few years ago, where every new chain was an L2 and had like Ethereum aligned language and like was like chanting we are Ethereum, we are Ethereum. And that's like a completely 180 from that point of view and that's in fact people I feel like not even wanting to associate with Ethereum whatsoever is another motivating factor to build a separate L1 versus a roll up.

So, I think both these factors are super interesting. On the L1 premium front, me me and Bach on one of our had a pretty heated debate on whether the L1 premium exists. He was very adamant and very like it very much still does exist. My argument was like in the public markets, how these things like are actually valued at the end of the day after after years of being live, like L1 premium does not exist and should not exist. I think the bigger point is it does not exist.

Um and I think you know, you might see these these three races as like check mark to Bach, like he may have won this argument, but really I think what this comes down to is like a difference between expectations and reality. Like there's still this expectation and like people talk about it, too, of like there is no one premium, right? Like people used to expect it there is one and so that shows up in private market valuations or just in like how people construct their chain because they think at some point in the future that the market will value these things as more. But you don't actually see that in the public markets. Like if you take a fundamentals view, like the actual multiple on top of fees generated

for chains is like pretty consistent around 100 to 200, regardless if you're in an L1 or an L2. And um and so for that reason I don't really think that L1 premium exists. I also had a a tweet the other day where I have the a very strong opinion that like L1s and L2s and L3s like it's all the same thing, right? They're just chains. How you construct those chains, whether you have multiple validators and multiple leaders, or you just have one single sequencer, is like largely irrelevant to like what these things are, what their strategy is, like and how they accrue value, which is people paying to use the chain, or if you have

some sort of like an enshrined application, then you can add like additional revenue uh through through those apps. And so yeah, you brought up the tweet I have, which is like these are just chains. What matters is the specific strategy to get applications built. And there's been like So, if you look at Base and Solana, one is an L2, one is an L1. It In my mind and most people's minds, they are the same thing. They're competing for the same sets, or at least generally same sets of builders and same sets of users. And they're trying They're basically this this platform for third-party application builders to come build.

And then as a result of more quality applications getting built, they accrue value at the transaction level through REB. So, in my mind like all that matters is the strategy to get applications built, whether it's like again, these third-party builders, or you like home-built your own applications or one application. Um and then how that translates into top line, and that can be again REB and app revenue. And then the reliance on bridges versus native assets, the only thing that the an L2 has that an L1 maybe doesn't is an enshrined bridge, but it's really just a bridge. Like an L1 can have a bridge to Ethereum, too. It's just like you may get different properties uh within that bridge, like the ability

to escape force inclusion, etc. Uh but what really matters is like the actual amount of assets in the bridge because like now like potentially a lot of the REV of the revenue that you generate is specifically uh because of assets from that are initiate from another chain. The more that you have actual native issuance uh the more value you should have basically. And that's regardless of L2 or L1 premium. And then censorship resistance is another piece and how you get there.

Um like people just want to know that the transaction is going to be included. Uh and you might have better assurances on the whole as L1s versus L2s, but I know like there are plenty of L2s today that have very very strong censorship resistance. And L1s like hyperliquid like that like you're pretty low because you can just have um Jeff update the oracle whenever he pleases. So to me like these are the only properties that matter. L1 versus L2 irrelevance. And I don't think an L1 premium exists, should exist. And so that's my long rant.

I don't think Box is going to like that inclusion about hyperliquid, but I do I like your point about um the transition from like every raise being an ETH L2 or some form of like ETH rollup related project to you're right that we are seeing like no just native L1 blockchain, native like SVM based blockchain. Um there's been a really massive shift there. And that's started happening last year. You know, we we started to see a lot more like SVM chains and even move chain um raises kind of coming out of the out of the woodwork, but uh

now that you mentioned it I I had not even been thinking in that in that mindset that like the ETH L2 and like a lot of the EVM chain raises have really reduced from a few years back, which is an interesting point. And I And I do think to the point about the L1 premium, like I do Like I think a lot of this debate just stems to like whether it exists in the minds of people in the liquid market who actually want to buy these tokens versus whether there's something about the sort of uh market dynamics that allow L1s to continue raising at certain valuations and then launching at certain valuations and then declining to certain valuations, um which is not something that we've been able to like rid

uh the industry of as of yet. That's been ongoing. Um I think we can call it there. That was a good one. We went for a good while and got to chat about all the fun things that we're keeping up with um that maybe we don't normally get to chat with you the listeners about. Uh I'm going to give one last shout-out and reminder to Permissionless. It's coming up end of June. You heard it once before. This app uh get your tickets 0x10 uh for 10% off. Me and Westy, we're both going to be there. Pikachu's going to be there. Cash Flows Connor will be there.

A bunch of other people we'll be will be there. Come out and meet us. Uh if you got one last thing to leave the listeners with, Westy, what do you want to say to them other than hot air rises? Damn. That's what I was going to say. Um L1s and L2s don't matter. Um And this memetic premium doesn't matter. How much The only thing that matters is how much value you capture at the end of the day. And And let's build businesses that actually accrue revenue. Might be shocking to say. It might be you know not the consensus, but yeah, let's build things that accrue value.

I love that. One of my catchphrases has become build products that people want to use and maybe also pay money for. So, let's let's keep going for that end state. Hopefully at some point, but we will see you all next time. Thanks for coming on Westy and thanks for listening guys. Peace out.