The Rollup TV, Tuesday July 22nd

Transcript

[Applause] [Music] the best. Hey Heat. Heat.

Heat. [Music] Heat. Hey, hey,

hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat.

Heat. Heat. N. [Applause] [Music] Robbie's back.

Robbie's back. Let's go. It's a full market. >> Feels good to be back. >> Robbie, how you feel? >> It's a full market. We're here. >> How are you feeling, >> dude? >> I'm a little tan, a little sunburned, but it feels good to be back. >> Welcome to the bowl. Rob, welcome to the bull man. >> Yeah. Look, I came I came back to welcome you guys to the bull market. It feels good to be here. >> Well, you're swimming. I'm glad we're all here. You're swimming in it. You're swimming in it. >> Absolutely. I mean, how how can you not? There's no complaints out here. >> How's the uh >> there's no complaints. It's a bull market.

>> What's your what's your read? You know, you've been you've been uh you've been doing a little traveling. You've been doing, you know, working. What's your read on the market? You know, I've been I've been checking the charts every >> six, eight hours, friends texting, people getting excited in Telegram. So, my dopamine is obviously chocked, but what's your read from the outside? What are you seeing out there? I think from the outside they haven't even started the bull market yet. I think from the inside it's like we're getting sillier and sillier by the minute. You know, we're seeing the the risk curve play out. The secrets of crypto, Bitcoin, then Ethereum, then alt season is looming. We're seeing it circulating.

>> People said it wasn't going to happen. People were like, "Oh, it's not going to happen this way this time." But you know what's funny is that they were saying that because they were like the it's only institutional flows, so it's just going to be Bitcoin or ETH denominated. But what they didn't realize is that there was literally going to be digital asset treasury companies for altcoins. >> I think also the 4year cycle was somewhat chocked because we had a run up in Bitcoin like pretty early in the season and people were like, "Oh, this is going to be kind of like a smaller like more volatile like subcycles." But in reality, if you look at it, it's 2025. Bitcoin is at all-time highs.

We're right on track for the same four-year cycles that we've always had. And so there's really no reason to think that it wasn't going to happen. At least at this point going forward, it's not going to happen the same way that it always does. We're seeing ETH take a giant run up the last few weeks. Bitcoin obviously had the run up before that. I think the the real test now is like, okay, if Bitcoin maybe has a little bit of a dip back to like the 110, maybe back down to like 100, will ETH stay where it is or even go up? And what will altcoins do as a result of that? when at when it comes maybe it comes soon maybe it it's not 110 down to you know 100 it maybe it's 150 back down to 125 whenever we see a pretty substantial dip in the Bitcoin chart

that's when the real test is on to see if the rest of the ecosystem holds up >> interesting yeah man I mean look I uh I don't own much Bitcoin but Coinbase coin stock all-time highs brother boom boom >> Oh yeah >> how about Pangu >> look >> dude is that going to be the Yeah, we know the best of our entire fund is is are we going to return the fund on Pangu? Who would have thought, huh? >> The boys are cooking. >> I mean, out of out of 50 60 deals, it only takes one, right, >> dude?

>> And if it's Pangu, who's to who's to say that it's not Pangu? >> Luca is going to send that thing to new highs. That guy's an animal. So, all right, we got Arjun Batania, good friend of the show coming on, Rob. He put out a tweet today talking about digital asset treasury companies, ETH. They're seeing a ton of flows. We're going to celebrate some of the stuff that they're doing. We're we're going to get his take what's going on in the rebalancing market in the crosschain market. I really almost want to get his take from like this like core deep ethos perspective of like uh you know kind of what he thinks about the kind of state of affairs today. So um you know there's a lot of these treasury companies happening. So we'll we'll focus there and you know see see why he thinks this is leading to some

flows for everclear. We got John Adler coming up after talking about proof of governance. It's going to be fun too. Uh very interesting proposal um and stuff that they're trying to do. We had Shriram on last week asked him about economic security being a meme. I think that'll be an interesting uh pullback into the convo. Um and then the last one we got Storm who's going to unveil one of his new or his new project building a yield. I don't even know what it is. So we're we're going to find out something about yield on Salana. So we got the line up today. Uh, we're gonna get Arjun in here, Rob. And dude, you're [ __ ] back, man. We're back.

>> It's a bull market. Feels good to be back. We are so back. >> Yes, sir. Arjun's in the house. It's good to have him. And um, what's up, man? >> Yo, how's it going? It's been a while. >> It has. I mean, it has been a while. >> I think prices have gone up since we've last spoke. >> Yeah, it's crazy. Entirely different part of the cycle. That means that I'm entirely different part of a entirely different human being. If it does feel that way, man. Arjun, I saw you guys flying under the radar.

There was like a few weeks back a tweet that you guys had quietly crossed just about a billion dollars. Maybe it's way more at this point. >> Yeah. Yeah. We uh we crossed a billion dollars like a week ago and then uh and then now we're like like you know at a half a billion monthly volume. So the next billion is going to be pretty quick. >> Damn. So, so yeah, you put out a tweet saying that like you think some of this is because ETH treasury company flows, institutional flows. We'll kind of get into some of the nitty-gritty of exactly where this is coming from, but I just want to get your take, man. What is your take on this on ESP, on Joe Luben getting out there, Tom Lee getting out there with his company, being the face of of Ethereum, right? cuz you're a very

ethos guy, you know, like I think of you, I think of somebody who cares about the the reasons why we're here, who cares about Ethereum, about the space, and we've got these figures going on these large media outlets and creating these vehicles to accumulate ETH, and now, you know, now it's trickling all the way down from the builder perspective, from your perspective being an OG. What's your what what's your take on on on ESP, on Joe Luben, and on this entire kind of ETH treasury uh company? >> Yeah. Um, it's a great question. I think like obviously there's there's a lot to it, right? Um I think overall like super super happy to see this, right? There's institutional adoption has been a long time coming.

We've been saying it literally for like 10 years or like oh the institutions are coming, the institutions are coming now. Like that's actually happening. So I think everyone has has like been so far so like got you know got rugged so many times by that statement that eventually people stop believing in it and then like or at least or at least we're like no no this this time is not not going to be the time and then this time is actually the time where it's happening which is crazy. Um and so when you're looking at at these treasuries and you're seeing like oh well the people that are participating in it are like Goldman Sachs and and [ __ ] like that you're like okay wow yeah actually this is this is real. Um, now of course like there's there's two sides of it, right?

Like obviously like it's good that we are finding vehicles to give exposure to these players that just didn't exist before. Um, I think the other side of it is of course like this is certainly going to bring a lot of the like crypto degeneracy has like crossed the chasm, right? And and like we we crossed the chasm in terms of like the ultimate degeneracy of meme coins with like Trump and stuff like that. Um, now we're starting to cross the chasm in terms of what is in for many many organizations that are doing this for treasuries, especially for some of the other longer tail locked up assets. It's like basically just M. And so you're you know, you're you're kind of we're kind of like recreating some of the things that have already been been done in the

space before and that we we know don't work, but you know, non-crypto retail doesn't really know doesn't work. And and I think those lessons will unfortunately at least some of them will end up needing to be relearned. Um for ETH it's obviously less bad, right? ETH is like a like a AAA blue chip asset and so you're not going to have as much of the kind of crazy [ __ ] with it. But um I do think that there is a you know we'll have to see what happens. like normie retail and normie institutions are going to bid the [ __ ] out of out of these like treasury >> things and like that is going to they're going to get wrecked like at some point and like it's not going to be because of anything else like even if we try to tell them not to do that like they're

going to get wrecked because you the market just has to learn that lesson and I I I don't really know how how to stop that from happening right it's it's the same thing as like uh like you know all of crypto in like the early like pre2020 20 knowing that Algo stables isn't going to work and then Terra coming along and then like really showing everyone that Algo stables isn't going to work. You know, >> I still have faith in Algo stables, but uh I don't think we're I I'm not sure that that we've actually seen it work. So maybe I'm just on a false hope here. But one thing that I did see Arjun that it does not apply to ETH necessarily, but is important that you shed light on is that there are actually some of these and they're calling them DATs, digital

asset treasuries or digital asset treasury companies. >> DATs. There's some that are that uh there are actually some VCs which are able to actually provide locked tokens as their contribution into this company effectively then shortening whatever their vesting period would be which is typically you know multi-year to the whatever the maturity is on this on this uh kind of uh deal let's just call it there's some there's some like you know nooks and crannies into exactly how it works but effectively I saw a tweet from CMS holding say that that I thought was really good which was that if you're the retail investor getting uh you know allocation in these and putting up capital but but VCs are just putting up lock tokens then you're you're the one

who's kind of getting the short end of the >> basically getting dumped on. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Yeah. >> You know which is like great. It's like strategic for the VCs who want to like you know take advantage of it but like of course you know they're going to be the bad guy again. >> Um >> but I don't think ETH has that problem though. >> So >> yeah, ETH doesn't have that problem for sure. And that's that's actually the really like the the negative. So obviously there's going to be like shitty things that come out of the ETH Treasury stuff. That's mostly just going to be like retail hype, right? Retail like bidding this out of out of proportion of like what the underlying nav is. But at the end of the day like you can't it's not like ETH the asset is being manipulated. It's not like ETH the

asset is anything other than this like very very awesome credibly neutral store of value and public good right. Um I think it's you you rightly pointed out it's really like these treasury companies or like some of these other assets where like there are locked tokens where there are actually real risks and like the sad reality is like this stuff has also been done before in Tradfi. like Tradfi has found ways to rug retail for generations and and like basically by praying on exactly this which is like retail not truly understanding like time value of money not truly understanding like oh how how does like who is actually the bag holder in these situations like how does this thing work um and I think I do fear like you know a lot of a lot of basically

what has happened recently within the space of uh VCs having like lockups and like you know bidding up token valuations launching tokens at super high prices for things that don't really like that don't really end up getting traction or it's just like an unrealistic price and then getting liquidity by like selling OTC or finding ways out of those lockups um and then retail getting dumped on. Like I fear I do fear that in some ways the like longer tale treasury companies are is basically an attempt now that it's stopped working on crypto retail it's it's an attempt to now shift it over to like tradi retail right um it's like basically who is the next buyer who is going to be the next person that's like not going to know that this scheme and and going to be the buyer that is the

concern um I think like again I think this is one of those things where like like there's not uh unfortunately like We can we we need to try to like you know educate people and be like hey look these are the risks like this is what you need to think about these are the things you should look out for as part of investing but there will unfortunately just because there is hype the reality is there will be some people that will just not look at that and they will get wrecked and I think this is one of those again one of those situations where like the market the invisible hand of the market will bslap some people and and then then we will learn collectively right unfortunately and Arson, would you would you say that there's kind of like there's one

treasury company style and and you know the digital asset treasuries are kind of one and the same. They all sort of operate in the same way or is there is there some of them that do things better than the others and and there's actually a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. Too many of them are too predatory and and doing things the wrong way. Like if you were building one of these from scratch, right, and you were putting it together and trying to do it the right way, how would you build one of these digital asset treasury companies the right way? >> That's a really good question. Um I I will say in general like I think it's pretty early. I'm also fairly new to this as is everyone. Like we're all still trying to figure this out, right?

Um, I think like we just don't know yet what the playbooks are. And like people who are very very good financially are the ones that are kind of able to navigate this like in like just and I don't just mean that within crypto. I mean like understanding the regulations outside of this space and understanding like what kinds of of like legal structures are able to be used to actually make all of this work, right? Um, I think those people have like an advantage here. I do think like if I was trying to do it from scratch from first principles, right? Like the goal here is try to find a way to give exposure to retail of like your asset and um and do this using like a public vehicle, right?

Um and uh and of course like uh getting people to buy into a public vehicle and then go using those funds to buy spot or buy like tokens of an asset makes a lot of sense um as a as a way to do that. Uh and it's basically just like an SPV, right? Um uh the ways to do it correctly are to have one like very very strong reporting and clear understanding around like what are the assets underneath. Those assets do need to be liquid like they shouldn't be you shouldn't be like buying lockups. I don't think that makes a lot of sense. Um you shouldn't be engaging in like transactions directly with insiders ideally like it's you should be buying like market makers or spot um uh and like buying over a longer period. Um uh and then I think like yeah

I think it's basically about like finding the right ways to have like responsibility to shareholders right like um technically if you're a public company you have a fiduciary application to your shareholders um unfortunately a lot of tech public companies also similar to crypto companies don't really seem to care about that but like that is technically true right and so I think you have to sort of maintain that fiduciary obl obligation by like making it very clear to them like hey like this is not a risk-free vehicle right if you are if you're investing in this thing and it's trading at a premium, maybe there's it's worthwhile to have that premium, but if it's beyond a certain point, like there that doesn't necessarily make sense. You have to sort of like ideally like release information about like what the financials of this thing look like and what price actually

makes sense. >> Yeah, man. I mean that is like so I I don't know if there's any like right way to necessarily do this um from the lens of actually trying to you know you know I think it's just an it's just an education thing. I I you know I think I think you're right. Um so with that being said I'd like to shift over to Everclear and to some of the work that you guys have been doing. Um, so we got a little confetti for you today and a little money rain going on because you guys have crossed a billion.

Congratulations. Pushing on two. We're going to do some some money rain and some confetti. How does this tie in? So, what where does the where does the ETH institutional appeal tie into Everclear's uh clearing product for crosschain transactions? How have you seen flows kind of come or like you know you wrote that tweet today like like what is the thesis behind you think the increase in volume is because of this institutional appeal for ETH? >> Yeah. Um yeah so just taking a step back right so and Andy you and I have talked about this I mean since since like the Everclear launch right back in in last year in like in Singapore um at token um the the kind of Everclear thesis is at

the end of the day there is fragmentation is going to exist right like we have it's interop is just too complex of a problem because there's just too many moving pieces there's so many different kinds of chains um with different kind of security properties you can't create one single unifying system that will work everywhere it will always have trade-offs. Um, this exists in Tradfi as well, right? Tradfi is made up of a bunch of different systems, a bunch of different kinds of banks, a bunch of different protocols. Um, and the way that this is solved in Tradfi is clearance, which means that you have some entity in between that is responsible for like basically processing all of the transactions going in different directions, batching them, and netting them down. So, you're only settling the final delta between chains or between banks or whatever, right? So,

uh, the example a good example here is like Visa. when you when you go and you pay with a credit card with Visa, a payment is not immediately completed at at the point like when you go and buy a buy a coffee, right? Visa makes a promise to the merchant to whoever you're buying coffee from that like this payment will be completed. And what they do is they take all of the payments that are happening around the world in during a day or half day or whatever period. Um, and they like net them off against one another, which means if there's like a million dollars going from Bank of America to Chase and then 500K going from Chase to Bank of America, they just turn that into 500K going from Bank of America to Chase, right? The same kind of thing exists in crypto across chains.

Like when you look at all the flows that are going between chains, there's a lot of things that are just canceling each other out all the time. And like this is especially true in this world that we live in today with intense and and intense obviously being now like the dominant basically the only form of bridging that exists, right? Like even Stargate is is launching an intent protocol. Like every single major bridge is now an intent protocol which is crazy. Hyper intentification has happened. And um and for all of these intent bridges, you have solvers, these back-end liquidity providers that are like the the institutions right there that they are the the businesses that are going and giving you money that are making the transaction happen immediately and then they are taking on the overhead of dealing with crosschain.

Now, these solvers, the interesting thing about them is they don't care as much about time. As a user, when you're bridging or you're doing something across chains, you want that to happen immediately, right? In seconds, ideally less. Um, but a solver, like they're a business. They're making this, they're facilitating this for you, but behind the scenes, like they're okay if it takes like 15 minutes or 30 minutes, whatever, for like for for them to get their money back and for them to figure things out. Um, and what we found is like similar again to like Tradfi, right? These institutional players, they have larger amounts of capital. They have larger flows. They want to send these flows across chains. What they care about is doing that in the most efficient way possible. This is especially true for ETH because when you talk about stables and things of that,

you to an extent, right, CCTP you can mint and burn the asset across chains. Um other stables you can mint and burn to an extent, right? Um it's not it doesn't work everywhere, but it does improve things. But ETH doesn't have that. If you want to get ETH from one chain to another, you have to go through like seven days of exit window pain. There is no other option, right? You have to go through Ethereum. That is insane. Like that's a that is just like a non-starter for everyone. So ETH today for Everclear is like by far our largest source of volume. And it it just has been because like there's literally no other option on the table, right?

There's no other way to make this stuff work. And so instead of users sending ETH between chains through canonical bridges, they just put it into Everclear. Um all of these solvers put put their flows into Everclear. And these flows go in different directions, they cancel each other out, right? Um as ETH institutional volume has taken off. That has led to just this cascading effect, right? As institutional volume takes off, prices go up. Um more people start arbiting between chains, institutional players start moving larger amounts of capital between chains, market makers start rebalancing more between chains. that trickles to the intent solvers who start rebalancing more between chains. What we have seen is in the last like let's say 10 days or so since this has taken off. There's a pretty clear chart like you can go to like everclar like explorer.

Everclair.org right now you can go to our analytics page and you can just look at the daily volume chart and you'll see this like stepwise growth as soon as ETH like that correlates exactly with ETH taking off, right? Um, and that is and it's entirely ETH volume and it's coming from the fact that there is just no other way to do this like we explicitly built Everclear as a solution to the exact problem that exists today which is awesome. >> Yeah. No, I mean I was just, you know, further confirming that the that the kind of the shift that you guys made was this very specific problem solving like kind of shift that took took you know it took guts to basically be able to to do that but it kind of I mean is there

anybody else in the market who's doing rebalancing? Um so basically most other rebalancing there is no there is no DeFi protocol. There's no decentralized approach to rebalance. >> That's what I thought. It's just centralized exchanges. >> Yeah. And and that's that's it's that's the thing is like there are other people that have kind of thought about it or slightly worked on it. Nobody has been able to get the traction because it's such a network effectsoriented thing. And now we have gotten the flywheel going. People are starting to realize like yeah there's actually something here you know which is which is awesome. This market has kind of like grown underneath us which is something that we really predicted. Um, and the sexes as well are starting to run into the same issues where it's like sexes are are not like they're not, you know, magical.

Like they also need to rebalance capital. It's just that they right now they just eat all of those costs internally, but they pay those costs internally. And like they pay those costs in terms of keeping large amounts of deposits on every chain that they just don't do anything with, right? They're just sitting there. And they they do this in order to have available liquidity. But like that is all lost opportunity, lost capital, right? like there's there's just there's just it's just sitting there. Um and so like yeah, even for these sexes, like we're kind of starting to see like talking to a bunch of sexes and we're starting to see them being like, "Yeah, you know what? Like it would be so much easier. We'd be able to get so many more chains. We'd be able to have such better pricing. We'd be able to have like we'd be able to make

so much more money if if we just like actively managed our capital through Everclear and effectively shared it with other exchanges. And you know, it's we're playing the same playbook that we've played with the solvers and and bridges, which is like you start with kind of like the smaller ones that are like, well, yeah, like I don't have enough liquidity to really like be definitively be like, you know what, I've already solved this problem. I'm going to work with other people on it. And then as it gets larger and the snowball kind of starts turning, like you eventually you eventually get to the bigger players who are like, yeah, I I just have to join the system. Like there's no other option. This just makes so much sense. Now, >> what do you think you you you get to by like end of the year in terms of like

weekly volume? >> Yeah, that's a good question. Um, >> well, what's like your goal? >> So, right now we're growing. We have since January averaged about 50% growth every month. Um, so we're basically doubling in size every two months. Um, which is >> You get the money emoji. You get the money falling down on your face. >> Yeah. So in January we did four months of four four million in volume. Obviously it was we were just getting started and there's a such a huge chicken and egg problem around this right like just like creating a system with network effects getting the flywheel going is just so much pain. It was like maximum pain for several months. But this month is we're we're certainly going to clear half half a million or half a billion sorry. Um, I

think we're actually intentionally trying to avoid things like growing in too fast because we're like, "Okay, look, like, you know, I you guys have all seen like the there's so many stories out there of protocols that just like overnight just explode." And while that's awesome, I think like they're also not very long lived, right? You have you do have to like sort of make sure that it's sustainable and stuff like so. Right now, what we're trying to do is make sure like, hey, we just keep keep driving costs down, keep driving costs down. Like our cost basis has basically continuously been dropping, right? Um and uh and so we're we we want to try to keep up that trajectory like 50% uh 50% a month. And so that means in a couple months we want to try to get to a billion. Um end of the year hopefully

it's like a like two to four billion monthly. So maybe a billion a week, you know. >> And Arjun, you mentioned how important ETH is as an asset because there's a lot of flow uh for this asset in particular. And there was someone else, I think it was Rashene from Twine, who mentioned this is basically all just asset issuers and bridges. And that that really seems like it is what's going on here because ETH as an asset is happening, but it doesn't really have a robust bridge ecosystem. There's obviously a lot of bridges, but none of them are really netting >> or or an issuer. Exactly. Whereas you mentioned CCTP and circle they're able to kind of net flows of USDC with you know one another that are that are

trading it. How are you thinking about extending you know given this kind of kind of projection of of volume? How are you thinking about extending the solution to other assets? Do you think there's enough? And it's really just kind of like, okay, as ETH grows, you guys will grow in volume, too, or are you thinking about other assets and how you're going to facilitate and support asset issuers with, you know, a bridge ecosystem as they get to be more used, widely used as payments? >> Yeah. Um, yeah, this is a really really important question, right? Because this is this is basically like the gotcha that we always get from a lot of people.

were like, "Oh, well, like, you know, they're like, "Oh, well, for any asset that is issued, like uh you know, we could just work with the asset issuer directly and they could just do it custodially." And and that's true. They they can. And that that kind of like not everybody wants to have a custodial asset, but like most of the non-custodial assets are like governance tokens, right? What are the assets that have velocity? It's basically ETH, >> to a lesser extent, Bitcoin, and then like stables. And with the stables, all of them are like are like just custodial. So like no one cares about them being more custodial. Um however, and I think that there's something really interesting here. The the kind of flip side of this gotcha is um there are a ton of stables and they effectively >> like they effectively play the same

function in the market, right? They're not like as a user, you know, as as a stable issuer like yeah, there's a difference between pay USD and and USDC and USDT and you know USD whatever, right? But as a user, you don't care. it's just dollars. And the interesting thing, the really interesting thing is that technically speaking, when you have a whole ecosystem of stables um and you want to enable very very seamless interactions between an entire ecosystem of stables that are being used for payments and investments, things like that. Effectively, you can model that as a single state stable that is governed by a consortium, right? uh it's a it's a single stable

governed by a consortium of completely extremely competitive actors. So effectively it is a decentralized table in the sense that like um you know min modulus and like capital controls and things like that from a like from functionally from a like how do you do bridging for this broader ecosystem perspective it does kind of look the same. The answer for us uh to your to your question is one we already support a bunch of stables and like we do have a decent amount of volume through them. Um, and that especially happens in places where like things like CCTP are not supported, right? But two, we think the real value for stables is in cross asset settlement, cross stable settlement because no one gives a [ __ ] about getting pay USD versus USDC, right? No user cares about that. No merchant cares about that. Um, what they

do care about is making sure that they actually get paid and they don't have to go and convert themselves because that is the worst experience. And so we think intent solvers are going to become stable variant agnostic because who gives a [ __ ] >> Um but if the intent solvers become stable variant agnostic they need a way to rebalance across assets on the back end >> and there is no way to do that. No except for us basically like this is another instance where this is also just clearance. I'm I'm sure you saw a a similar situation when it came to, okay, we have wrapped ETH on this chain, wrapped ETH on that chain, we have wrap staked ETH over here. And it was almost this Cambrian explosion of just different

variants of the same asset, which is effectively what's going on here. We have dollars. All stable coins are effectively different variants of those dollars. We're going to get a bigger Cambrian explosion of several more types of stable coins. Genius Act passed last week. We're gonna get so many more stable coins. Every bank is gonna have one. >> And so is there are there lessons that that we can learn from the wrapped ETH on, you know, 50 different types of bridged wrapped ETH on different chains? Is there any lessons that we can learn from that era and apply those to clearing different stable coins?

>> Yeah. So, first off, I think the many different flavors of wrap. So first off like the many different flavors of wrapped eth on each chain thing like still exists. It is still a problem. In fact we are talking to uh players right now to pilot this like cross asset settlement thing specifically around wrapped ETH because we see the value for it. We already have a ton of ETH liquidity. It's very easy for us to support it and like it's basically just like a small config change for us but we can all all of a sudden support this like incredible use case. Right? So, we're already talking to a bunch of players about exactly this because it's it's just there. Um, uh, I would say like this is this is just a problem, right? There there are going to be many flavors of each asset. I think like you

know in the same way that in the past like when when DeFi first started like back in 2017 2018 when we were first talking about this right most people's mental model was like there's going to be basically one DEX protocol and there's going to be basically one lending protocol in the same way that there's like there's one you know TCP IP and there's one HTTP and like the protocol is going to be so open and incredibly neutral that it's like why not just use it right obviously that hasn't happened um and we eventually learned to like not only accept but come to love the fact that there are there's just this like plurality of protocols and chains and heterogeneity and that gives this space quite a bit of antifragility if you know albeit makes it extremely chaotic. Um I think the

same thing is going to happen with assets. Um and in fact I I kind of welcome that like for a long time I was like no there there should really just be like one standard for things and now I'm like you know what this space is so competitive there's not going to be one standard for things. There's not going to be one way to do things. This is a huge market. It's the entire world we're talking about. And a world where anyone can actually issue their own asset is actually kind of better because it it the the fragmentation to an extent provides antifragility, right? Like you don't have one asset collapsing doesn't just take out the entire economy like in 2008. You have this plurality where there's just a bunch of different people with deposits everywhere. Now, of course, there is still the underlying

kind of root of trust which is the US government. we that's why E, you know, in the long term. But um I I do think that there's there's something to be said about like embrace the fact that there's going to be many stable coins and lean into the fact that things like Everclear and eventually other clearing protocols, right? I I don't know if you guys have seen, but there are there are other people that have launched protocols for clearance. They're targeting slightly different markets, but um it is starting to happen. And this is this is just like Tradfi players that are coming in being like, "Yeah, we should build a clearing house on a blockchain." Um, I think those people will lean into the same thing.

>> Interesting. Well, Arjun, man, it it's been a pleasure to catch up. Thank you for joining us. Last minute uh notice here. And uh again, congrats on the um on on the grow. We're going to send you off with some confetti here for your uh your one billion, two billion soon. Hopefully 10 billion at at the end of the year if you guys allow yourselves to grow that faster. That's how we do it. >> Appreciate it, Andy. >> We can't fail too fast. >> We You can't You seriously can't.

>> All right. Thank you, man. See you soon. >> See you. >> All righty, guys. Love that guy. I mean, he's well spoken and smart dude. Um, >> one of the nicest guys in crypto. >> Yeah. Honestly, he's just and and I think he's been around for so long and really pioneered some of these concepts around intents, but failed to find product market fit until now. And look how fast they're growing. >> Yeah, a little uh a little camera debug there. So I have a fixed guy here during the next guest but we got John Adler coming up the gigab brain from talking about governance talking about talking about the recent proposal for the endgame for LSTs.

We'll get him up here in a second and um yeah Rob how you feeling man first uh first interview back on the stream >> feels good I'm bullish on uh on what Arjun's doing. We're gonna get into Celestia and John Adler and all all of the Gigab Brain stuff happening over there here pretty soon. But, uh, I really feel like, you know, they've they've cracked something this time. Whole team is cracked over there. >> Yeah, man. I mean, the growth is clear. like it's it's clear growth >> and and we're seeing payments uh really come into the limelight as a a true uh use case uh for crypto uh and blockchain rails not just stable coins but payments like it's the same reason

Stripe like the biggest payment company around is going they're acquiring so many blockchain companies so that they can offer these services I just with as much I mean we talked about it before I think Stripe uh supports something like 50% of the Fortune 500. They're doing trillions of dollars in volume. They're going to face this problem with so many stable coin variants, right? Maybe they can support them over the bridge, but when it comes to netting out these different stable coin variants against the dollar, they're going to need a way to support that on and off process. And I think Everclear is in a pretty good position to partner with a major fintech payments provider like a Stripe to to help provide some of that some of that clearing value. It's pretty crazy how

like all of this open source software is now going to be adopted by some of the largest players in the world >> like like like we've just built the rails for this alternative financial system and then boom you know we're have I mean we already have a being used by large institutions big players just like like you know it's funny how all power comes back to open source developers and those who have like created this it's like transparent code and then effectively there's just unlimited building possibilities on top. Um so yeah, shout out.

>> It goes to show it's a true meritocracy, right? And and the widest open market is the one that will produce and innovate the quickest and therefore win. >> Yeah, man. All right, we've got John ready in the back. We're we're going to get him up. Uh we're going to talk about the proof of governance proposal, his endgame vision, uh and more. Um so John, welcome to the show, man. Good good good to have you back. Thank you for having me again. >> Good to see you. >> Welcome. Welcome. >> Um, you definitely the feathers. >> Yeah.

>> Yeah. You've definitely been ruffling some feathers in the uh proof ofstake camp. Maybe just like just quick quick uh, you know, rewind a month ago. You're, you know, somewhere writing up this proposal, thinking about the dynamic of proof of stake. As Zucky says, some of these ideas came from a hot tub, uh, from the Cosmos space. you're writing this proposal around proof of governance being the endgame for LSTs. What's going on in your mind? What kind of caused this thought? What like series of thoughts led to you starting this uh idea? And then we're going to dive into some of the more technical stuff uh and and go through it.

>> Yeah. So to kind of uh well, first of all, I enjoyed watching your your podcasts with uh various guests. I think I believe it was a permissionless around the time that you were you were talking around the time that you mentioned uh a bunch of people were talking about proof of governance or reducing staking issuance that staking issuance is not yield is not is not real yield it's just attacks things like that uh very I feel like very few people cited what inspired them to start talking about this uh narrative at this ex at that exact time but I like I'm a bit biased but I like to think that it was my my post that kind ized all >> you didn't get the credit that you deserve but nevertheless it did proliferate the uh zegeist >> yeah it's okay I'm used to it by now uh

so the what's the thinking behind this so it started with uh the thought of we have tia as a blockchain we have tia we would like tia to be used in defi and all the things like that uh and whenever you have a proof ofstake token and you have a defi that is using that token you end up in a situation where uh staking derivatives and LSDs and that kind of stuff might interfere with the yield in DeFi. Oh, sorry. Let me let me let me take that back. Uh it's not that the staking derivatives interfere with the yield, but rather the staking interferes the staking yield interferes with the DeFi yield. Uh and the way to counteract that is by the existence of staking derivative derivatives like LSTs. And

this is what kind of Tun and his co-authors and co-conspirators uh kind of posited posited back in the day of when E2 was starting. Uh you know, Tyrone and and his uh and his co-authors basically said, you know, that regardless of what you do on the primary chain, uh you're going to have staking derivatives. Uh you're going to have LSDs even if there's nothing even if there's no in protocol delegation. and therefore it's kind of a losing battle to not have in protocol delegation might as well embrace it. Uh this turned out to be true much to the dismay of the Ethereum consensus designers and implementers you know Lido and a bunch of other LSTs ended up existing on

Ethereum and today you know they control the majority if not the super majority of control is a strong word don't don't read too much into that they control the majority of you know stake on voting power on Ethereum that's not a bad thing uh just kind of the natural consequence of staking yield kind of will compete with DeFi yield and if you have a staking derivative, you can get the you can get both at the same time. Okay, those you can get your staking yield through a yield bearing uh staking derivative like st as it were or you know staked t if it exists on on celestia and you can get the yield from defi lending gambling speculating what whatever whatever the heck you want to

do. Uh so we're now in a situation where we have that's kind of the context background context of how we got to how this applies to Celestia. We have Celestia. We would like LSDs for Celestia. If TIA is going to be used in DeFi, we'd like LSDs for TIA. uh while doing a lot of while doing background you know uh literature review on the subject uh it I was told about John Sharbon's uh post on proof of governance well I was told I I guess I had known about it way back when when it was first originally posted and he did the presentation uh on this topic way back when uh but I

had kind of like memory hold it for for a while because LSDs hadn't come up for a while. So, uh I was I was presented with this. I read it and I'm like, "Oh, this kind of makes sense." Uh for what it's worth, I should say that while I wrote the post on the proof of governance proposal, it was primarily driven internally by Nashq, our head of research at Celestial Labs, who was driving our internal LSD design efforts. Uh I just kind of I just kind of published it uh as as as one as one does. publish publish research post/blog posts to get ideas out there. Uh but most of the effort was driven uh and kind of this notion of proof of governance and filling in some of the missing details in in John Charau's post

was primarily driven by our head of research uh Nashu uh just to give credit where credit is due. So how does uh what does John Sharbono argue? He basically argues that in a sufficiently mature LST landscape, you end up with a way of selecting validators that isn't the same way that you do in kind of a naive immature proof of a stake way. Is not just I have some stake and then I delegate to a particular validator and then that's it. Right? It's going to be something a little more uh let's say intermediated.

For example, uh let's consider the let's consider kind of a spherical cow model where you have one single staking staking uh uh liquid staking operator. Let's say let's say you had just lido and just this just lido had 100% of stake staking with it. Uh this makes sense because you know why would you leave yield on the table if you can liquid stake and also get defi yield and also do like looping and stuff like why would you leave stake why would you leave yield on the table that's kind of you would not in any sufficiently mature system with little friction and you know we should work to remove the frictions.

Any sufficiently mature system you would you would have you would collect all the yield that you can collect. You wouldn't leave free money on the table. So okay you have 100% of uh stake stake to a single uh liquid staking operator. So this does a few things. Uh the first thing is the validators that this operator selects to actually be the validators of the system. Uh that's how validators are selected not through delegations to individual validators. So this is a type of governance thing where you have you can say like you kind of put your stake into this you know lido as an example uh and then lio is the one that actually selects the validators in this example. Uh another

thing this does is that if 100% of tokens are staked which again if you have this mature system where people don't leave yield on the table then 100 you know close or you know either 100 or close to 100 would be staked the staking issuance is actually zero the net issuance the reason is that let's suppose that you know you have you have Ethereum uh it has some issuance I forget what it was let's say it's 2% a year right they issue 2% of the ETH supply year. This is just an example. I don't know. I don't know the exact numbers. If a 100% of ETH is staked, that issuance just goes back to the ETH holders. In other words, there's not actually real issuance because everyone

gets more ETH, but ETH also gets diluted by 2%. So, the yield is 2%, the inflation is 2%, it cancels out, and the real yield is zero. And this is why you have you know various people including like Anatoli on Twitter is very vocal about this point uh but never kind of took the leap of faith of proposing actually making a change based on this point. He keeps talking that proof stake issuance is not real issu it's not real yield it's just a tax because you get yield like fake yield but then you get taxed and then you have to pay taxes on this fake yield. Uh kind it's kind of a giant scam like capital gains tax.

Exactly. is it's just a tax that you you you know if you're in a jurisdiction that tax taxes you then you pay taxes and that's where the money goes it just goes out of the system no one's no one's getting anything so if you're in the situation this the spherical cow model 100% of tokens are staked uh real issuance is actually zero uh so if real issuance is zero it's arguable why would anyone stake uh and also you have this LST operator that essentially decides the validator set can you just kind of get to this end system, but make it even better than that. And that's kind of where proof of governance comes in, which is we say, okay, well, let's skip over all the staking stuff because if you have a 100% staked and you don't

actually get any yield, so why would anyone stake? Let's just skip over all this. Let's just do the validator selection part. Uh, and the reason this is fine is that validators aren't meant to secure the system and they aren't meant to define what is valid. validators are cucks. Uh a common uh a this in different words is a common refrain uh in the Ethereum crowd when they compare and contrast how uh Bitcoin miners aren't supposed to control the system, right? And Ethereum miners back in the day when Ethereum is proof of work don't control Bitcoin and Ethereum.

uh they might you know build additional blocks on top of the previous longest chain but they don't define what bitcoin and ethereum blocks are valid uh they don't define hard forks etc etc all of this is done through social consensus through uh deploying hard forks getting communities and exchanges and users and developers and everyone to coordinate around upgrades etc etc is not done through miners or in the case of brew of stake validators deciding on the governance of the chain The validators and miners are effectively the are downstream of governance not upstream of governance. So therefore if you imagine a very simple and naive system I'm not

saying this is how proof of governance should be done but you could imagine a very simple and naive system where you have in the software you have a list of validators and then those are your validators. No staking, no delegation, no nothing. There's your validators and then if any validator decides to misbehave well then you can penalize them in some way exercise left for the reader and then change them in the node software through a hard fork blockchain communities coordinate through hard forks anyways uh and then the the selection of the validators automated through the node software uh as as by hard coding them. So again, this is like a very naive like minimally viable proof of governance implementation uh way you way you would

do it. Potentially something in production would be more sophisticated than this. Uh but that's just an example to get to get to get the listeners you kind of a mental model of how it could work. Uh and in this way you now no longer need staking. You no longer need staking issuance. Therefore you can cut issuance. uh and you can do various other things that make the token more the the tokconomics and the kind of value thesis of the token more obvious and more concrete and less confusing because of the existence of issuance as a fake yield. uh for example what I proposed in my uh what I proposed uh well I shouldn't say what what Dashq proposed that I then transcluded in my

in my post on proof of governance is you can burn all transaction fees currently in a lot of chains transaction fees go to the validator that uh created the block uh cosmos chains including do it a bit differently which is always weird but they distributed it to all validators but you can do even better which is in the model where 100% uh sorry not all validators, they distribute it to all stake. Uh so in the model where you know 100% of uh tokens are staked, well then if you're going to distribute it to all stake, that's the same thing as just burning it. So instead of like from an accounting account from an accounting perspective, it's easier to burn it than distribute it to everyone because it's like a single state change to just burn a token as it's paid for fees versus if you had

like to distribute a small amount of dust to everyone. would be substantially more expensive from a state like from a pro programming and state uh transition point of view. So you just burn the fees. So this makes now the value acrual thesis of the token much more obvious which is that it's just directly and only and concretely did well the DCF really uh it's you know how how many fees do you expect the blockchain to have in the future? That's how much it's going to burn and therefore that's how much is value is going to be driven to the token. you don't have to worry about the complexities of the fake uh the fake issuance the real issuance being fake yield >> uh and things like that. So this system is uh substantially simpler than proof

of stake systems. Uh it allows you to reduce issuance substantially because now you essentially decouple the issuance you have to pay to validators because even though validators are cucks they do create blocks that that is a real cost to them right and they need to be pay paid for this cost. So now instead of having this weird thing where you couple validator commission which is some variable with voting power and they may have variable voting power therefore they may have varying commissions but their fixed costs for each validator is really the same like why like if you if you have you know 10% of voting power versus.1% voting power you still have to run the same full node to be a validator.

>> So you have like all all these weird things going on because you you've coupled these things in proof of stake that don't need to be coupled. So okay, you just decouple them and then the protocol can just pay validators what they need to be paid to be slightly potentially very profitable who whatever the whatever the social consensus of the chain decides to be profitable in running their validator operations and you can do so uniformly among all validators because you just know what that number is and you just pay them uh and therefore you don't have it's it's much simpler in how validators uh are paid which is actually a nice thing. Now you might say okay well what's the point of doing this? The reason it's nice is that currently you have this awkward situation where validators that are larger have economies of scale. This

applies to both Cosmos chains and to Ethereum. Uh for example, Ethereum says uh you need to run one validator node per uh per validator, right? It turns out and you can run like one beacon node uh for many validators, but you need one validator node that does some sort of amount of work per validator. uh and that work is you know verifying some subset and attesting to some subset right the problem is that it turns out beyond some threshold which is I think like a few thousand validators it turns out you don't actually need to run additional validator nodes you can just spin up additional keys in other words at a certain point you just get economies of scale where you can spin up

you know let's say a million validators well not that many whatever a large number of validators without incurring any additional like physical costs to running nodes. Uh so there are economies of scale there. The same applies to economies of scale uh in Cosmos style and tenderman style chains which is that the large more voting power a validator has the lower commission it can charge while still being more profitable while a very small validator needs to charge a higher commission to stay profitable. Proof of governance lets us do this very nice thing where all validators in the chain all effectively have the same voting power. So it's all uniform which means you know exactly you know you know that everyone has the same costs and they have the same the same voting power

in the consensus protocol and therefore they can get the same rewards. Everything is completely uniform and that makes a lot of things much easier when determining the economics of how much validator should should be getting paid. There's also some like further down things that I won't talk about like if you know that all the validators have equal voting power it makes it easier to like roundroin and do some other things uh between them because you know that there's uniformity uh various things to do with gossiping transaction transaction and block propagation that I won't get into because it's too low level but let's just say there's a huge number of secondary benefits to having these validators have uniform voting power. So anyways, that's kind of the TLDDR that there's a huge number of

benefits and a huge simplifies uh how these consensus protocols work by changing the civil resistance mechanism from this delegated staking to governance directly because ultimately even if you do delegated staking or staking with you know staking derivatives which is still delegated staking just with extra steps you still end up in a situation where you have some sort of governance uh deciding on the validator is just again with more steps. So might as well skip the steps and do it directly.

Hopefully you weren't muted for that entire dialogue because it was actually quite it was actually a pretty good summary. >> Yeah, >> sure. So I think I think Andy was hitting on some >> just need to unmute. Lol. Some good points there. >> Sorry. >> I think we got figure it out. So, >> all right. Wait, go ahead. >> Quick quick quick quick recap. Okay. We don't want a very centralized um uh stake staking provider. Lido 100% exchanges, etc. Two, you know, the the entire idea of like, okay, we have all of this yield um but if the you know, the price of these different assets that

we're staking is variable. You have to pay taxes. You have to deal with issuance as an expense from the protocol level. end users um you know they don't really know what they could get if the assets down 10% you get 6% you're actually losing then you have taxes etc. Um third and final thing is that you know we have a set of of distributed 100 200 validators with variable um you know amounts of stake in each but the same fixed cost. Um what's the difference between having you know a lot of these chains have no slashing right it's just kind of like been something that needs to be implemented you know is it is it better just to have a a a you know set of validators that are effectively almost like a security council per se trusted uh amongst you know the best of

the best and and use a process of removing these um validators rather than having to you know slash now uh I I do this recap and the summary for a second time. Um, for the reason because I I want to push back on something that or at least I want to provide a a a chance for you to respond to what Ryan Sean Adams said when he screenshotted a news post and said, you know, it it's of you explaining this proposal. And what he says is that if you do this to your L1 network, you're no longer in the non-s sovereign store value game. Uh, and if you do this to your network, you you probably never were were right. And then he goes on to say that the only two are Bitcoin and ETH. You know, does proof of

governance restrict assets from having this kind of like monetary premium? Is that even a real thing? Does that matter? Uh what what would you respond to this take? >> Sure. Well, I mean, it's uh you could I mean, you could argue monetary premium is is a meme, just like economic security was a meme. Uh it's it's unclear to me uh that Ethereum and Bitcoin Well, it's unclear to me that Ethereum exceptionalism is is isn't anything beyond a meme. Bitcoin exceptionalism definitely is. Uh it's a meme, but in the good way, not a meme in the bad way. in the sense that Bitcoin

exceptionalism has proven time. Bitcoin has proven time and again that is it is exceptional and it does a monetary premium despite not having good properties. Uh or properties that we would consider good. Uh Ethereum you know doesn't doesn't really have uh any anything exceptional going for it uh beyond well doesn't really have anything exceptional going for it. uh with now with respect to you know if you can do this or you can't do this ultimately it's up to the community to decide. Uh, one thing that people have a hard time mental modeling around is they may see this and say, "Hey, this is just a consortium chain from back in the day.

It's a enterprise is enterprise consortium chain. How that's any different?" Uh, the difference between this and consortium chains is the same difference between Ethereum and consortium chains. It's around the social consensus of what is the chain like what is the given to the given you have a chain and a hard fork of the chain with different rules. uh which one is the valid one? That's like what the so that's ultimately what social consensus decides. You can have various processes automating. You can argue that one is more automated than the other. These are all fine things to argue and we can argue about them technically. Uh but saying because one but these are the the differences in automation are differences on a spectrum. They're not

binary. There's not one thing is one thing and one thing is another thing. It just there's slight differences by degrees. Uh now uh you know you can say well how is Ethereum uh store of value when they did the Doward fork right Ethereum just goes and tells everyone to stop trading now you can say oh that was a long time ago sure well the bitcoiners don't think it's that long ago right uh there's various criticisms criticisms that can be made but ultimately the difference between an enterprise chain and a consortium chain and something like a proof of governance or Ethereum today even is around the social consensus deciding which hard fork valid because as long as you can hard fork okay imagine you have a consortium chain it has whatever five seven validators uh

the social expectation around the consortium chain and all the centralized exchanges that will accept deposits from this consortium chain all of these the social expectation is the seven validators run the consortium chain and they are the only ones running the consortium chain maybe the code is clos source etc etc but if the code is open source and the social consensus of the community is whatever's in the node mode whatever's in the software and whatever validators are decided by the governance again the decentralized governance deciding on the validators that's who the validators are and that's the blockchain you can't have someone centralized show up and just say I control the chain right the Celestia Foundation could show up and say here are the validators uh then 99% of the

validators are just the Celestia Foundation and the Celestia Foundation with the mustache right and the Celestia Foundation with like the the the glasses and the mustache Right? And then the community would say no. Uh the ability of the community to say that and more importantly the social expectation and consensus that the community can and should do this. That's the differentiator between a consortium chain and a permissionless chain with proof of governance. So proof of governance does not imply permission that it's permissioned and it does not imply that it's a consortium chain. It's still permissionless. It's still decentralized. It still has all the nice properties of blockchains. uh because all those properties are downstream of social consensus and not uh they're downstream of social consensus and

social consensus is kind of what defines the blockchain to be what it is and that exists whether your consensus protocol is tenderint or whatever the heck E2 uses I for I forget what name they ended up going with uh and it doesn't matter if your symbiol resistance mechanism is proof of work or proof of stake or proof of governance none of those things matter because all of those are downstream of the social consensus So John, if I'm understanding this correctly, the the uh acceptance of new validators in into the consensus mechanism would be determined by token holders, stakeholders that would vote on accepting these new validators into the system. And each time that happens, there's a hard fork.

uh and effectively there's uh kind of the social consensus that decides okay we're going to accept the new validator into the system and and continue the chain on with this validator included in the selection process to build a new block every time you know there's a theory that says every time there's a new hard fork it splinters the community that's the same reason Bitcoin Cash still has $10 billion of market cap and Ethereum Classic still has $3 billion of market cap there's kind of this splinter of the Bitcoin community and the splinter of the Ethereum community that for you know whether even if it's just a market maker on some centralized exchange somewhere you know that that value is continuing on that chain and not on the consensus chain and so would

you agree that each time one of these hard forks happens and it sounds like there's a lot greater velocity of hard forks a lot more hard forks that happen in a short amount of time it splinters the community and therefore loses some of the value here of of the chain and the value even if it's just denominated in market cap. I is there a risk to having too many hard forks or do you think this could actually bolster the social consensus and kind of rally the community on a more frequent basis and we're not thinking about hard forks the right way?

>> Yeah. So first of all to address your first point around the specifics of the governance process. I don't think I discussed anything around the specifics. Although I did give an example of one where you could just hardcode it in the node software. The specifics we're we're working on some proposals internally. Other people can propose things externally. Uh but there's various ways in which you can execute this governance with various uh with participation from various parties including token holders. So just because I say it's governance doesn't mean the token holders get no say whatsoever. uh not necessarily they have no decision-making power but that they have no say. No, that's of course wrong. Of course, they can have a say.

Uh of course, you know, the votes of token holders can be surfaced. It just the mechanism which is done is not staking. It's governance. >> So, that's the first point to clarify. Uh the now onto the hard fork point. Uh I guess we'll find out. Uh Ethereum has done a bunch of hard forks throughout the years. Like there was the contentious hard fork around the DAO and that splintered the community but Ethereum has had many non-contentious hard forks and those basically did nothing with respect to splintering and they did a lot to bolster Ethereum as you know being the success that it is today because you know the the Ethereum classic chain that refused to hard fork I guess the Ethereum chain that you know does hard fork continuously to improve

itself. one of these is worth you know whatever x billion of dollars the other one is worth whatever y million of dollars uh so one one approach is you know more is better than the other but it really I don't think hard forks necessarily splinter things unless there's contention but if there's contention there would be contention anyways >> and the way in which that contention is resolved now is basically like one one kind of one of those you know camps loses and it's effectively like the way that we elect a political president.

It's like you know just kind of half the country is unhappy for the next four years and it in the the proposal of Dow or it effectively feels like Dow governance but effect it it you know has a lot more significance on the outcome of the chain in proof of governance. It it's not just the case that kind of this camp is unhappy. can continue in the case that they would like to uh or they can kind of just defect, right, and join join the the uh the winning the winning fork that takes place. But I guess what you're saying is you don't expect too many of these contentious hard forks to occur. It's really just a matter of accepting new validators into the system um and paying those validators more uh

more cost plus model rather than coming up with an arbitrary value in which we're going to inflate the supply and pass those on to validators. >> Yeah. Because currently it's this awkward situation where validators that are and this kind of I touched on this earlier is that validators that are in the top of the validator set are potentially highly profitable and those in the bottom are less. So uh so it becomes this game where you know validators want to be in that very highly profitable top part of the set but then the protocol is to figure out how to pay everyone to make sure people aren't too underpaid but then you're overpaying the top percentage etc etc.

it gets it gets complicated to model but also it can result in overpayment to validators because those at the top are overpaid. So it becomes this thing where validators try to get paid a lot uh in the the current model and that's that's not necessarily what you want. It would be nicer to have a model where validators are paid to be cuffs to run the pro to run validator software that produces blocks. Uh and they get paid by the protocol. Uh you know their costs plus some profit uh not you know not 100x profit some respectable profit so that people will do it. Uh but because of this change in how validators can be compensated and will be compensated uh they'll make a profit don't get me wrong

but it means they won't be having they won't have to search for the 100 they won't have to hunt and play games and stuff for the 100x profit. Uh what that means is also that there won't necessarily be huge competition to run a validator. Uh and therefore I don't expect people to I don't expect you know a million people wanting to run a validator. uh the people who want to run validators may have some secondary services that they that they can provide along with running a validator node uh that can they can advertise cost on and stuff like that right maybe they run a roll up as a service and they also run a validator on the side things like that so because of that I don't expect you know a large churn in the validator set and therefore there's not really any

reason to change it you know people people who aren't validators aren't losing much because the validators just make a small profit right obviously if you pay validators there's 100x profit. You know, it's kind of unfair to gatekeep who is a validator. If a validator just does their thing, they're honest validators. They make a small profit, small but respectable profit. >> Sure, I I guess it's nice to be a validator, but at the same time, you could just not be a validator and put your money into DeFi and make potentially more yield if you want to take some risks, right? Uh so the the how validators will be compensated will be more optimized and therefore you won't have people playing political games to try and be a validator like the

the proiles will be much more mechanical. It'll be much more you know okay I'm a validator. I just run my software and that's it. I get paid some profit and therefore anyone can >> yeah it is a political game today. I mean yeah >> I I've just got one more followup. Um, and you you mentioned that optimizing the value equation to pay validators is going to bring the cost that it it to them way way way down or or excuse me to the protocol way down, right? Um, and you mentioned that opens up a variety of use cases that you can do. You can, for instance, burn all of the transaction fees. That's an amazing value acral thesis for a for a gas token. Um, you could also lower the rate of inflation potentially all the way down to zero.

This is kind of where my question is. I guess it my question is who even if it's you know the cost for the protocol right protocol kind of in quotations here is much much lower because you've optimized the value equation who is the one that pays whatever cost that there still is to validators if it's not coming from transaction fees is it coming from still inflating the supply albeit much less or is it really just like a servicing agreement with these validators in which could be paid in fiat or stables or from venture funding really just as a software as a service doesn't necessarily even have to be tokens.

>> Yeah. So the way the mo the way that's uh most intrinsically incentivized is the protocol issues a small amount of new tokens just for the validators. So this wouldn't be given to stakers because there's no stakers. It would just be given to the validators. But it could be a very small amount of tokens. Uh we've also been thinking internally again by we. By we, I mostly mean Nashu since he's the one driving this around how you could do things like pay them in stable coins because they get they have their costs in stable coins and it's awkward when they get paid uh they get paid costs in some fluctuating token which may go up or down. So it could be end up the protocol overpays or underpays them either of which scenarios are good. If they're paid in a stable

coin then they know exactly how what they're going to be paid which is potentially very nice and is also nicer from the protocol perspective. This requires you know knowing the exchange price potentially because you can't issue new stable coins. You can't issue US dollars for example but you can issue if you know it's celestial protocol it can issue TIA. So we need to know the exchange rate blah blah blah. So there's some some things to be done but regardless you can uh the issuance wouldn't be dropped to zero. It would be dropped substantially like we're talking 20 potentially 40x. Yeah, I think I saw it was like it was like uh 20 like a fourth of a percent annually or something like that.

>> Last thing for you. Yeah. And then at at and then at such prices uh it actually uh the value cruel thesis of the token becomes very compelling and very interesting because it goes from having to uh burn fees that beat the issuance and then more to if you want the token to be deflationary uh and have you know effectively net buybacks of the token uh now you only need to burn a quarter quarter of a percent or less and suddenly that is much more in the much more feasible much more feasible range like uh I think someone did some math internally and we're looking at numbers like you know if you get uh 10 or $20,000 in fees a day which is substantially less than you know

protocols like hyperlquid like you know $10,000 of fees a day if there's large DA demand and stuff like that is quite easily achievable you get that and suddenly T is deflationary >> so the value cruel thesis of uh these tokens that will adopt proof of governance becomes much more it becomes much more obvious because burning transaction fees etc. There's no indirection. just okay here's a here's our value the thesis thesis becomes obvious and then the actual amount also becomes better because you don't have to you don't have to surpass inflation and issuance uh in terms of the fees burnt and again the the issuance is okay you set you set some high number and then you pay half of it in taxes what's the point

>> taxes man don't get us started on that >> I think this is the crux of of the proposal right it's still and I think you know It's it's a very thoughtful proposal with a lot of detail. Um, and it but it is almost somewhat revolutionary in the way that you know we're thinking about proof of stake and and now thinking that there is something better out there and and it it's it's so different but yet you still have this somewhat of the same inputs and outputs. You still have some inflation and you still have some tokens that are burned and you get these validators that are providing a service. The only difference is that rather than overpaying all of the top validators and underpaying all of the lower validators, you're now optimizing the value equation so that

the tokens that you burn are effectively, you know, those would be passed to the validators if it was like, you know, Bitcoin after the the block reward is reached, right? Validator or miners in that case would get these transaction fees. But if that was the case, then in in in the current setup, they would be massively overpaying the top miners and underpaying the bottom ones. And this sort of balances the scales so that we're still using the value that is flowing through the system to to pay for the upkeep of the system.

We're just balancing that equation quite a bit more by unbundling uh the validators with um the the activity going through the system. Yeah. And and the and for what is we didn't really touch on this part, but in terms of of the security of the system, the system can actually be very secure against corruption, potentially even more so than proof of stake and proof of work systems, right? Proof of work is a bit interesting can just take their hashers elsewhere. Can't really do that to the same extent and proof of stake in some scenarios.

But regardless, the point being, you know, in proof of work, in proof of stake, you can corrupt a small number of operators and then because of the principal agent problem, you just corrupt the operators. You don't have to buy stake to overcome uh to overcome the amount staked. Like a lot of people when they model security, they say, "Oh, you have to buy a bunch of tokens." It's like, "No, you don't. You just go to like if you're the government, you go up to Lido and say, "Hey, Lido, I want you to start forking Ethereum." Right? And Lido Lido Lido company will do that. uh whether they like it or not because the alternative is to go to prison, right? Now, this is not to say lie is bad. Far from it actually. They they seem to be quite good actors, right? But the reality is that you just go corrupt

operators. >> With proof of governance, you can get a uh you can have a thing where part of the governance process around deciding who is the validator not is not just looking at a blind list of validators and saying, "Oh, I'm going to choose the top one because the top one gives me the has the lowest commission because they have economies of scale, right? is or like if you're in a mining pool is not just I'm going to choose the top mining pool because they have the lowest commission again because of economies of scale right there's no commission to be there's no staking therefore there's no commission on the proof of governance validator selection so you can have things like geo distribution uh uh hosted hosted versus bare metal distribution uh you know platform distribution maybe some people use Linux

some people use Mac to reduce platform dependency risk uh things like that uh that allow to have a large number of validators that are geographically distributed in different jurisdictions and then to corrupt the proof of stake protocol you would need you know 1/3 or 2/3 of the validator set which in the case of Celestia is 100 validators so to corrupt one/ird of them is 33 this would give you an Nakamoto coefficient of 33 while Ethereum's dakamoto consensus uh coefficient for one/ird of the voting power is like two >> right so now you end up in a situation where you have to corrupt a substantially larger number of entities that are geographically distributed and like you know that and like you know you

you can choose them such that you know there's there aren't 33 validators in any one jurisdiction. So it's you have to do things like crossjurisdictional collaboration if you want to corrupt them. So it can actually be very secure uh potentially under certain under certain attack scenarios more secure than any other proof of work or proof of stake protocol that exists today. That's not to say that they're more secure under all scenarios, but under certain scenarios, especially the ones that people are talking about with respect to government overreach or government reach depending on your positioning and and governments uh and you know World War II style scenarios, this geographic distribution and this Nakamoto coefficient actually becomes very important uh and that's where proof of

governance uh really >> John thank you for for your time and for your work in the space. Uh, I appreciate the in-depth uh explanations and thoughts as well as the uh the spicy takes. You'll see some of those on your timeline later. I appreciate >> Oh god, I hope not. >> Validators or [ __ ] is is definitely a bold one. I think we may see some chatter about that. Thanks, John, for uh for giving us a laugh and also sharing a lot of this really really great info. >> Awesome. Thanks for having me. Speak to you soon. >> All righty, guys. That was uh that that actually Rob that actually took took took me back to the uh the uh kind of like not like old days of the rollup per se, but just it's nice to have a a a technical conversation. I I you know, I

was actually thinking about that because you you've been gone for the last couple streams. You know, I I just been having like fun and just like shooting [ __ ] and just like ripping it. But I think like there's there still is demand for for those like really solid smart people coming in bringing their technical conversations pushing back. So as much as I think we you know we trend towards this institutional route and not not like institutional but you know towards this kind of like intersection of traditional finance and defi and like this kind of realm and and you know trying to enter that world. I I think we we ought to sprinkle in more still some of these uh you know technical smart conversations as we as we grow.

Obviously, we'll have the far other end of the spectrum as well, the DJ and stuff, but but yeah, you know, I just I just I I enjoy learning in in those types of >> you you know, I do too, man. Like that's I think that's why we got into this and uh we continue to learn and and I think that ultimately gives us a lot of edge in in you know our work in the fund um helping projects. Um I I think as long as we will continue to learn, I think it'll continue to provide us a reflexive benefit. you know, the deeper that we get into the space. And so I think you're absolutely right and I think, you know, there wasn't a lot and it's somewhat dependent on market conditions.

Like the more uh the sillier that we get, you know, as we get deeper and deeper into a bull run, you know, we may we may end up having, you know, less of those technical conversations. But I think it is evident that there are teams out there that always continue to push the needle. They continue to build whether it's Bear or Bull. And uh I I really do enjoy having those conversations as well. I think we've got ourh third and final guest of the stream coming on very very shortly. >> JJ JJ in the background. Let's get him up to the stream. Uh we're going to unveil Breeze. It's already kind of been unveiled. We're going to learn about it.

We're going to talk to JJ. JJ, good to see you, man. Um still recovering from can. That bet was ridiculous. I can't believe that I took those odds. Uh so for those of you who don't know um we were in can J uh JJ was there we were we were all hanging out um and all the flights were getting delayed and so what I did was I actually bet JJ that he wouldn't get out of can before like Friday or something because I think I think you were trying to go home for 4th of July, right?

>> Yeah, correct. I was. >> Yeah. And so and so uh his flight did make it. Um and I took one soul to four soul odds which was terrible. I had like three drinks. I thought it was a good idea. Um and >> it's a bull market. Of course his flight got out. It's a bull market. They're not going to ground his flight to the bull market. We got it's you know these these these guys in the Nice airport that are striking have uh fartcoin bags. Of course they're of course they're showing up to work. No way. >> So JJ made it out. Uh anyways, that's the back story. JJ, good to have you on, man. H how are you?

>> Thanks for having me, guys. It's awesome to be here. Um I did the opposite of hedge, I guess. Uh just doubled down. If that flight didn't take off, I would have missed the 4th of July and I would have been down some cash. So, uh in the bull market, it pays to double down as uh as a lot of the uh the great crypto legends have said in the past, maybe just use a little bit less leverage than uh you know, than Suzu and the 3AC guys, >> man. So the the topic of of the day is Breeze, which I'd love to get into. I just want to get your take on these DATs, these digital asset treasuries.

Like obviously you're, you know, kind of in the weeds with anagram. You you see a lot of different deal flow, um different things happening. Like what's your take on the this kind of speculative mania that's unfolding? I put out a tweet. I was like, I think there's going to be dats for the top 25 tokens. People were like, bro, this is undershooting. there's going to be for the top 100 like what's your take on this? Are you participating in any of these either on the venture side or in the public markets? You know, what's your what's your thoughts here? >> Man, we could have like a whole separate hour and a half long conversation just around >> the market structure and like how these things have evolved over time. Um, I would say you're undershooting. I think

there will be, you know, uh, DATs for maybe every crypto token or multiple for the majors at least. Uh, and then you'll just see, you know, people continue to go to the the money well until it dries up. Uh, again, this is just, you know, financial engineering more or less, like people are taking advantage of the arbitrage trade, which would be like the premium to NAV. So Micro Strategy, they're the biggest in the market, but you're interestingly enough seeing a lot of these other crypto treasury companies receive some kind of premium to NAV. Uh is it a long-term play? It's very difficult to say. Um but for now, I think like when I first discovered DATs was back when Soul Strategies launched.

And I'm not talking about the context of like Micro Strategy. I'm talking about like the altcoin specific DATs that we're seeing more of now. Uh at that point I was like okay this is the first inning. About a month and a half later there was multiple DATs that had come to market. You know we saw things like Upupexi or DeFi Dev Corp on the Salana side. I think at that point there was the beginning of some of these ETH dats as well. And then you were like okay is this the eighth inning? Is this the ninth inning? Now I don't even know what what inning we're in but I know that a lot of people are kind of playing this ball game. Um, in terms of participation, uh, we really have looked at all of these. We have great relationships with the bankers that are printing these

deals. Uh, if you think about anagram, we have a very flexible mandate giving we're like a crypto native holding company. So, you know, we're looking all these. The only one that we have invested in, and I just want to disclose that this is not financial advice, uh, by any way, shape, or form. Um, we invested in Upupexi and we work very closely with that team. Um, I think that DATs are kind of interesting from a number of different perspectives. I think the piling of an asset that has already issued or has existed for a while is less interesting than what we'll probably see in the second, third chapter. Like the Athena one was quite interesting. It's like, okay, now you have uh an alt token that is live that

now has a public market vehicle for institutional investors to get access to, but also it brings external buy pressure that wouldn't exist onchain for an asset like Athena. So, it brings that that that kind of like educational aspect to the public markets. Yeah. And also brings buy pressure to a great asset. I think we'll see more of those. And then, you know, maybe we're uh I'm overshooting my skis here, but I do think we'll see pre-TGETs. I think we'll see who >> companies that go to launch a token. The foundation will sell a portion of their assets into a treasury company and you'll have kind of like an IPO times crypto, you know, uh ICO event at the same time, right? So, I could see that being in the cards for, you know, newer,

larger ecosystems, maybe like a Megath, maybe like a Monad. Again, none of this is confirmed, just speculating here, but that's my read. That's what I think the next chapter is. >> You get a money reign for that one, brother. That's a ballsy prediction. Thank you for that. I uh I hadn't even thought about that even being possible. Um interesting. You know, I I I think a lot of these uh funds are actually doing this with lock tokens and uh getting uh you know, much quicker liquidity, which I think is an interesting added benefit for funds. Um >> yeah, 100%. and the tax benefit right so like for example if I have let's say I'm a salana investor I hold salana when I sell that salana I have to take a capital I have capital gains right so I

have to pay those taxes if I invest my salana in kind which basically means I'm rolling my salana into this treasury company in exchange for shares in that business I now defer the tax hit and I'm not like taking that same tax hit and I'm also basically getting like a leveraged bet on that soul bag or on that underlying token which is what makes it sexy for large holders of of some of these assets. >> Yep. All right, JJ, let's talk Breeze, man. Um, it's kind of under stealth. You've you're spinning out of anagram to build this. The Twitter says something around Salana yield. I honestly, you know, Robin, I have no idea what it is.

Um, maybe start with the problem. What is the problem that you're looking to solve? Uh there's there's two fundamental bets that are underlying breeze. The first one is that in the past most crypto users onboarded via centralized exchanges. The bet there is that in the future most new crypto users will onboard via fintex, mobile apps, terminals, uh applications, right? So more people are going to come in through the application layer because there's real fundamental use cases for crypto and you'll see it start to be adopted by large fintex and mobile, you know, payments apps and all that. So that's bet number one is like apps will eat the world in crypto and now crypto is usable to the point where like okay this seems like a real thing and all

these big players are coming on chain. The second is yield is going to become table stakes. If you think about like crypto superpowers I think about uh permissionless you know kind of like crowdfunding or like the accumulation of capital. uh I think about um you know kind of the fact that there's the lowest possible barrier entry to for a development and launch and then I think about like yield or like what interesting properties do these assets have on their own. So the bet is basically apps yield every single app in the future that holds capital will not have idle balances. It will have either crypto assets or some kind of real world asset that is earning yield over time.

And that's the bet with breeze. We are building the infrastructure or the plumbing to pipe yield into every single mobile app. So you can think about your axioms, your moonshots, you know, your reaps, your cast, every payment, you know, every payment protocol. We want to be the thing that powers their yield flow. And that's what we built with Breeze. >> Oh, investor call. >> Can I get in the seed round, please? Um, okay. So, uh, there's been a it's been pitched to me there there's going to be a world in the future where like and it's it's already happening with tokenized stocks where rather than and one big reason why tokenized stocks and tokenized equities are happening amongst kind of just fintech adoption is that

there's this race to be the app where you don't have to have a Schwab account, a Binance account, a hardware wallet and like all these other things. means you can just have a very unified account with like all of your assets, you know, stocks bonds commodities crypto etc. Uh, all in one. Now, you know, maybe that's relevant to the way you're thinking about this or not, but just like, you know, how are you thinking about, uh, actually deriving this yield? Who is going to be the, you know, users of this yield? Like, how are you thinking about actually getting people access to this yield? Um, what is the protocol going to enable for for people?

100%. Uh great question. Uh so we integrate at the app layer. So any app that is like hey we want yield functionality drop one block of code. What we do on the back end is we're basically aggregating across all the major yield sources on Salana. So think your chaminos your drifts your margin f you know soon your dub blends. We're going to be picking up all that yield. Now your users, if you're that application and you integrate Breeze, they click one button, all of their idle balances are earning yields, but you're not foregoing uh liquidity, right? So they're instantly liquid. So you can still trade those assets as they're earning yields. So it's different than staking where you have like this two-day withdrawal queue and and that's kind of

the game plan. So I see this I see the world like very similar to you guys. It's like there's a rush for all these apps to bundle in all this functionality. We never want to build an app. I would suck at building an app. I don't know if I can, you know, run the BTOC type of business. What we want to do is build the strongest and most comprehensive infrastructure for getting yield into every single app that exists and kind of owning that, you know, owning that specific vertical. >> And JJ, what was the rationale behind choosing Salana as the primary yield source?

>> The app layer, man. I mean, if you look at, you know, who really owns the app layer today, it's it's Salana. You've had breakout telegram bots, you know, terminals, uh, apps like moonshot, you know, uh, pump even has the mobile app now. You have the proliferation of the app layer on Salana and I think people resonate with it because it's like cheap and you have something to speculate on, right? Like the memecoin is ecosystem is super vibrant. Um, so that was the reasoning for for kind of going all in on Salana. Will we go to other chains in the future? Yeah, potentially. Like I definitely think that's in the cards, but for now just focused on scaling uh scaling on the Salon ecosystem.

>> Yeah. So like let's take Moonshot as an example. I'm still trying to understand how how that's going to work. So So Moonshot has all these different tradable tokens, right, that you can trade on Moonshot. You're saying that like you're what you're going to do behind the scenes is allow for like you know let's say you you have um you know let's just use soul as an example or like uh like you know JLP right the you're going to be able to integrate like the actual yield from onchain behind the scenes in and so that that that the user will just use an app like moonshot but when they hold an asset on moonshot for example they will be earning yield on that asset or like how

much will the user know a and like how will that process go from like you know breeze is providing this service to like a app like moonshot or like a you know something similar like like how is that process going to actually happen? >> Yeah. Uh again another great question. Um so we have a customizable UI toolkit in terms of like how much the user will know that is up to the app and the user. What we do is pro we provide full customizability. We have a UI toolkit. We have a portal for monitoring. The way to think about it is like I don't know if you guys use a bunch of these trading bots or trading terminals or anything like that, but I do and I hold a balance on a lot of these different apps. Now,

while I'm holding that balance, it just, you know, it just sits stagnant, right? Like it's literally just sitting there. What we do is take all those idle assets, they earn yield, and then when a user trades them, right? what the user is actually doing saying like hey I want to swap my Salana for Fartcoin right I want to make that memecoin bet and we don't want to prevent users from doing that so they go to swap it what we do is route their assets right back to the user from that yield pool that they're sitting in and then the user is able to complete that allin-one transaction so they can go from yield earning Salana into Fartcoin within the one transaction with no additional latency uh so we're just trying to meet users where they're at

make yields, you know, as seamless as possible and basically make it a no-brainer. It's like why wouldn't you want to earn yield if there's no tradeoff? >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean we just had the we just had this conversation actually around the idea of like staking and you know just like how LSTs have become a very commonplace and logical next step to staking as a as a consensus protocol and and it's just kind of like of course users are going to want to get LSTs go into DeFi loop get other yield opportunities etc. similar kind of uh framing here but different reference.

You know, if you can have minimal smart contract risk and get yield, then of course, you know, everyone's going to want to do it. And your bet basically is that investors are going to want yield as a commonplace baseline for whatever they're holding like pretty much regardless going forward in the future as a result of like I I don't know be you know like like what is there any sort of like like what is the um what what is the your like reasoning behind users definitely want yield other than just like everybody wants more money like is this a trend that you have studied that has shifted as a result of like crypto or as a result of like interest rates going up like why do you

believe so strongly that over the next like you know half a decade or so you know yield in every asset so to say is going to be like baseline >> yeah I I think it's like a fundamental paradigm shift I mean the way that I think about it is like I'm sure we all have like mobile banking apps it's like you don't keep that much money in your checking account or your savings account because it's just sitting there right like you put that money to work in crypto or you put that money to work in the stock market. Now when all the assets like all the assets in the world I think will be ported on chain all of a sudden maybe you have a new risk-free rate or a new hurdle rate and that is like the yield rate and you're looking to outperform that because I believe

that like fundamentally I would rather hold any assets right whether it be my paycheck or my crypto in something that is compounding and growing over time right if I want to be long an asset why wouldn't I be long an asset by holding spot plus acrewing the value of earning yield otherwise I'm just getting inflated out all you know over time. Uh and it's you know you can make the same case for the US dollar. It's like why would I hold the dollar over a 10-year period when I can hold an asset like Salana and earn 8% annually on that. It's like think about comparing that to like the benchmark USD over like 10 years, right? So for us it's not just about soul or like alt assets that we can earn yield on. It's also about RWAs and stables, right? So we can connect

any amount of yield sources on the back end. So right now it's commino drift margin and soon to be JUP. In the future it might be curated vaults with gauntlet. It might be you know some kind of black rock RWA you know type of pool right we're literally just here to provide the infrastructure and the customizability to bring yield to whoever that counterparty is at the end. You can imagine Moonshot might have a way different user base than a Revolute which might have a way different user base than you know I don't know like a Western Union or like a remittances business. We're putting the power in those developers hands to say you know Moonshot might say we want 9% APY for

our platform we can deliver that whereas Revolute might say we want 5% and just in USDC and we can deliver that as well. So that that's kind of the plan with Breeze. like yield is fundamentally better if you can offer it in a seamless way then uh you know we think it's a no-brainer that users will opt in. >> Beauty uh last thing for you JJ what's the timeline? Where you guys at? Are you guys testing mainet launch? What's the What's the process here to get live? >> We just went live 30 minutes ago man. Uh I and then I hopped on uh I hopped on this. Yeah, the contracts have been live for over a month. We're fully audited.

We've tested the hell out of those contracts. We're working with our initial partners, right? So, we're partnered with Turnkey with the idea there being you have a partnership with Turnkey. We get baked into all the apps that Turnkey is able to power and like integrating yield at that key management layer. Uh and then as I mentioned, Commamino, Drift, Margin, FI as yield sources initially and plans to rapidly iterate and expand and have conversations with you know any apps that are uh looking for yield functionality. >> Dude, you get the money rain, the confetti burst. Congratulations JJ.

Thanks for spending some time with us today and uh I'm looking forward to your shift from a investor thinking and philosophy to builder philosophy and builder thinking. It's a different game. So, I know you know I know you'll have some challenges and some obstacles and things, but uh I think you you're ready for it, man. So, let's go. >> I'm excited, man. Thanks for having me, guys. And, you know, after, you know, building this over the last 10 months, uh it's definitely a whole different game. It gives me a newfound appreciation for going founder mode. Um so, yeah, it's [ __ ] hard, but it's the most exciting thing, uh you know, in my mind to do right now. So, I'm super excited to keep pursuing this mission and thanks for having me.

>> Congrats on launch, man. More money for you. Have a good day. I'm going to go grab some dinner, maybe a little beer. It's uh 900 pm here in Copenhagen. The boys are buzzing. >> Oh, enjoy, dude. Beautiful city. >> Yeah, man. All right, buddy. See you soon. >> Thanks, Treasure. >> Bye. >> See you. >> All righty, Rob. That'll do it, man. That's >> That will do it. >> That's a We're getting ready to rip these things live. I mean, our or sorry, daily. Our producer got us uh confetti and money.

>> We're going to get sound effects next. And we're going to get some visual animations next. >> Um >> Oh, yeah. >> I need a I need a laughing like one with like the laughing emoji coming on the screen. And probably need like a probably need like like when somebody says something spicy like a fiery like emoji on the screen. >> Oh like a chili pepper >> or like if one of us says something stupid like a splat like a splat like you're on timeout type of thing like >> Oh yeah.

>> So >> we can Yeah, we can tell you're you're definitely going in the institutional RWA focus. We're going to we're going to see uh we're going to see how silly we >> BPC back to 120. >> Yeah. Don't. We got to end this before you check the Pangu chart. >> Pangu's at 44. We're gonna return the fund on Pangu. I already tweeted it. Boys are buzzing. Let's go. Rob's back. We'll see you guys Thursday. Thanks, guys.