140 Companies Just Declared War on Circle - The Chopping Block

Transcript

I kind of thought it almost more like like the end of Apocalyptto when it's like Jaguar Paw and whoever they're having their little battle on the cliff and then in the background the Spanish show up and it's like all right daddy's home and I feel like list where we this weird wobbistic semi not really top tier competition and stable coins in crypto and now it's like all the big players are here and it's serious now not a dividend it's a tale of two >> now your losses are on someone else's balance sheet >> generally speaking airdrops are kind of pointless anyways >> unaged trading [music] firms who are very involved. >> I like that ETH is the ultimate DeFi protocol is part of the antidote to this problem.

>> Hello everybody. Welcome to chopping block. Every couple weeks four of us get together and give the industry insiders perspective on the crypto topics of the day. So quick intro first we got Tom the DeFi maven and master of names. >> Hello everyone. >> Next we got to run the gigabrain and grand puba at gauntlet. >> Yo >> joining us today we've got Jordy trading titan at Seleni. Hey Jordy. Trading Titan, thank you for the amazing intro. I think we've tried to schedule this many times over the years, but this is my first chopping block appearance, so I'm excited.

>> I know it's been uh we we wanted to bring you at the moment of max pain, and I'm glad we were able to make that happen. So, uh I received that high man at Dragonfly. We're early stage investors in crypto, but want to caveat that nothing we say here is investment advice, legal advice, or even life advice. Please see chopping blocks. XYZ for more disclosures. So, speaking of Max Pain, actually, I wanted to talk about something just at the top of the show that Terun and I were talking about off camera is that um so I I I had a tweet uh a couple days ago where I was calling out some VC for dunking on a founder and uh I sort of said like, "Hey, this guy is being very unfair to a founder who's paying himself a salary and is wanting down his company." And

Terrone quote tweeted me and he said something along the lines of this guy is like a low rent DCI VC who's talking all these DI shitcoins. He deserves to get pillaried. And apparently it was unclear if you were talking about me or if you were talking about the person I was quoting. >> I did >> and I ran into >> you did put I I ran into a couple people here at this event at this Goldman event in London who were like what's going on between you and Tarun? Why is Trun like what's why is there a beef going on between the two of you? What happened?

You want to explain the beef? >> There is no beef. I was really just dunking on the guy that was quoting because that guy during the like very tiny >> we should name who that guy is. That guy is the founder of Moonro Capital, Simon Dick, I believe is his name >> was really shilling a lot of Ponzi Di coins that were just like stake your DIYcoin and maybe 1% of these assets will maybe go to scientists. the other 99% go to pay inflation for anyone staking. It was like real low-level Ponzi stuff. And like I don't know, it's sort of weird to me that the guy who's shilling the DIY coins is like getting mad about someone getting paid. I'm like, what do you think is going to happen in science investment that you're going to make you're always going to

have an ROI that's positive? 99% of science investment goes to zero. So I think that was more my slightly inebriated Shoden Frea when I wrote that tweet. Oh, okay. [laughter] See? >> All right. Well, I'm glad to know >> Crusade continues. >> Yeah. I'm glad to know that I was only collateral damage in your >> No, no, no. Sorry. So, there is no beef. I was more pointing out that Hib was >> choosing a a worthy victim. [laughter] >> Okay, good to know. My targeting algorithms are are um Tun approved. But okay, there's there's other pain going on beyond just uh the personal pain of DSI, which is what's happening in the markets right now. The big story is around strategy, also known as micro

strategy. If you recall last time on the show, we talked about their preferreds, which are called stretch, were significantly impaired. They were targeting a $100 price target and they fell all the way down into the 80 cent territory which seemed to bely an enormous amount of weakness and incredul in the strength of the capital stack that Michael Sailor has built up over the time that he's building Micro Strategy. Uh it hit a low of $71 last week relative to the $100 that it was historically trading at. MSTR is down about 30% in 5 days currently sitting in the you know low $80 range. um and it's minus 82% from July 2025 peak. The MNAV is now well below one, meaning that it's

now trading below the value of all the Bitcoin held in reserve. So, it's a very, very challenged time for Micro Strategy. Now, in response to all of this, Sailor came out and announced a new framework called the digital credit capital framework. And his whole thing, which he's he said many times now, is that look, Micro Strategy, we're not a DAT. That's not how he positions himself. He is a digital credit company. His job is to issue very attractive forms of digital credit and do this kind of capital transformation from risky bitcoin into this beautiful uh menagerie of financial assets that are backed by bitcoin. And so he's now announced that he's going to do a large cushion a larger cash cushion than he currently has. 2.5 billion that he's going to be

setting aside for just dividends and interest which would give them roughly 18 months of dividend coverage. uh that's you know significantly up where they are today which is closer to uh 12 months. Uh he's announced that he's increasing the dividend for stretch. It was previously at 11.5%. It's now gone up to 12%. These usually he's hiking at like you know 25 basis points 50 basis points. Um so this is this is significant. You know think of it like the Fed. This is significant jumbo a jumbo raise in the dividend rate for stretch. And he's also announced that he's going to start buying back some of the original some of the other preferreds up to a billion dollars. Uh stretch is going to take priority in these buybacks as well as MSTR buybacks when he feels like it's trading below par up to another 1 billion there. And

he announced that he may sell Bitcoin in order to fund this if necessary and something on the order of about 2.5% of holdings are up for sale potentially if he needs to monetize some of the Bitcoin. Now, on the announcement of this, Bitcoin uh he announced this yesterday. Bitcoin actually seemed to hold pretty well uh yesterday. It was it was roughly in the 60K neighborhood. Didn't didn't weaken too much. He apparently sold about 1.15 billion via MSTR uh ATM sales. So, selling common shares in order to recapitalize and and build up his war chest. And we saw a significant recovery in Stretch. Stretch went from $75 up to $84 yesterday, an increase of about 12%. Uh the yield obviously has has gone up to roughly 14% on that math and MSTR went up 12%

yesterday. Now MSTR has weakened today, but Stretch is actually looking pretty strong today. Uh Bitcoin is back below 58 or sorry, sitting around 58K. So market's weak. It's jittery, but we can see in the stretch prices that there's some confidence in this new framework that Sailor has proposed and the fact that he's now buoied his cash reserves, which should allow him some leeway in being able to hold up this capital structure and still use the the chain of preferreds that he's put together. So, Jordy, you announced that you thought this was a masterful stroke in this whole digital credit framework. Give us your take, especially now seeing the market weaken a little bit on the MSDR side with Stretch still holding up pretty strong. I mean, uh, I've never been an MSTR holder. So, in terms of why

people buy that instead of Bitcoin, they're kind of betting on his alchemy to, I guess, compound Bitcoin per share, you know, these metrics that he's targeting. Obviously, the most important thing is Bitcoin doesn't go to zero because then his whole balance sheet is worthless and then all the other products that he's kind of built up on the balance sheet also don't matter and the stock doesn't matter. I think what he's done is sort of one like get a huge amount of cash suddenly which again he's had to sell a lot of stock and I'm not one of the stockholders so you know I don't I guess that that's what those guys signed up for right like sometimes he has to dump on them in order to keep keep the the game going so that was quite a large amount the previous month previous weeks

he was doing sort of three 400 this was over a billion he's kind of made a statement that he's going to protect stretch which I think is the right decision to do because ultimately you know, he's put so much of the of the kind of flywheel into this stable coin. I never thought Stretch was a bad idea, even though, you know, people are dunking on him for using Claude. Make no mistakes, you know, which version of Chad GBT are you using? I think ultimately it's similar to other instruments that we've seen. It's even in essence, it's a long-term bet that Bitcoin will grow at more than 11 12%.

Which I don't think is a bad bet. And as long as he's short up where he doesn't get liquidated before that binary outcome plays out or you know you need you need at least a few years to kind of see if that long-term rate is going to hold or not. Honestly, I thought the whole thing was overblown in terms of the Luna thing because Luna was worthless and you could print infinite Luna while Bitcoin you cannot print any Bitcoin and at the end of the day time and time again there are always people around the world that have a lot of fiat that at certain prices will want to convert it to Bitcoin. And so this loop of like death spiral I never really thought was credible. And I think with the cash shoring, people are going to

forget about this in 6 months and no one's going to talk about it. And he's got enough cash to write it out. So I'm very confident that people's, you know, time preference will uh will will win over here. >> Trun, you were the you you called MSTR uh or Stretch, I should say, Luna for Suits last time. What's your what's what's your take? Do you do you stand by that or do you feel like okay, he's tamed he's tamed the beast and he's gotten the death spiral under control? Just because it's marketed to suits doesn't mean it's not it's it's more the fact that he has to constantly keep selling at the money MSR. Like at some point that how long is that charade going to last? I I do agree with you that you can probably make this last for a while. But I I think the other weird

thing was they opened up the amount their maximum amount of Bitcoin they're willing to sell beyond just like the dividend coverage. And you know, I agree with Jord's point. As long as they still have Bitcoin in the balance sheet, but if they start actually selling, it does feel like it's turtles all the way down cuz like how who's the who's the marginal MSTR buyer at that point? It it really is like kind of crazy to me. Although I I guess they are in a bunch of indices. So they do have some like support in terms of like daily ADV of rebalances, but obviously if they lose their place in an index in terms of like their market cap goes down too much, they're going to have a lot of trouble selling the at the monies as well. So I there is a version I agree with you.

It's not like Luna where it's like single asset goes down, full death, right? there there's like multiple assets are like kind of coupled together and hopefully they the Rube Goldberg machine continues but there there's something about the way Stretch is marketed that feels a lot like Anchor that's like a little hard to not it's the marketing in particular that's like very hard to to not the picture of that woman who says she's never going to be stressed again or whatever thanks to buying stretch like I don't know that part is the the part I can't really get over you know what I'm talking about the the >> I yeah the AI woman yes [laughter] >> that's that's canonically >> also also also one of the the stretch AI

generated pictures is like a picture of the Titanic thinking and sailor riding away on a lifeboat >> and it's like that was pretty bad >> the iconography of this is this is like anti- cult bitcoin >> there may have been signs there may have been signs [laughter] >> there's you know the difference being with anchor of course at uh you know with Anchor the rates are too high and with stretch you know rates are just going to keep going up. So uh if anything you know isn't isn't it more attractive? Aren't people getting getting paid more? >> The rates are too damn high. >> Yeah. No, they need they need need to jack those up. I um I do feel like uh I mean this feels like a good outcome.

It's kind of like there's adults in the room kind of speaking the language of the market like you know cash reserves. Hey here's how you think about this going forward. I think the other unfortunate thing obviously is just like you macro is looking worse and now it looks like okay maybe there's actually going to be like a rate hike this year and then obviously it's going to trickle down into you know the market that strateg is trying to tap into and so it feels like the gamble of uh you know tap into credit rates go down buy by buy bitcoin on cheap leverage is it I mean the market is working against you and you know unfortunately it's not a great trade to be in right now. Yeah, that and the destruction of private credit I think also just kind of weakens the demand for this kind of stuff because

trades that looked like oh this is very cheap and safe and this is going to be great because Blackstone is driving that's people I have less and less confidence in things that are shaped like that. Well, I do think it's interesting. Sailor spends a lot of time marking himself as distinct from private credit, but it does sort of feel like it's the same buyers at the end of the day of so it's like that that part I don't really know how to >> I guess like the question is do do you guys think that you're going to be on this show talking about uh you know how much stretch months there are in in like you know in six months.

>> I think vetoed it last week. Laura should forced us to talk about stretch last week for the record. Yeah, I I really didn't want to talk about this, but I think we are unfortunately now in the stretch cycle that we have to talk about it. >> It does feel >> we are, but like are we still going to be in the stretch cycle some months from now? Because he doesn't have to do anything now. At this point, he can sit on his hands. He's got the ability to, you know, if something deps and like stretch goes to 60, he can he can buy that. If MSTR goes to like 0.6 mAP, he can he can buy a little bit, you know, here and there and keep it going and do nothing. in in six months, are people still going to be thinking about this or

like, you know, >> to be clear, to be clear, if he's buying back this stuff, then his cash reserves start to really run low and then he's [snorts] got to do another ATM or he's got to do something like we're we're right back where we are. If if Stretch goes to 60, we're in bad shape because the dividend coverage is going to decrease as well if he's actually buying it back. >> No. Well, he said he'll he'll sell up to 1.25 billion of Bitcoin, which is not that much Bitcoin. I mean, in the grand, you know, the amount of 10 billion kind of blocks we've had go through over the last 12 months, that's that's really not a lot of Bitcoin. And, you know, he sells a billion of Bitcoin and and repe stuff. It's not that scary.

>> It's not a lot, but it is reflexive. That's the problem. It's like I think it is genuinely reflexive if the market knows more selling is coming because Stretch is deped, which means he's going to sell more Bitcoin, which means that maybe Stretch Dupegs a little bit more, which now MSTR goes down a little bit more. now he's got to go buy back some of MSTR like all of a sudden the liabilities are getting away from him and he's signal he's going to defend >> right >> I guess the question you have to ask is like is every Bitcoin buyer just trying to like avoid MSTR sales or >> that's the problem I think the answer is yes I think right now like he is he is so much of the market the market is so weak right now that he is so much of the

market and so many people so you know today at the uh this this Goldman Um, if Gam was talking about how so much of what he sees on on his desk is people positioning around around micro strategy is that just trying to understand when are they going to buy, when are they going to sell, what are they doing because they're the marginal they're the marginal flow in the Bitcoin market right now. Well, that that's definitely like why we went back from 80 down to 60 is because the amount of people that were trying to frontr run sailors buys, you know, every month he was buying two billion on the 14th and you just kind of knew it was going to happen. And like all including us, like everybody was just like, "Oh, we're getting away a week away from the dividend. Let's just pile in and then pile out." And then I

think on that last time when it didn't it was kind of clear it wasn't going to rep and we don't have another one coming. It was kind of obvious how much money was just waiting for the next one. It had to had to get out and that kind of brought us back to 60. But at this point the front runners are out obviously like no one's like front running buys anymore. And I think we're back to like you know who wants to buy this digital gold. You know [laughter] >> the answer is there's not that many people. I mean, that's the that's the problem, right? Is that outside of strategy, the ETF complex has seen like 5 billion of outflows, like the the single largest run of outflows that we've seen so far in the ETF complex, which tells us like, okay, well, who's

left? Retail's not here. The ETFs seem seem not to be buying. Sailor's not buying. And so, we're kind of, you know, sitting around waiting of like, okay, who's where where's the marginal firepower going to be coming from without the market regime fundamentally changing? >> That that is the beer case. in the bare case is that stocks are probably maybe going to do like a bit of a double top and and and you know we we might have a pullback potentially going into midterms. that is a little bit kind of top of mind for Bitcoin buyers like you know is liquidity really going to be good um right now but it's one of those assets that when it's cool everybody just wants to want to get in and then

when it's not cool everyone's like distancing and uh it's very streaky I think it can be like very reflective up and down right now obviously we've already had a lot of reflection down we'll have a bit of a bottoming now whether we go a little bit lower on the bottoming is unclear I'm I'm not sure who's still selling it. You're right. The ETF seems to be the main seller right now. There's like some somebody t-wapping every day, somebody really large, but hopefully that that kind of bottoms out. And then the the really really good time to buy is when people start worrying about the the dollar's value again, but that's not going to be probably for at least the months.

Okay, that was a that was a very very tra podcast his name from game theorizing to macro theorizing after that. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, that was good. We don't we don't usually get into these waters on the podcast because we're all completely out of our depth, but I appreciate I appreciate the call. If you had to guess, where would you say you're a buyer of Bitcoin? I I I assume that you guys are pretty non-directional at Seleni. Um, but where would you say you're a buyer? Oh, you guys are directional. Okay.

>> Yeah. I mean, there's different parts of the business. There's like the very non-directional quoting stuff and then there's like, you know, we do venture and liquid bets and quite, you know, directional stuff. And we're definitely buying. I mean, we've been buying. We bought a bunch of stretch on the announcement. I thought the announcement was good. We managed to buy a bunch under 80 and kind of holding it maybe until like high 80s. We've been buying Bitcoin here. I think it's not a slam dunk, but just kind of keep keep buying a bit more every every time it ticks down more.

>> Where do you think it is a slam dunk? What's the price that you're like that's I'm piling in there? >> I don't think it's about price. I think it's either when like stocks have kind of puked and you're like, okay, there's no macro headwind here. Like we've kind of gone through a bit of a deleveraging. That's that's when it's a slam dunk because I think it'll it'll uh recover very well once the liquidity uh gets back in. Okay, fair enough. Well, there's been another piece of news that has gotten people quite surprised. There's a new stable coin on the block called OpenUSD, abbreviated OSD. O USD is a new consortium. Uh, but this consortium is not like other consortiums we've seen.

There doesn't seem to be a single company behind it, but rather a true consortium of something like 140 partners. The CEO of OpenUSD is going to be Zack Abrams who was the co-founder of Bridge which of course was previously acquired by Stripe. But the whole idea of the open uh standard stable coin is that it's a single stable coin with no fees. Uh the mint and redeem is at no cost. There are no volume caps. Everybody who is a member can mint the stable coin and they get the the the yield for the stable coins that they mint. So it's in a way kind of similar to the partnership between circle and coinbase where each of them gets you know some of the economics based on how much they contribute to the underlying issuance and is governed collectively by

this open standard board of partners no single entity. Now these 140 partners that signed up for the open USD standard or open standard USD was a huge mammoth list of some of the largest companies in the world. So we saw Visa, Mastercard, MX Stripe Adyen Fiserve CLA Affirm Ramp, Brex, Western Union, Moneygram, Remittly. On the fintech side then on financial institutions we saw Black Rockck, BNY Melon, Standard Charter, DBS, US Bank, BBVA, Mizuo, ICE. Tech companies, we saw Google, Samsung, IBM, Shopify, Marcato, Libra, Door Dash, Grab, Rocket. And then the crypto side we saw Coinbase, Tempo, Salana, Bybit, OKX Ripple Crypto.com Gemini a

Morpho Polygon Apptos Plasma Stellar Fireblocks MetaMask Anchorage, Bridge, Rain among others. I saw about six different announcements of chains saying we are official partners uh and we're stable coin is launching on our chain. So, no less than Salana, Bass Polygon uh Apttoas uh and Plasma. I'm sure there are others that are going to be initial mint partners. And of course, notably absent from this list were Circle, USDT, PayPal, each of which have their own stable coins. Uh, and I saw Circle was down something like uh, 7 8% on this announcement. So unsurprisingly this being kind of a shot across the bow at hey do we believe that we can actually challenge the duopoly

that we see in the market today between Circle and Tether. So this looks like a very serious consortium right now. It's pre-launch not going to go live until later this year. They said they were kind of vague with the uh the actual timeline. Uh but this looks like it's going to be very serious. And of course Stripe being that Zack Abrams is going to be CEO. uh Stripe is positioning themselves as this is going to be the default stable coin for all activity that's going to be running through Stripe. So we saw a lot of people kind of backpatting and uh you know handshaking each other and high-fiving and saying great this is great stable coins are going to take over the world with this new initiative. Uh Jordy I see you nodding your head. What's your thoughts on OSD?

>> You know I thought some of us on this podcast would be inside the cabal but clearly we're not. We're not in the cabal. >> No we we did not get a phone call about OSD unfortunately. We are we are this this cabal did not include us. >> But I I mean the circle thing I completely understand. they first took the hit with the you know this this situation with Coinbase and Circle has always been very complex and even the hyperlquid USDC ended up being more of a Coinbase deal where they kind of ended up being the issuer into all that USDC and capturing a lot of the economics and it seems to be a continuation of their strange Fed partners but I don't know I don't know exactly what the conversations are between

>> bed fellows Sorry. Sorry. You know, I'm not as >> That's good. >> Well, no. No. You're very DEI friendly with bad. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's very very forward thinking of you. [laughter] >> Bad persons. Bad persons. Please. >> Bad persons. I'd love to see how this goes. Obviously, you know, those of us who have been in crypto for a long time have seen hundreds of stable coins take a shot and come and go. Obviously this as you said this looks like quite a consortium but at the end of the day will they a take over perpetual uh denomination pair that has always kind of stayed tether's playground except for you know some of the USDC stuff. Will they get into I mean know prediction markets has been uh

USDC's. Will they break into that or this just going to be like a Visa kind of background thing? I'm not sure. Yeah, it's it's notable because the big stable coin consorcia in the past, right? So, obviously the original stable cocoin consortium was center, which was the original thing that Circle of which originally was going to have a bunch of members and then the members ended up being just Circle and Coinbase. Uh, but the original idea was a consortium. That was how it was supposed to be uh structured. And I my understanding is that that kind of changed over time to just become this, you know, duopoly or dual issuers of Circle and Coinbase. And then of course there was Libra which was you [snorts] know the whole idea was that well you know it's the Libra Foundation uh it's not Facebook it's you know all you know whatever the 30 ring

of companies uh which were a bunch of financial institutions that were part of the the Libra foundation as well on some level tempo also presented itself as being a bit of a consortium or having a bunch of partners. Um now this seems to be kind of in the real original center model is that it really is a consortium and there is no company at the center that's supposed to be driving it. That's that's the way it's very clearly positioned. It's not like okay this is the stripe consortium or this is the you know whatever. It does strike me that like it's really hard for consorcia to succeed uh without there being a very muscular presence at the center. Maybe that's what Zack Abrams is going to be playing here. But there's so many players here and it's really not obvious who's going to do the heavy lifting. You

know with with Libra it was obvious. Okay, Facebook. Yeah, it's a consortium but like it's Facebook. Facebook's doing all the work here. Who's doing all the work? Because it's not like these 140 partners are going to do that much work. So, you know, if you think about Visa, okay, Visa was a consortium. You know, the Fed was a consortium, but there's always this like very muscular. >> It's always like down to the, you know, it's like the cliche thing of it's it's it's all going to be down to the incentives, like who's actually going to be making money here. And so, we had to have to kind of pull on that string. And you said that right now it's whoever mints it keeps it. He who smelt it dealt it. But then what if somebody like unmints? What if it I mint a billion and

you mint a billion and we you know we trade it and Tom has it and then he burns. >> That's a good point. >> So like who who's like I don't know what's going on. >> Yeah. Yeah. How do you do the fungeability thing? So it's like okay we we know who minted but when I redeem through a different channel do I get decredited or does the original guy get deced? You can't track you know it's not UTXO based. So how do you actually track which ones are which? Is it color coding? Maybe I guess so. Maybe >> I saw Agora Agora was saying that one of your report codes they were saying that this is kind of similar to what they they've been trying to do. Maybe >> kind of like that, but I think they're just paying the apps that hold it. So,

it's a little bit different. >> Right. Right. It's it's I mean having Yeah. paying the balances that are held by different applications. I mean that's what Circle does defacto today where it's like okay I'm going to share some of the revenue that I attribute to Hyperlquid by just looking at what's in the bridge. I'm not counting the mints or the okay, you minted but then later somebody else redeemed those coins. That's obviously very hard to do in an asset that's completely funible to Tom. What's your take on OSD? Yeah, I think um I mean obviously people's kind of first I think reaction like you said is hey this seems like you know a serious competitor to someone like Circle but you know Coinbase was also down five six% today and obviously their stock price right now is heavily tied to Circle because they're getting these um

interest payments from from um USDC or from Circle for USDC on on their platform. And so I think if anything I kind of thought it almost more like like the end of Apocalyptto when like you know it's like Jaguar Paw and whoever they're having their little battle on the cliff and then like in the background the Spanish show up and it's like all right it's like you know daddy's home and I feel like that's that's what this where we this weird you know duopolistic you know semi not you know really top tier competition and stable coins in in crypto and now it's like oh you know all the big players are are here and it's serious now. Although I think to your point I mean there there is a history of consortionbacked payment methods payment pay payment networks. I mean even even Mastercard you know as

well was was a consortium but in crypto it's it's really struggled to take off. I mean even I think of or I think of just like corporate stable coins in general like PYUSD. They've been trying to get that thing off the ground for years. I mean famously you know we had the bet on the show like two years ago about PYUSD. I I don't even think it's surpassed that that peak even though they're obviously offering a lot of incentives for it. Then you could argue, okay, well, PayPal, you know, they they don't really have the user base, so the distribution, but they do have, you know, the incentive. It's it's their own thing. They have a lot of different channels. They are like the payment app in addition to every other property that they own. So, it's like if they can't get it off the ground, what's the chance

that, you know, these other players are getting off the ground? I don't know. It it feels kind of kind of low. Although I I do think, you know, a consortion based model is the most likely winner of any sort of competitor because it is actually how you get a real network off the ground and you get everyone to cooperate versus you have a million different fragmented stable coins that end up not being interoperable and therefore like a bad experience. You guys see that Paulo from Tether tweeted saying, >> "Yeah, that I was about to bring up that that's kind of what Tom's statement of like basically dunking on circle is like, oh, finally a player number two has shown up basically."

>> Oh, wow. Wow. >> It was It was like I was like, "Wow." The the the the vengeance between the two of them is probably has to be the highest of anything in crypto. But he's also praising at the same time he's praising this new competitor. He's like, "Oh, this is going to be like a player two." >> I feel like he did something like that when Libra came out too, though, where he was like like [laughter] finally a real competitor. >> This is like a joke he keeps bringing out every competitor. [laughter] >> No, no, no, no one did this for WLD or uh USD1 rather. This is this is really the first time when people said this a real competitor. So, >> that's true. That's true. I guess I'll say like normally the idea of like okay this is a this is a true consortium

where there's no rent seeker at the middle or it's not like okay Facebook is going to be the primary beneficiary of Libra. It it it does seem like this position is there's no rent secret in the middle and it's almost like commoditizer compliment which is that okay all these people really don't want there to be a stable coin duopoly right like if if you think about what is the incentive of all all these people in the consortium that might be the single tying incentive is like look maybe I'm not going to own the stable coin but I just don't want those guys to own the stable coin because that's going to make it a lot more compelling for me to be able to build my business and integrate the stuff and like really make a push for it if it's Tether that owns this or

if it's Circle that owns this or somebody else that's really bad for my business long term, whether you're Western Union or BNY Melon or whoever, right? I can see that being the rationale for this. That said, I feel like I am skeptical when the consortium is too big. I'm almost like more bullish if it's a consortium of like eight people or 10 people. A consortium of 140 people is basically like, you know, we all went to a concert together and like we all signed a petition. >> That's kind of that's sort of what this feels like to me a little bit. It's the anti-hyperlquid model. You just go from 11 people and you guys go to like >> everyone. We're all building together, >> right? I remember the story about the Libra, right? Is that like the Libra

historically when people saw like the the 40 partners of Libra of like you know checkout.com and Marcato Libre and Visa and blah blah blah and like then later reporting about about the about the Libra showed that like most of these people didn't really understand what Libra was. They hadn't cleared it with their boards. they like they were it was like kind of they signed a a petition or like an LOI or something. I mean to be fair with Libra like we don't really know if they would have managed to find any PMF it sort of became like a legal blocking right like they didn't really manage to get get it out maybe it would have been good I don't know >> right but my point is that with the Libra all the names that we were so excited about of like oh my god I can't

believe Visa is behind this and you know these banks and whatever is that we later learned the banks actually weren't that committed to Libra and what they had been asked to sign was pretty watery of you guys agree to make a best effort to maybe do something if we put this thing together and like no one's going to say no to that because it's like okay well I want to make you know I want to have the optionality to do something I like it >> you guys like all interact with like all these firms and you know that they have like a crypto guy like each of these firms needs to have a crypto guy and that crypto guy needs a win every year you know you got to do you have to show to the bosses like you know be we did a partnership we did something so they

they they kind of they need to sign up and and and that's kind of like how it plays out and I don't think it's a signal or counter signal. That's just going to be like the default, you know, they're all going to sign up so they can show that they did something. >> Right. Right. Right. Agreed. I mean, we haven't seen any actual governance structure yet. There's this idea that there will be many groups that are a part of this governance structure. I'm presuming it's not going to be 140 like the [ __ ] UN or something. So, there will probably be we'll probably get more visibility into what is the actual governance structure here. Who are the real parties who are signing up to be Imagine if it was representative democracy and the the you delegated to a representative company.

>> Imagine if it's a DAO and they have to go in the forum again and start copying. [laughter] >> There's just going to be, you know, it's going to be like the UN if they do have really do 140. It's going to be like there's going to be a security council and it's really going to just be that multi-IG. Everything else is thrown away. >> Yeah. It's going to be Black Rockck and BNY and Salana, you know, making all the calls. It'll be like it'll be like Russia, you know. It's like, "Oh, no, sorry. There's a veto. So, Russia doesn't like this, so we're not doing this one." >> I don't doubt that that's the problem for all these consortiums. Right. >> Even with just n equals 2 for a circle, >> they had lots of that.

>> Right. Right. So, do you do you Dan, do you are you bullish on this? Are you bearish on this? Like, is this the number two? Is this potentially the number one? Do you see a path there? >> I don't know. I think Yeah, a little bit. I'm a little more in this >> why we bring you on. This is why this is why we bring you on the podcast. >> I'm a little in the confidence of like >> of like there's someone at every one of these companies who loves crypto more than everyone else. And maybe it's their job if they're lucky, but for a lot of them it's like they're trying to prove that they need to keep a crypto function at all. And everyone can market stable coins, right? It's like hey private money suddenly our company is like able to earn more interest on doing nothing

and like being part of the transaction flow versus like having to put up capital having to take risk as more as much risk. >> I mean you say when you said that I was like the US government has that same guy. It's like Scott Besson he's always talking about how stable coins are going to save the treasury demand and whatever. Maybe maybe Scott Besson needs to join the constru. I mean that would make me very bullish if like you know you the US government kind of joins the consortium. >> Patrick Dit is that CBDC then? [laughter] >> I don't know. Kind of.

>> Hey. Hey. No, no, no. We don't do that anymore. We don't do that anymore. It's illegal. No. Patrick Dwit who's uh part of the White House uh crypto something crypto executive. I should know what his title is, but he's like the guy right under David Saxs. He tweeted like this is great. This is you know why we have so so much uh positive room for innovation in America. So clearly the White House gave a nod of approval to this. So they like seeing this thing come together. I I take issue with your framing tun because I think like almost all these companies have done some you know it's like oh we did a partner Google cloud did a partnership >> some of them have for the record there's 140 names right like yes >> a lot of them haven't done much or have done fake stuff. There's obviously a

small core that has done 90% 95% of any real crypto thing, right? >> Yeah. But I'd say I I think almost every single one of these companies almost certainly at a board or at a seuite level take stable coins seriously. They may not take crypto seriously, but they take stable coin. Like every single one of these companies take stable. I mean maybe Door Dash doesn't or something, I don't know. But most of these organizations, financial institutions, banks, they're thinking about stable coins. This is not a this is not irrelevant to how they see their 20-year plan. So So I take it seriously that like this is not a okay the little corporate innovation department like you know just okayed something and maybe they did you know >> I I I'm not saying it's like exactly like that. Stable coins are a much easier sell like crypto, right? Like

Libra is a harder sell than this because Libra promised you some stake in the fees that was nebulous whereas this promises you like straight up treasury yield split attributably right like there is a real there's real dollars behind this versus like a little bit more like the hope of a token type like appreciation which I I do think like is is a a distinct difference between the stable coin consortiums and like L1 plus stablecoin which I think actually has this problem of like you're promising a lot too much that like has to make the token work or the validator network work whereas here there's that kind of irrelevant right that's why all the different networks are on the same thing

no one cares about that at all I just don't know again to your point about incentive like who's incentivized to bring order flow like why is my topline metric aum like bring in a bunch of aum because then you get to the jordy problem of like well then everyone Everyone who has a billion dollar balance sheet just dumps a billion dollars, transfers it to someone else and then transfers it back and suddenly they're farming the fees the most, right? And like, hey, you're having the lucky >> consorting games on this. Okay. >> Of course. I mean, I inevitably, right?

They're going to pick some revenue share agreement and someone's going to be a little smarter than the rest and just start farming everyone else. The second thing is is like okay well maybe it's volume based and it's like who's going to generate the most real volume KYC user volume or whatever like you have to prove it. Well then obviously some of those businesses are way more adept at just like shoving all their users onto this and doing exactly what they're doing offchain but just being like oh we're settling here now pay us all the incentives. And so I think the farming games actually do occur when you're like are we trying to grow be an AUM business and have assets managed here? Are we trying to be a

payments volume business? Are we trying to you know like and that you know even with just those two the spectrum between those two. you're going to completely change the revenue share agreement and like the real long-term value to like each business and whatever rules you set there dictate who gets the most value out of this and inherently who will try to be on the security council. I I think that's like the natural end state of all these and so I don't these revenue sharing agreements are actually the key thing of like whether this is real or not and like I don't know what that is. So I that's that's however they choose that that will determine whether there's farming incentives or people moving real demand on and I don't know how you get 140 people to agree on that who all have

enough incentive to like bring their real demand onto this. There will be people who naturally do right who who who I think will have certainly much more of a reason to do that. I I sort of take an even more basic mode of analysis on this which is that my expectation is that the stable coin market is really hard. Part of the reason why PayPal was unsuccessful and most of these other players that have launched, you know, Fiser has their own stable coin and blah blah blah, all these guys, Western Union has their own stable coin, Clin has their own stable coin. Stable coins are really hard. They're very sticky. They have natural network effects. It's actually really difficult to get your new stable coin into something that already exists. And the rake that Tether and Circle take on mints and redeems are actually very low and the market can

bear it pretty well. And so going to okay, zero mint, zero redeem fees is an advantage but not that much of an advantage relative to just the liquidity to the acceptance to the ubiquity and to just like the the the moes that it's already integrated into all these places. So my expectation is that probably what happens here is that Tether continues to rule the roost when it comes to exchanges and like crypto trading and a lot of these like emerging markets places where it's just it's just kind of everywhere, right? It's like it's in the water supply. It's just all over the place. Circle probably continues with a lot of the integrations that they've won just through kind of sheer BD and and uh relationships as well as in DeFi where it has become you know the the the sort of it's become the

unit of account within DeFi um and it's kind of accepted >> I think like the one push back I have is that the rake is not really the mint redeem the m the rake is the is the interest on holding and both of those guys obviously don't pay anything out to users no hold on they pay some to the pay to users here that you can't this is still genius compliant. They're not paying out to users. >> No, I understand. But like let's look at the deals they have. So there's the Binance kind of like cuts and Tether has historically been able to not pay that much to Binance. I think you know I hear whispers of what the exact amount is but they pay something but not that much.

They keep they keep a line share because they're like well you know we have negotiating power too. Obviously with this hyperlquid thing 90% of it's not going to like hype buybacks or whatever. So like the negotiating power was clearly kind of going on the other side, but the rate in in essence is going to be we're we're not going to be in like a zero yield environment. It's pretty clear like if anything yields are going back up. Firms even like us, you know, I'm a little bit tired of like holding so many stables and not getting anything. Like I I can see like the amount of cash that these guys are, you know, we're just making tether money by just holding holding this UST.

There is space for someone to come in with lower rake. It's not about the mint fees and ultimately like I agree with Tarun like this whole thing is going to depend on have they gotten the incentives right where the right people are getting enough to kind of grow this OPEC will kind of succeed or fail if like the the the members are all happier with with the with the money >> right but notice who's missing right Binance is not here Binance is not on this list and that that tells you a lot right Coinbase is not here Binance is not here uh >> Coinbase is there. That was the the whole people fighting.

>> Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. Coinbase Coinbase is there. >> Sorry. Coinbase, Coinbase is there. Coinbase is there. I apologize. But it's very clear like Coinbase obviously has two masters here. They're very incentivized to continue pushing USDC because, you know, they have this big stake in in USDC as well, uh, relative to just OSD. And I suspect that like they're going to say yes, but they're not going to necessarily be pushing it at the margin to the extent that they can because they have this broader product suite that's oriented around USDC. So I suspect for that reason that like fragmentation is good for the incumbent. If OD is not going to be able to cleanly bring everybody on board and like basically build this rebel alliance, probably they're going to have to open new markets. And I think it's plausible that they can't open new

markets, right? Like interbank settlement or, you know, this stable coin sandwich, B2B payments. This is a very plausible place that and this is kind of what Tempo story has been as well, right? Is that look these are these are totally new markets that didn't already exist. you know, Door Dash and OpenAI and Anthropic and all these partners that they have, uh, they're not using any stable coins today. So, them using this player as the way in which they're going to be onboarding stable coins and be willing to because they have a stake in it and it's not just leaking economics to somebody else, they may be willing to to expand the stable coin market in this direction. But where I'm skeptical again, because there's no single muscular hand that's going to go toe-to-toe with Circle or go toe-to-toe with Tether and say, "Great, I'm going

to win over Binance. I'm gonna win over DeFi. I'm gonna win over uh emerging markets and I'm gonna go do all the integrations with in LATAM or in in um you know in Southeast Asia. There's so much prior work that's been done here developing this. But I think I think one thing I will say about this is that's that to me is slightly downstream of the revenue sharing agreement in this thing right like fundamentally right the rake like Jord saying has to get cut up based on your usage or participation or how much you're doing stuff and like what you choose as that revenue sharing agreement dictates whether someone who already has access and like a BD team a growth team that knows how to just go accumulate assets or accumulate volume will just go try. It's effectively going

to be trying to farm the revenue share agreement. There's like no way around that, right? It's like everyone's going to like look at what they're good at, what they can do for the least cost and maximize their potential. >> But here here I think is the problem with that is that like look, if you look at something like Visa, right? Visa is a consortium. It was created to basically coordinate all of the banks and you know get get all the consumers that are available by all the banks and like it makes sense once the value is already there in the entire banking system to coordinate in a central entity that sits on top and I think you can do that when you're really just having to attribute the value that's being contributed by each person but in the stable coin market the stable coin market is still

pretty nent it's not that big right in absolute terms relative to a BNY melon or a black rock like stable coin market is tiny maybe to you know to circle it's big but circle is a $20 billion company, right? These are these are orders of magnitude larger companies that are dealing with economics that that far outscaled the current stable coin market. So the reality is the stable coin market needs to be expanded and market development and expansion of the market is not where a consortium is going to shine. In order to go and into uncharted territory, it takes a lot of risk and a lot of that risk might not be internalized by you. If you're like, "Look, I'm going to go do market development in Indonesia, okay, and you're PayPal." Maybe you do that market development. Maybe you get the fees, like maybe your mint is the mint that

works, but maybe somebody else's mint. Maybe Grab goes and takes that market share after you've done the market development. If you're circle, you don't care. You just go do the market development, and you will internalize all the gains. But if you're a consortium, there's a lot of incentive to free ride and only pick up the easy money that you know you're going to be able to capture. And that's why consorcia are not used to like go, you know, you don't use a consortia to go open up a new continent. You use an explorer on a ship that's, you know, venture financed, right? Like that the the centrality of an >> I think we're saying different things, >> right? But I think it it it it comes down to the central question of do you expect them to win over the current market or to expand the current market?

And I think the the theory that I'm propounding is one that this kind of system works for expanding the current market relative to the flow they already have available, you know, B2B flows and, you know, okay, some of their banking clients and, you know, blah blah blah, but it doesn't really work for them to say, great, we're going to take over Hyperlquid. We're going to take over, you know, the stable coin deposing pairs on Binance. I think that's much harder for this kind of structure. >> Let's see if they manage to snag like a Robin Hood or something. you know, I haven't seen those guys on the list and I know they're announcing a bunch of stuff uh this week.

>> Well, they're in a different consortium. >> Different which one? >> USDG. >> Oh, okay. Okay. And there's there's >> like that's what I'm saying. There's like also this like competing consoria thing which is like also weird like coast theorem has to apply eventually. Like how big how many of these can you have? >> Yeah, I agree. >> Okay, switching gears. Jordy, this one's for you. There's been a comeback happening in the memecoin market. So, we'll give a very I'll give a very short tortured version of this because I I'm certainly not a expert on what's happening in memecoins, but apparently there's been a bit of a comeback in the memecoin market around friend of the show, Ansom. So, Anom, of course, one of the biggest, perhaps the biggest memecoin influencer in the space. Uh he's somebody who drives a lot of volume

around anything that he does, says, talks about. And there is a memecoin just named Anom, so named for him that he did not launch. uh he was given some of the creator fees because pump. Fund now has this creator fee concept. Uh so those were those were uh uh awarded to him in sort of whatever in and respect for his name. Uh he took 65% of the supply but is now distributing some of the fees as airdrops that he's giving to many people you know some of the big creators and influencers that he knows. This seems to have triggered a really significant rally in this memecoin. Um it's now got roughly a hundred million market cap on this memecoin which we have not seen in a long long time. Now, this is relatively small compared to the meme coins of yesterday year, which were

in the billions. We'd see memecoins routinely going to hundreds of millions. But $100 million memecoin we have not seen in quite a long time. Uh and so this seems to be putting a little bit of energy back into the trenches and giving people some excitement that hey, maybe maybe maybe it's not over. Maybe memecoins aren't dead. Maybe we can have a little bit of a comeback if we just believe hard enough. Uh Jordy, what do you say? Do you believe that uh this man can put the memecoin market on his back and return us to the promised land? What do you say? I mean, first of all, I like that I'm the memecoin guy. I don't think the trenches would accept me as one of their own. So, [laughter] like, wait, what is your positioning with the with the trenches?

>> I mean, look, this I I've been deep enough in the trenches to know that this is like the WWF I used to watch as a kid. You know, you got Hulk Hogan and this guy. This is like entertainment theater and it's all like not as real as it looks. And, you know, people get entertained and that's the value and that that's fine. But like if if you look historically all these meme coins they have a story of like oh this is organic and the dev you know he he didn't make any money or this happened and this is like a storyline generally where it's all kind of constructed look probably you know you look at the incentives of like a a pump fund to make sure that people know that they have this new creator thing and maybe that gets people excited. Is that worth

pumping some coins? Like I I'm not I'm not saying that I know exactly what happened in this case. I don't. But generally I've learned that this is this is like one of those WWE kind of things. And Anom has never shied away from, you know, getting in the mud. You know, he's got the cat coin and this one and he's on stream and everyone's buying it. And you know, like I like Anom. He's he kind of like doesn't act like he's u more serious than than he is. He's a cool guy and he just has fun with it, you know. I'm happy. You know, I got some Meteora bags that hopefully now they're getting some volume. May maybe that'll do well. I don't know. But um yeah, sorry. I don't have exact

insight as to what the future lies for Anomcoin. >> All right, Tun Anomcoin, do you have a take? I didn't know about it other than because I had muted there was like some time where people were getting angry at Anom and it somehow took over my whole timeline and I muted Anthem and I forgot to unmute it. Sorry Anom, it was you know you were just you were causing too much controversy. It must be at least six months ago, three months ago and then I just kept seeing all these tweets are like it's not great when your favorite influencer launches a coin. And I was like who is this talking about?

And I think I only learned it was Anom like yesterday. So, I I'm I'm the boomer who knows absolutely nothing about this. >> Tom, you got a take? >> I No takes. I was I was hoping for a little more from our our memecoin wizard, but you know, [laughter] uh he's not trench native. >> Okay. I think this we maybe shouldn't have uh listened to this topic because I think none of us have interesting things to say. >> I kind of thought like, okay, >> is it possible for there to be an interesting thing to say? Like actually that's more >> maybe on a different show. Philosophical question of whether it's even possible to say something interesting.

>> I think the answer is no. >> A little bit. Yeah. No, we've become the cringey. The most interesting thing is that like whenever a certain amount of time goes by, people do kind of like the the demand gets pent up for some stupid coin to speculate on and then it just they get it and and it kind of has this wave and then it just goes under, you know, it's like the Mordor again. It has to kind of the evil has to grow again below the surface and then kind of so that that's cool that it's always there. So, you know, the speculative fervor is >> that's so cool. I love that within all of us.

>> Yeah. No, how heartening to think about that. >> Um, I mean, I guess like the close analogy to this I remember was white whale. I don't know if you guys remember that, but there's like this I don't even know how to describe him, like this pseudonmous guy who makes AI videos of himself as a talking whale. And uh he like basically CTOed a memecoin and then eventually let go of it. but it was like kind of one of the only meme coins that was doing well for a while. And so it does seem like these meme coins now the only ones that survive they sort of metastasize around some main character. I mean there's also Binance Life that also seems to be the other meme coin that uh has gotten a lot of energy which I I actually really appreciate Binance Life because it's the only thing that

you'll see on page one that has any Chinese characters in it. But it's kind like okay, you know, we're still we're still an international community. there's still memecoins for uh people who are not terminally um online and American. So, okay, last story that I wanted to run through was, you know, we talked a little bit about Dows and Consortia. You have a story now about ENS and uh kind of throwing a little bit of shade on the DAO structure. Tom, you said you wanted to chat about this one, so I'll try to run through it a little bit, but I I didn't follow very closely. >> I just suggested it. I hib has made being the host a consortium right now and he's outsourcing the job to each of us to like to try >> if I was outsourcing the job of host this this show would be going a lot

worse okay so Dow okay so just very briefly what happened was that uh the ENS DAO is going to be doing a restructuring that is going to be delegating day-to-day control of the treasury to a foundation and they were going to hand off uh the control of all the ENS tokens uh the the ETH all the all the stables, all the money that's sitting in there, uh, going into this this foundation. And basically, there's like one dude, Nick, who I I don't know exactly who it is. Um, famous Ethereum developer. How >> Nick, what was the last name?

>> Nick Johnson, right? >> Johnson. Okay. Okay. So, like a Yeah. core core ETH community member guy. He voted against without having said anything in the governance forums or the kind of, you know, pre the prevote. He took all of his tokens, which is roughly 50% of the supply. Is is that right? Yeah. Roughly 50% of the supply and blocked the vote or 50% of the supply that voted I should say. Uh he blocked the vote uh with just his single vote and basically said look no the security council must exist as a backs stop against compromise and violations of the constitution and so therefore we need to you know continue our overseeing of these assets. This caused a lot of people normally a consternation of oh Dows are fake and you know look one guy

can control the whole thing and you know what's the point of Dows and blah blah blah and a lot of hand ringing about you know is this another example of Dows totally failing in their uh stated purpose of having some kind of decentralized control and ownership. Tom what is your take on this story that you have limited interest in? >> I uh I still have an open request. I want to see like a um Louis Theorough style documentary and you visiting these these Dows of yester year and seeing what they're up to and where the funds are going. And I I felt like that when I was kind of reading the story where I was like, "Wow, I've not thought about this in many years." But I'm curious to know all the actors involved and and and what they're doing. I mean, >> I I feel like this is more like one of

those videos where you you find a a part a tiny part of civilization that's like disconnected from the rest of world and and you're like, "Oh, wow. Look at what happened if you got stuck in the 1950s and you never really learned anything about new technology and how how you could live as someone living in the Stone Age." I I think of it more like you stumble on like a random YouTube video of like some city council in some tiny town you've never heard of where they're like people are yelling and they're super angry and it's just like oh I guess >> they're hey if it if it's any consolation for crypto people >> at least AI is dealing with Dows because the data center approval thing is almost

exactly like Dow >> fair enough fair enough um let's take the core of the argument, let's kind of take it seriously for a second of like do you guys think that this indictment of Dows I feel like this is more and more of the thing people are saying is that look this proves that Dows failed Dows are not the right governance structure we've seen for example Maker Dow you know run famously kind of came in and eviscerated a bunch of the DAO kind of like you know Ulisses coming home to uh to to to >> cast out the suitors >> yeah cast out the suitors exactly uh we've seen Stani kind of do some of the same thing with the A DAO it kind of feels like there's a vibe shift in hey Dow are overly complicated, overly bureaucratic. This was a little bit decentralization theater. Maybe we were

doing under a previous administration, but we can we can cast that away and focus on efficiency. That seems to be the vibe. Do you guys embrace that vibe? Do you think it's gone too far? Do you think it's not gone far enough? Jordy, why don't you take that? >> I mean, the you know, we we've gone from Dows to consortiums now, so we're evolving. [laughter] >> Yes. Dows with stock tickers for the members instead of ENS entries. [laughter] >> Okay. Yeah. I mean I that does seem that does seem worse. I I think that's the I don't know if that's the point you're making, but I think consortiums seem worse than Dows.

>> There's probably more bylaws and more fallacy right there. >> Okay. Do you do you think do you think consorcia are better or worse than Dows? Dan, >> they're just different. Same thing, different clothing. Okay. So, no difference. Tom, what do you what would you say? Consoria or Dows? Which are better? >> I think um I think it depends on the structure. I think this open dollar sound it sounds more like a federation, you know. It's like they all do their own thing and and they reap the benefits and there's some sort of loose, you know, idea of something tying them together, but it's very thin. It's it's more of a you know, uh like like it's like like the Articles of Confederation kind of. And you know, this is more of like a I would say if anything it's it's more like libertarian- minded, right?

and that like you wanted a type of governance where if someone has a certain amount of tokens and they are trying that certain amount of of votes and like that's what it's doing that's what it says on on the tin and there's no other weird backtory. I think people has the idea in mind because they're used to an experience of democracy that's that's more headweighted that like oh we should have this sort of voice of the people kind of moment and it's like no no no that's not what we're doing here we explicitly said we're doing token governance and that's what this looks like and I I think you know that's obviously going to be concentrated in people who own a lot of the token and are maybe tied to to the project and so I think that's kind of what people are experiencing is like

they thought it would be you know one or or the other and actually the the other ends up looking a lot like the One, >> the one optimistic take is that AI is going to in the next couple years probably make it a lot easier for representative democracy systems to work more than they have historically because historically the issue is like you know no one really has time to express our preferences like I don't vote ever because the amount of time for me to spend a day sitting in line is not worth the like small infinite decimal chance that I can influence an outcome. But if I have an AI doing kind of representing me in Dows or in structures that, you know, I can hold tokens and and just tell the AI to take care of voting for me and what my preferences are. That

might make these things more viable. >> The original definity pitch. No, I'm kidding. But actually, not untrue because it actually is the original. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Actually, this I'm I'm like getting flashbacks to 2017. This is great. Damn. Okay. All right. I like I like the Dow bullet, but this is a D. This is an argument for Dows. Yeah, Jordy. >> Dows are better. >> AI is going to save AI is going to save the Dow. >> AI is going to save crypto once again. Okay. Beautiful. I like that. I like that. Cool. All right, we're up on time. >> Believe that the most are Jordy and Tina Zen.

>> That That is true. That is true. Well, hey, I I believe it, too. I believe it, too. I'm with you, Jordy. Jordy, where can people find you? >> Twitter these days. Game theorizing. and you know once in a while I'll pop up on the podcast as well. >> Okay, lovely. Well, I'm glad we were finally able to get you on the show. Thank you everybody and we will be back next time. >> All right, thanks for having me guys. [music] [music]