AI Agents, Zcash Mania & Crypto's Ownership Crisis

Transcript

[music] >> All right, everybody, welcome back to the Delphi Podcast, the show about markets, AI, crypto, a lot of unfiltered opinions. We got tons to talk about today. Joined as always by Yan, co-founder, managing partner at Delphi Ventures, Jose, co-founder and head of Delphi Labs, Siddarth, our head of research, and Jason, our head of markets. Feels like it's a good It's another good day to be doing this. You know, stocks are up early this morning, a lot of geopolitical news. Had some nice crypto moves over the last 24-48 hours.

How's How's everyone feeling? It's hard to feel bad, honestly, at this point, right? Um I don't know. Markets >> Zoodles. Yeah. Yeah, I guess Zcash. Uh I don't know. Everything is looking pretty, you know, decent, right? Markets kind of just at this point, you could say have kind of shrugged off, at least like the the, you know, the growth shock or scare from what what's going on in uh in the Middle East. And I guess like I mean, clearly they've they've looked past that.

The Qs are up 25% in the last month. Um a bunch of, you know, tech names, AI names, new all-time highs every day, bunch of appetite returning into crypto markets through memes or AI names or, you know, just like the good businesses that have been doing well. Um and I guess like the the real the real question now is like markets, I guess are, you know, looked past past the growth shock, but I guess like they're still probably a little bit held up on, you know, what the inflation um implications of of the Iran conflict uh is going to be and like what the what the persistence of them is going to be. Like clearly bond markets have been, you know, yields have been rallying over the last uh couple weeks as well. So, there's

clearly pressure there, but like I don't know. There's a big big talk around like what earnings would look like for all these AI names. Would they be bad? And then, you know, everything just got blown out of the water. New all-time highs across the like So, yeah, it's just I don't know. If you're not long risk, you're just getting, you know, just getting left behind at this point, which I guess is a classic kind of characteristic of melt-up, but I'm curious what what other what the other guys think. Yeah, I mean, you had one of the best earnings quarters in terms of growth in very long time, right? I think it was something like uh best since um late 2020, right? And that's just on the back of

weak growth. So, um Yeah, it it's it's kind of been insane blowouts across the board. Uh and and so, yeah, risk on, I think you know, geopolitics again end up being a nothing burger, at least so far. So, everyone's kind of looking past that. Crypto for a bit was kind of flung by the wayside, but has has been um picking up recently. You had Saylor's earnings call yesterday, right? Which is obviously very big for crypto and and I think he had the recent mention that that shook everyone, which is basically the idea of him entertaining selling BTC, which

prior to yesterday was probably thought of as blasphemy in in terms of his appetite to do so. Uh I think it makes a lot of sense to signal it and and I hope it's from a position of strength, not fear. Um right? So, the the whole idea is he's basically got three There's three buckets that need to be satisfied. Uh BTC, STRC, and and strategy shares. And and it is a bit zero summy. So, strategy our stretch rather, sorry.

Everyone um has been watching this thing like a hawk because the second that we re-pegs to 100, he can start selling those at the market. And and uh I think if you look historically, this is it's taken longer this time than than ever before and I think you know, to some extent it makes sense. It's a much larger there's much more of it now, so it takes a lot more money to bring it back to par. Um as you keep issuing more, financially, it becomes harder to sustain. So, it the the idea is it basically keeps re-pegging until it doesn't and then he would raise the dividend again.

Um I I think there are two kind of games that that are are a couple games that are played on the STRC side, right? So, you have those that buy it for the ex-date and and collect the dividend and then those that that kind of recreate a dividend-like return by pursing it at the low 99s and selling it at the high 99s, right? And and so, you kind of in between ex-dates, you get a pseudo dividend, which is admittedly smaller. All right, if you're assuming a percent a month roughly, this is kind of closer to like 70 bips.

Um And and so, I I think there's there's slight negative element, but overall positive element to to that to the the involvement of those people, right? The idea being they create a bid at at low 99s, but then they create a bunch of supply at high 99s and and it makes it easier to get to high 99s, but then harder to get to 100 because they are kind of making increasing the overall amount of buying needed to get to 100 by roughly 1%. The the I think the positive side is basically that yes, they probably increase the the amount of capital needed to buy 1% but at the same time I think they increased confidence in it re-pegging to 100 by

more than 1% and so you have outside money that that is building confidence in their ability to get to 100 that that will come in and start buying now. I think the reason uh he mentioned the idea of selling Bitcoin is because it I think it also drives confidence to this getting to 100 because uh now you've you opened up a whole new faucet for cash that can sustain this dividend and and it you know it's not an insane amount if you think about the amount of BTC he has to sell to sustain the dividend it it's not a meaningful portion of of Bitcoin so I think the market is generally shrugging it off and and kind of ideally viewing it more of

more as a positive because it's just basically enough to instill confidence in the STRC bucket that it helps re-peg and and kind of keep the flywheel going so to speak. So um yeah it's basically you know him mentioning that is to to instill more confidence in the STRC side and and ideally help those buyers gain confidence in in the ability to him continue paying this this dividend and so um the downside is right he he basically only has until the 15th uh to to really issue STRC at 100 if it gets there because at that point it goes X and and the price drops again.

So he is limited in his window now and and kind of every day that every day like the the longer it takes the harder it like or the less he can get out of it so um there is I think at a certain point um the market I think will probably reverse a bit because there's enough of it that's set up on this trade that are just kind of basically it's almost like moon cycles where they're just, you know, buying when you think he can issue or or basically front-running when you think he can issue and then then getting out uh as you approach the X date. So, you kind of get to this um crunch time uh element. But, it it has been gradually grinding higher. I think

it's 99.98 right now, right? Yeah, there you go. Um and and ultimately that's kind of what what people are watching and then the you have, you know, broader alt speculation that that happens alongside it and and a handful of names which I'm sure we'll chat through. But, yeah. How much firepower do you think in like the near term this sailor strategy play has? Like, do you have any ballpark numbers you're looking at or expecting? Um low billions, I'd say. Well, uh so obviously the the longer the amount the more days you get the higher chance of of more volume. Um but, if you look recently it the volume has been picking

up day by day uh roughly. And so, even today we're almost at a million uh or yeah, um million shares of volume. And it's it's 10:51 Eastern, right? So, I I I think you're starting to see more and more volume and and so you kind of expect that as people are flipping out of it. Um so, I I I mean if you get it this week, I think you can get low billions out of it because you also get the uh indirect ability to issue more MSTR alongside it because in theory the the BTC that's being accumulated is going to balance sheet. The balance sheet is only claimable by the equity

component, not not this STRC side or at least, you know, like I think that's kind of how the market views it. So, it it tends to be positive for both. And I also think just the the idea that he would sell a slight amount of Bitcoin is also favorable for MSTR because it means, you know, you think he'll be more strategic about this BTC per share approach. Um, and and so that is accretive for the those holders. So, I think the signaling of it was basically not very punitive for BTC, but but pretty accretive to both MSTR and STRC.

Yeah, and with tonight's you mentioned we've seen some speculation further out the the good old risk curve especially over the last like a week or so. I mean the big one I got to give a shout out to the last time we recorded this. We all pulled up this chart and we dropped in a little higher and we had a nice little clean break from this, right? Nobody expected it to go this high this fast, but you had the multi-coin tweet, then building a position, and then handsome retweets and he's moving markets again, you know, drawing attention to it. I think everybody on here, most people have a have a private Bitcoin bag. Where you guys think this goes though? Like do you think we get back to Like is the expectation we're getting back to 700, 750? Is it going higher than that? Yeah, where's First of all,

okay, so first of all, just If you're trimming, where are you trimming? So, first of all, just on strategy, we have a crazy detailed report coming out next week on all this stuff. Definitely read that. It's like if you if like all this stuff is confusing for you because it is really complicated structure uh, the read this report. It's might take you a while to read cuz it's super detailed and there's lots of numbers, but like you'll kind of understand by the end of it. Um on Zcash listen, I mean I don't know, I'm still bullish Zcash.

Um, I think Zcash is true PVE. I think this is what's going for Zcash right now. Um First of all, it had like 9 years of distribution. Okay? So, it's got this really long proof-of-work distribution that kind of went through. Traded really bad for years. Um then it got kind of this breakout last year, nice pop, and then kind of like profit-taking you would expect coming into the next year. And so, this was kind of like decision point, I guess, where like was this going to Is this going to be like a real narrative or was that like the only pump? And you know, when the Valkyrie fell and all this stuff, right?

Um I think the multi-coin coming out is pretty high signal. Um And yeah, I just think it's like the you can meme it pretty well. Like, people are going to have some of these ridiculous targets. Like, I saw Arthur Hayes tweeting like 10% of Bitcoin. Like, in my opinion, there's no way it gets that high. I mean, maybe in like 5, 10 years potentially. Um but like could it get to I mean, it's getting close to 1%, but like, you know, could it get to 2% or so? I think it could like privacy has really come back into vogue over the past like year or so.

Um even Monero has it has done pretty well, too, if you look at coins that have that are up over the past year. Like, Zcash is up a ton, but like Monero's up, too, and some other alternate privacy coins are also up. Um And listen, like DeFi has a million exploits a day at this pace. Um Tokens are getting rugged by their protocols. And VC unlock tokens are just been down only. In Zcash, you have this coin that's like really well distributed.

You're not getting dumped on by private buyers. Um you don't have to worry about the team just deciding, "Oh, we don't we don't care about the token anymore. Um it's just kind of like and you don't have to worry about D5 exploits. I mean, hopefully North Korea doesn't hack the shielded pool like I don't know if they're able to do that, but like you kind of just have a lot going for it and also just in crypto let's face it like a lot of times assets just trend and it seems like there's always kind of like a big winner, you know?

Um like a big alt winner. Um obviously you had like Ethan D5 summer years ago. You had Solana after, right? Like if you had Solana or if you didn't have Solana was a big determination like how good you felt in like 23 24, right? And then hyper liquid, you know, hyper liquid took the candle after that. Um and I don't know is it going to be Zcash this time? I don't know, maybe. Um I'm kind of like betting on it. Um yeah, I just it just seems like there's a lot going for it and it has a lot of like institutional

interest too. Um and also like the tech is actually legitimately good and they have like a really cracked team and I think they've been hiring really well, too recently as well. So and I mean they got Merch always behind it and now they got Ansem behind it, too. Ansem seems to like be moving markets again. Um but yeah, one thing it's interesting though with the multicoin like I think I feel like it's pretty clear Kyle is just a massive Sol maxi. Like he hated hype, he hated Zcash and uh the two biggest positions multicoin has built publicly since he's gone and been hype and Zcash. So I think uh

it's interesting. It's definitely a change in like multicoin historically you've just thought of them as mostly like Solana fund and now they're really branching out into other stuff. Um So yeah, I don't know. Um I mean this latest pump was kind of crazy overnight. Um but yeah. Any other uh alts you guys are looking at? Yeah, pull pull up that VVV chart. Show me show me something prettier than that.

What's going on? >> Probably the the best growing uh fundamental business right now. Uh they're adding like 2 million ARR a week. They're probably doing about 50 right now and and are are about to add another 100 mil in ARR not not, you know, the subscription revenue not business is good cuz markets are noisy. No, no, this is you know, actually sustainable and and the idea is they're flowing value through a token. Um and I'm sure we can we'll go into you know, the the tribulations of that. Um but yeah, I mean 500 mil market cap like eight high 800s FDV.

So not a low cap but also something that I think is pretty under owned. Is is kind of growing for AI reasons not crypto reasons. Um And and it it's yeah, you know, you don't really see much about it on Twitter. I I think it's just going to kind of keep going here. Um and they're gradually returning value but but mostly just reinvesting in in growth right now. No VC unlocks.

Ready to dump. Yeah, I mean there's a big airdrop when it launched, right? And so I mean I sold mine at that point. And I think a lot of people Everybody, I think, like, sold, right? So, definitely better distribution on it. Yeah, I wonder why it's not talked about as much. Cuz like it's again, if you're looking for an AI overlap narrative in crypto, I mean, there's few cleaner charts. Especially over the last, I mean, year-to-date than this one.

I mean, I guess quite it's kind of like why everybody like argues in in the group chats. Like, I mean, it's got crypto and AI overlap. So, it it's kind of like the reason why I never like bought Galaxy. Like, it was like why do I want to own something that's like kind of not really a pure play on either? Why not just like own something that's strictly AI or equities, right? I don't know. But like obviously, VVV VVV has done done really well. But like I I think that's probably like the reason, right? Like over the last couple months, like you've been punished really, really badly for for, you know, like sticking with crypto things that are like adjacent to stuff that's going on

in in, you know, the real world. Um You've just underperformed massively. You might as well just like gone to equities and traded it directly there. Um I just think Venice makes doesn't make any sense like fundamentally. I just don't get the product fundamentally. Like why this thing makes sense. Like yeah, I mean, for most users, you're you're just trusting them, right? You're still sending the queries to them. And yeah, they they anonymize it with a proxy or whatever. But in reality, like for anyone that's power using AI, all the the it's not your your prompts, right? That leak the information. It's it's your context, which is what you want the AI to have to be able to answer questions on you, right? Like every query I'm sending to AI has built into

it either, you know, our our fun context or like my context or some, you know, what whatever it is I'm I'm querying my my my personal context. And so, I just don't get like having this de-anonymization layer on top of of of AI really really makes sense. Even if it worked fundamentally, if people were using the TE or end-to-end encryption stuff, which I don't think >> They are I still just I don't think it really makes makes sense. >> What do you mean they're not using the the I think most people are just using the Venice controlled one, right? Like the Venice controlled GPUs.

Like the anonymous mode where it's it's basically I mean you're wrong you're wrong. No. Um Yeah. You're feeding into every other underlying model. I think a decent amount of it I don't know actually decent like they cuz they don't they they break out the they gradually break out token usage. Um but I think the like there's obvious porn application is an obvious one with all the video models. And and that's a massive market. Um But the video models don't do porn, right? Like even if it comes from like what video models do porn?

>> The open source ones do do it? Yeah. Okay. Um I wasn't aware that they did I thought you had to like do a fine tune for them to do porn. Is that mainly is that what mainly the volume's coming from right now or >> no idea. Are you sure the open source models do porn? Then we we need to Please Please test it out right now. No, I think that's a legitimate bull case if if if if they do. But last I checked they they did Yeah, they they have like the same safeguards as open source models do for them.

Okay. Interesting. Yes, confirming that now. >> And what do you what do you Yeah, what do you get with this you said like subscription revenue is one of the big drivers. What do you what do you get with that? Uh it's just a usage-based one. >> Just usage-based? Yeah. And then um I'm I think the revenue is also understated cuz you don't really they don't track um the amount of people that are paying for API usage after they're maxing their max plan.

So there's revenue Revenue in this case is like the total spend like API spend which I guess they're mostly it's mostly like being passed through to the labs, no? Uh depends on on if it's open-source or lab-based. Um For the open-source ones they're running them on their own hardware. >> They're I I I I think it's it's probably a combination of of some of their own but but also just outsourced GPU um decentralized compute providers. Okay.

>> And there and there you get pretty good margins. Interesting. Yeah, I think the porn and and like illegal use cases could be cool. I I I just think for the for the majority of my use cases which I would want privacy for if it was available it just doesn't work because the the context like it it it just feels like a very niche market, I guess. The I mean I guess porn isn't that niche. Yeah, I think there's also you could you'd bifurcate your use um where it's it's you you'd keep your your usual volume things in your existing setup and then more edgy stuff that you're less worried about

keeping your entire context window and and all that information up to date through this. Hm. Yeah. I mean, it's just it's hard to necessarily see where all this goes because like we were talking about just before we jumped on, which is [snorts] AI in general, it's it's extremely hard to predict where all this goes. Like the pass-through model is a similar type of qualm that some people have had with other bigger companies like a cursor, right? Which recently had the $60 billion potential buyout announcement. But that's always been one of the questions around their model has been a lot of the revenue that comes in goes kind of right out the back door because they essentially serve as an

aggregator for a bunch of different models, top frontier models. They've started to develop and build their own models too to try and diversify that that revenue stream or have some lock-in, but that pass-through model has been one that um that definitely has had some question marks around it. The the pass-through model? Like >> Yeah, where it's like cur Like you're paying a cursor, but like to your earlier point with Venice, like a lot of the revenue that comes in winds up going out the back door because it goes to paying >> It's like double counted. Yeah, revenue for the AI but You assume they have like enterprise plans, so you they do get better economics than than retail.

But I agree, it's it's the lower margin of the two. Yeah. I mean, I think and I think some of them Yeah, for the open-source models, I think the margins are are much bigger, for sure. Um like you mean when we spoke to Kimmi and stuff, it seems like that that's the model they have like more efficient ways to serve them and stuff where you can have higher gross [clears throat] margins on them. Um But yeah, I don't think it's a super I mean, Cursor's acquisition kind of like validates the model though, right? I think they're the It's Is is it the biggest private acquisition ever?

Uh I can start up land. It feels like definitely the biggest one I can remember. I mean, Wiz seemed big and like WhatsApp seemed seemed huge, right? Um but this is just like two two you know, more than two x WhatsApp and Wiz. Yeah, I mean you had a lot you had quite a few actually in the early 2000s. Um but at the time we're not necessarily a private one. I mean, it's definitely up there in terms of AI land. It's it's one of the largest for sure.

But it's interesting like SpaceX being involved in that. Um Yeah, it's the largest private venture M&A deal in history, it seems like. Yeah. Which is which is wild. But how much of that is It's like an interesting dynamic because you've got all these not the circular revenue argument, but more like all this interplay between like SpaceX and Elon. And then if you go and acquire Cursor and you've got XAI, part of Cursor's business model is selling big part of it is selling access to frontier models like one's from OpenAI, one's from Anthropic. Like you're kind of almost going after you're acquiring a business that potentially you benefit from your competitors doing well too in

a weird way. Like I'm just trying to think what is what is what is what is the reason for them going after Cursor? Yeah, I mean I think it's just they need to like the the Grok model model is like clearly falling behind. It kind of sucks right? Uh it it's like well below the the frontier. Um but they do have like I I guess in in general like one way I think it was Rory from uh in the 20 VC that first first said this to me said this or at least I heard him say it, but like a model company has two jobs, right? You have to build a good model and then you have to like buy enough compute to serve it. And you you you have to do both well to win. And until earlier this year until 5.5 Open

AI had done a really good job buying compute, but they'd like fallen behind on the good model, right? And Anthropic was was on the inverse of that. They built like a really good model, but they they fell behind on on on compute, which is why like they were having to throttle users and people were saying the model was getting dumber and stuff like that. Um and it and and obviously like having just compute isn't enough. And and I think xAI is the best proof of that, right? They have this Colossus cluster with like 100,000 GPUs, and yet still their models suck. Um and yeah, Cursors Cursor has their own model. It's it's like this composer model.

Um and obviously they have like a lot of data to to to to train this on. And so I think I don't know I don't know, for me the the bet is that they're they're going to try and like win coding. Like combine teams, get this talent, get the data flywheel going, and and try and like make a model that's competitive in coding, cuz clearly that's kind of the killer app for AI, at least the first killer app for AI. Yeah. And then I mean even the valuation side, I mean 60 billion doesn't it sounds insane, right? But then when you look at Open AI at 50, Anthropic rumored to be raising at what is it, 900, right? Cuz they just crossed Open AI's ARR rates um at much healthier margins, too, might I

add. Um you know, it doesn't seem like it's that crazy of a bet. Yeah, it seems I think it's a good deal for both for both sides, honestly. Like um yeah, I feel like SpaceX kind of needs this. They they need like a leading model. Um and and and Cursor is I mean Cursor's growing pretty nicely, but I think for them it's like a pretty absurd exit. I think it's like a three or four-year-old business, you know? And it's the biggest private venture acquisition of all time. So Wait, wasn't it like over 2 billion like last year?

Like like Like what wasn't its val like 2 billion? >> Two, and then it just I think it just raised recently at 30. >> 10. Right? >> Or 30 was it? Okay. I think it was I thought it was 30. Or they were getting ready to raise it 30. For some reason I >> Either way, I mean that short interest Yeah, that chart's exponential. Well, it definitely makes I mean it makes sense to like obviously the the Corsair side is clear, right? Uh for the SpaceX side you're you're probably paying with a combo of cash and stock. Yeah. >> SpaceX has a big revenue problem and you're slapping on a bunch of recurring revenue that's ramping very quickly. So you you you assume that the the market probably gives that some premium as well and and and you get a bump in your in your equity price that probably more

than offsets the purchase and you have the compute capacity through XAI which I guess you could say is the most expensive acquisition, but um yeah, it it it it's one of those one plus one equals three scenarios of Yeah, cuz it's kind of crazy like if if SpaceX really does IPO anywhere near two trillion, right? To your to Yianni's point, if if this acquisition has even a high likelihood of increasing that, the chance of your stock price rising 5 to 10% it pays for itself multiple times over.

Yeah, it's also like I think uh I don't remember what the like I mean cur- SpaceX is is trading at like 100 times revenue, right? If it assuming it goes public near near two trillion. I think Corsair is is a much smaller multiple. It's like >> I I don't remember what the last revenue was, but I think it's like 10x or or or yeah, I think in Feb it was two bill. Okay. >> revenue on the 30 bill valuation, so now it's probably inflated a lot. Yeah, exactly. >> it's probably a 10x multiple, so it's it just like makes a lot of sense from from SpaceX to just be doing these acquisitions, I think, especially paying in stock like you said. Um yeah.

I think the really interesting thing uh actually I haven't even thought about this too much, is also like Hermes. You can you've seen [snorts] like this and we're investors by the way in in news, but it's really been inflecting. Like I think it was like nearly 25k stars on GitHub. Everything on my feed is about Hermes. They've been like stealing market share from from Open Claw. Um and these agent harnesses, I kind of go through through um through phases where I don't know, to some extent it's just like markdown files, a bit of code and and and cron jobs. Uh but in another way, it's actually like the most valuable thing because it's actually the thing that decides like what model you use, what services you use. Like at this point what I'm noticing in my in my

workflows is that like I don't interact with any internet services. Like I don't interact with Confluence or like these these these project management things. I'm not interacting with Figma. It's just my agents, they're interacting with everything actually, right? And like the products that are most successful, software products that are most successful are the ones that are built for agents. You kind of saw this Parallel AI raise a a two bill, right? Which is like a service that just helps your It's like a search engine for agents. Um and I think you're going to see more and more of that and what what chooses that from from many people they're using these agent harnesses, the the the the agent harness is kind of what defines like what model it wants to use, what services it wants to use. And that is like pretty valuable. Um it's almost

like the the UX layer for for a lot of this stuff. But yeah, I don't really have a a strong take but I'm curious if anyone has has any thoughts or if you've been using this stuff. Yeah, no, that was the the the the point that um what's his name made in in the 20 BC pod, right? Basically that you you you're no longer really optimizing for what your employees want to use but but rather what the agents choose and and their what they choose, the metrics they choose are are very different. Or like what the the metrics they choose based on are very different from what employees use and so it's makes it hard to predict who ends up winning but but just [clears throat] based on the volume of usage from agents

versus employees, right? They're kind of always on and and so it's like if you can nail that, you you you nail where software wins cuz right now everyone thinks all the software is going to lose. And I think the big thing like collaboration also is a thing that's not really solved yet. Like I know Piers and I at Tellfire building building like a We all both have personal CRMs and we're trying to find a way to integrate our our data to to make a a public CRM, right? So all our transcripts and and messages and stuff like that to have a an overall database. And it's like permissioning is still super hard.

Um and at the same time like we don't I don't really want to use an existing CRM cuz I have to learn to use it and stuff. Whereas Claude can just generate one for me with exactly the filters I want, the the the edges I want. Like I don't have to for reformat everything. Um and the same thing with Piers, I guess. He has his own workflow. So what we've landed on is just like having um sort of like a private GitHub repo that you upload stuff to and then it's just our agents are basically like I tell my agent what I want to share and what I don't want to share. And at the end of every day it just goes and and and uploads that stuff to the repo, you know? I don't have to And I think in the future you're not going to have people

use these, you know, this boring stuff where after every call you have to go upload the CRM and say what happened and stuff like that. Agents can just do all that stuff. And if they if they can do it, why would they use a CRM? You know, why why wouldn't they just like interact in in in in, you know, in markdown files or whatever and just just It's like so much stuff changes with this paradigm. Like once you start it it just yeah, I don't know. It it's it's really interesting. Like what's the Cuz if And and at the same when we're collaborating on this, like I don't really speak to to Piers even though we're building this together. It's literally our agents just speak to each other, right? I'm like I made this update, send it to Piers. And And Piers responds to me, I'm like read

read the update from Piers and tell me what what what we should what we should do. Then my You know what I mean? It's like it's so different than than than what it was before. It's just like I think a lot of software that that isn't built for this for this like environment is just cooked. Um I feel like anything that's that's just for humans is kind of like hard to be super bullish on. Yeah, it almost goes back to like bare-bones or more raw forms of the soft like software back-ends and the actual infrastructure that drives it is where the value accrues and like the UI side. There will be certain cases where that can make sense, but for the most part your point like your traditional SaaS model and a lot of SaaS companies

are different, right? So it's not like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but like that traditional SaaS model is entirely upended by this cuz it's all back-end stuff. Yeah. Yeah, I mean yeah. I think some companies are adopting to as I I'm I I don't know enough about SaaS. Like I've never really used a lot of this a lot of this stuff. I've always been yeah, pretty terrible at doing this kind of thing and and and sort of hated this kind of work, but now with agents it's yeah, just feels like it obviates a lot of that. Yeah. Especially ones that are built on like workflow productivity workflows or doing like automating things that historically like marketing and emails like that stuff all these models can do even better than some of the software that's

out there. So really you have to pick and choose like what the use case is, but yeah, no, it's a massive massive disruptor. It's interesting Yeah, I mean for software like if you're if you're I don't know for for me if if you're building software, it has to be like for agents, you know, in a sense like I almost think of it as like serving the AGI, you know, like you assume there's going to be an AGI and if you really believe in AGI, you'd think it's going to be a better doctor, better lawyer, better financial advisor than than any human, um but it's not actually able to do any of those things, right? And so a lot of the interesting software businesses we're seeing is just like people wrapping like a license, basically business that has this defensible with a license, and building it agent first

from the ground up, and like competing with incumbents, right? I spoke to a financial um like an asset management firm last year that are last week rather building an ETF like just leveraging agents to to find the 20 best companies in the world, and very experienced like asset management guy that basically tried to compete with the with the the BlackRocks and Vanguards of this world with with without having like his goal is explicitly not to hire any more any analysts. Like he literally just wants to hire engineers, and then it's just going to be an expression of his his taste, right? Like all the analysts will be will be agents.

And same thing I'm seeing for like these these uh for like biotech people doing this for peptides and things like this. Like obviously agents can't just buy that stuff for you, so you can have something with a license like and that's licensed in every state or in every country that does this, but I really feel like if you don't have a reason that the AGI needs you as a software business, that then then you just have no reason to exist. Like if you're building for humans, you're cooked. Yeah.

Yeah. And also, I mean, the world of of orchestration, like these orchestration layers and these harnesses, like and the switching costs being they're there, but to your point, you're able to switch you can basically tell your agent to switch between models. Newest model comes out if as long as you have access to them, like it's not as if the stickiness and the switching cost is high because you can literally tell your agent to basically optimize use whatever model is most optimized for this specific use case. Yeah, at that point, I mean, your agent's kind of picking it themselves.

So, it's even right? Cuz they know better, and so it's harder to figure out who wins in that scenario because you don't have the criteria to to base it on. >> Mhm. Yeah. Yeah, the models is a tough one cuz like I they just have no it feels like they have very little moat, like very little network effect. Even though like Claude looks invincible right now, it's um there's no like actual cuz I don't have all the skills and stuff. These aren't like ecosystem that Claude owns, right? They're they're like uh markdown files that you host locally.

Like if I want to switch to Codex, which I did this week, it was seamless, right? I just I just added it to the same workspace I'm working from in Claude and it was just working as if it was Claude from the very beginning cuz, you know, Claude built all the all the skills and context like like it's hosted locally. And so you you're really I'm you're really like mercenary. Like I don't care about Claude. I just want the best intelligence, you know? And so the their their moat is that is that they're amazing and they continue to execute and build the best models. And if they continue to do that, they win. But there's no actual like moat or network effect in the sense of something like Facebook, you know, or or or Amazon or or these businesses have a you know, um it's more more challenging, I think.

Which is also why a lot of these these big labs will stay in this this massive cap backs race, too, because when the switching costs are like that, like you have to be to your point. 5.5 comes out and you can switch really easily. And now there's the argument to like OpenAI is back in vogue, right? But give it a few months and the next thing rolls out and us as the users or the agencies as the users don't we'll just use what's best in out there. What's most cost efficient and gets the job done what's best it's out there. Which on the back end like the model companies now, I mean, you're just in this massive race.

Like you can't let up. Yeah. Yeah, the models it's tough. Um I do think on the on the services businesses you can see that some people are building like parallels an example they've built like a really amazing uh, like search engine and like clearly they're competitors perplexity has one there's there's a few others but probably just works really well. It's the one that that uh, that gives me the best results at least. So, yeah, you can definitely build some massive businesses serving agents like for sure for yeah.

Which is interesting. And it's solved I think. Yeah. Yeah, it's going to be real interesting to see how it plays out. Uh, one thing we definitely need to switch back to to crypto but we definitely need to hit on cuz this is a huge story this week and I'm going to pass the mic over to Sator us in a second here to give his unfiltered thoughts on it. Was this Houdini Swap acquisition sole strategy is uh, I know you have strong takes on it. What I want to know is really quickly just again what happened in case anybody didn't see it but two I think this is a very uh, interesting scenario that we're probably

going to see come up more and more around token holders not having real true ownership rights. Uh, what is like if you were going to do this backwards like what would have been the optimal outcome here like how do you solve this? I don't know if it was a huge story I think I probably helped make it a bigger story. Um, uh, and it's not something new like we've seen it before we saw it with Axelar. We've seen it with other dual equity token structures. I think it's just like if this industry wants like the biggest problem in the industry is that we don't have liquid funds, right? Like we have no liquid buyers of these tokens liquid. We have a little bit a good amount of venture but

we have no liquid. And the reason why we don't have liquid funds is because tokens are just like dog all around. Um and the Houdini thing was just like pretty egregious to me. Like this is a this is a protocol that um they've been around for over 2 years. They were doing this buyback and burn. Um I mean they had some staking thing before, but like they traded over like 50 million circulating supply, okay? Anyways, recently they've been getting like good integrations and stuff, right?

And their market cap was down to like eight or nine mil, right? So you're kind of looking at this as an as an and their and their revenue the buyback run rate was like two mil three mil a year or something, okay? So it's trading at like a low multiple to its market cap to the buybacks. And you're kind of like okay, what's going on here? I'm like someone who's a fundamental investor. I want to like look for protocols that are genuinely undervalued. You have this protocol here using 50% of the revenues to to do buybacks. You're trading at like a three-four multiple. They're getting integrations with other protocols like Jupiter was talking about integrating them and everything. And so in a normal like capital market, right?

Solana wants to be internet capital markets right? In like normal capital markets, you see all this, you do all this work. You buy the token, you're probably going to be rewarded for it, right? Cuz that's like a good that's like good research you did um to like identify this. Good fundamental buy. However, the reason why it was like trading like is because like the token was going to be rugged, you know? And there was like two weeks ago the team just did some announcement and they said we're stopping all buybacks and they didn't say anything else. They didn't say anything about the token.

Um they just said we're stopping buybacks and the token basically went to zero then. And then yesterday this announcement or 2 days ago, this announcement comes out that says like Soul Strategies um you know, acquires Houdini Swap its equity. No no indication of the token. Um the token's trading at zero now, like that market cap even there's no liquidity anywhere. Like it's literally zero. And I mean, yeah, listen, I had some of this token. I lost money on it, but I've lost way more money on way more tokens. It's like not about the money here. It's really about like if you want to fix the market structure, you we have to stop with these tokens just like rugging out of nowhere. It's like nobody can

ever have confidence in but like I really think you have to have like a Metalex, a Meta DAO, uh a SOAR, um any of these other like protocols that are enforcing some sort of token holder rights. It's like if your token doesn't have any of this, I don't even think just a pure buyback is enough anymore either. Like maybe if you're hyper liquid cuz they have really good trust, but you can clearly just turn off the buyback and just like rug the token out of nowhere. And so it's like think about it, right? This team, they had their equity, they had their token, they launched the token years ago, and I'm sure the team sold team tokens over the years, right? Like I can't say for sure, but if I find it unlikely that they

never sold any tokens over the years. And then one day they just decide like, "Yeah, you know what? We don't I don't want to worry about that token anymore. And I just want it to like not exist, you know?" Like it is funny because the original token ticker was POOF and that would have been a lot uh a lot better for this situation, but Foreshadowing. Yeah, it's just like it's just it's just annoying. It's like um This is what This is the deal with tokens though. Like this is This is the deal with tokens is they've evolved at least.

>> Not all tokens though, like not all tokens that like there are tokens that are moving in >> Right, but it's like >> the era, right? Like, the early vintage tokens they >> This was all early, for sure. Equity dual equity token, it's like I don't know, man. If there's dual equity token these days, it's just I just don't think you can like buy that token. It's like even like >> diligence, you basically have to do, which which is unfortunate because all that means is it's going to compress multiples as as people >> Yeah, it's like it Look at Look at Helium, okay? I own some HNT token, but like I can't buy more because I don't know if Nova Labs is just going to like sell the equity one day and just rug HNT and like they don't have to keep doing HNT buybacks, right? Um

And so these things just need to be These things just need to be solved. And I also think that like Soul Strategies in this case uh like deserves blame here. Like, if you're participating in essentially rugging tokens, like you you have this entity that you you promote as being like good for the Solana ecosystem and like Solana Solana aligned, like tokens need to do well for your business model. Like that's what you're that's what you're doing here, right? It's like you're you're supposed to be supporting an ecosystem with like tokens on a blockchain and stuff, right?

>> I definitely agree with that. Relative relative to like what Pump does, right? They're they're they're not interested as much in an ecosystem. It's more about their own ecosystem financially, but for them to rug the token, which they actually ended up um redeeming. Uh and and it's less of a thing, but yeah, for Soul Strategies, I I totally agree. It's They thrive with activity. Activity is is kind of supported by growing token ecosystem. Yeah, and like the the the it's just annoying because like Houdini actually has As I said, they've been getting more integrations recently and it's like people buy this token because they see them doing buybacks and everything and they see them starting to like get more adoption. And then they just decide that

the tokens were zero. And it's like you just We just have to stop this stuff basically. And I don't know. Like I've been I've been rugged a lot and like everything and I usually just like chalk it up to the game. But I feel like some of these things people need to like make a bigger deal out of because I think some of it is a bit of like Peter Griffin when he hurts his knee uh meme, you know? Like the the these things have done like There's there's loads of examples where the opposite happened. Like right, FTX went under.

FTX equity holders just had to sit there and take it. FTT holders mostly got out like right, Multicoin sold most of their FTT at like 20 bucks um and and got out. And like many [clears throat] other examples of things I mean Axie is another example where you know, token holders made out much better than than than equity holders. I I just think you like all this stuff's transparent. Like you can see when a token like >> This isn't transparent though. It's It's transparently I mean you knew that that you're depending on them to do buybacks and you know that there's that there's like uh a possibility that they stop doing buybacks at any moment and they or they stop doing >> all these tokens just be worth like zero then basically?

I think they should trade at a lower multiple. I think they trade at a I think they trade at a multiple based on people's confidence that that the team will return >> return value to the token, right? Hence the multiple versus versus hype. For sure. And I think like teams the I mean I think what Metalex is doing with Meta DAO and with Pump like these these structures where you're linking equity and token make it sound like sense. And I think those things should over time trade higher as we see more of these rugs. But I do think uh a lot of the a lot of this is like man, you can see like there's a reason why early DeFi everything was on chain, like cash flows to token weren't coded on chain. If you wanted to change them, it was a governance proposal. All the stuff that people are

like, "Oh, governance is broken. We don't need governance tokens." And now like this is what you get. Like it's it's discretionary. Like your token is is worth something until the team tells you it is. And that's the reality of like the a lot of crypto tokens. So, you have to trust that the team cares or make them put it into into either on chain or in the cases where it's not possible, which is most of the stuff, do something like the Metalex. Like work with a company like Metalex >> Yeah, I don't I don't disagree I don't disagree with you. I just think that the crypto's like permanently if we don't switch to those types of models and we just leave like the the status quo on these kind of like your token can be rugged at any moment um scenario that we have.

>> you kind of need Yeah, it's just part of I think part of what you diligence, right? You have this this setup where um the team has likely sold tokens, but obviously can't sell equity. And so now all the value is sitting in equity. And if And so you got you have a combination of that plus the business isn't doing particularly well. And And so you have the ideal setup for a team that is kind of that feels very little loyalty to the token community. Let me get my final exit. Um Yeah, it's just like it's just it's just scummy, man. Like >> Yeah. I don't even care if it's le- like rugging the token may be legal, honestly. Like doing this and might be legal. It's definitely legal. It's definitely legal. Yeah.

>> But it's just like Well, the It's just like I haven't read the docs. It depends what they promise. I assume they didn't promise anything to anyone though. I mean, this is the post game or uh so like >> Huh? The considering how long they've been around, I think back then. >> Yeah. I mean, the thing is a team at this I I get you. At the same time, a team can't be like forever wedded to this to to this token, to this community, right? >> if that's the case, don't launch a token. Yeah, isn't he kind of like arguing for equity or like Like that's horse Don't launch a token if you're just going to like sell your allocation and then I mean, I don't know if they did that here or they probably did. It's been around for 2 plus years. And then just

like leave it to die at some point. I just think that's like >> I don't think it's binary. You're not like forever wedded to the token. You just have to not rug token holders in the process of the exit, right? Like you You don't have to forever wedded to it, but you you just need to not do this kind of sinister scenario where people are just kind of left hanging unknown. >> I think from from a from a legal standpoint though, I I don't know how this would work. Like in this one, it says here, right? Part cash, part shares of actual Soul Strategies itself. Like what would that look like not rugging token holders or lock holders in this case?

What does that look like and do you run aground legally if If now as a token holder, you're converted into an equity holder of this company? The only way to do this is >> question. It's the ace thing. It's It's Gabe's ace thing is the only way for this one specifically. >> would have stopped this. If they Yeah, if they'd done that, that would have stopped this, right? Token holders could convert to to equity and claim the and claim the treasury back like via the borg. I know, I think that like legally there's no real incentive Legally, there's no real incentive for either the acquirer or the acquiree doing this. And so, I think that you have to like you have to punish the business. Like the market has to like punish basically

Houdini Swap and Soul Strategies going forward. Um because otherwise people will keep doing it, right? And like this means teams within Solana stop working with Houdini Swap, right? Like if if Solana ecosystem wants to build like a vibrant, healthy ecosystem of tokens and like a lot of liquid funds that want to invest in it. >> man. I mean, that's one way. That's one way for sure. I I also think the market can just can just reprice everything that's not, you know, an ace that's not using the ace model and over time force people into into using something like this instead. Like that's the I think the market like the most effective way to do it. Yeah, cuz that's the only way you have everyone operating in a rational self-interested way that scales, right? There's just no

way that everyone will say, "I feel bad for the 8 million in market cap that was just devoured. Uh I will now shift my business focus elsewhere and and avoid them when potentially they are the best thing for me to use kind of thing. It's got to be the other approach where Yeah. I mean, there like different stakeholder groups that are making different decisions on like the market pricing versus the other stuff. But yeah. The market The market you have to Yeah, the market is going to just punish non- just like these to like dual equity token. I think market really is just going to like Yeah. Cuz the reason like I I I I, you know, I just don't know if if

what you're suggesting will work is because like you said, sole strategies, if there was ever an acquirer that would try and do something to not rug the token community, it's it's it's them, right? Because of of where their long-term interests would lie. And if they're kind of going this path that I I I think the the propensity for everyone else to to to shy away from Houdini Swap or something like that is is pretty low. It's definitely low. Don't get me wrong. The market just sending these tokens to zero is the the real way you fix it. Um I agree with you that it's much harder to get people within the ecosystem to stop working with Houdini. I mean, I I

don't think they should work with Houdini cuz like of how their model works. That's a different story. Um But yeah. Yeah, and this brings us to pump quite nicely actually. Um what did you guys think of of their announcement? Obviously, they I think they announced they're cutting down the buyback to 50%. I thought it was good. All the tokens that they that they bought back. Um >> Yeah, I think the to burning the tokens I felt it was kind of irrelevant, like um when you've bought back the tokens, I think the market expects you not to just like dump all those tokens on the market. Like they're kind of already out of supply. Um I think that a lot of people are upset that they changed the

buyback and burn to 50% from 100. I think and you know, a lot of people said they raised so much money, why do they need to like continue keeping some revenue? I think that's kind of like a bad reason. Like lots of companies raise a lot of money and they still keep a lot of retained earnings to like continue growing the growing the cash. I think putting like the buyback and burn in um kind of like coded for like a year is a good thing at the same time like if you're doing this on like a multi-year DCF or something, you really can't use that because you have a one-year guarantee, you don't have a guarantee in perpetuity.

Um So, I don't know. It's like there's good and there's good and bad things. I think overall, there's like clarity for the market at least for a year. They have a lot of unlocks coming, so that's going to be tough with cutting like emissions 50% and then all the unlocks. But um I don't know. I don't know if people have other expecting I mean, I think you DCF doesn't isn't conditional on money flowing back in buybacks or dividends, right? So, like DCF like DCFs are just what the business expects.

>> And so >> But it's conditional on on you having a link between the business and the tool that you're buying. Yeah, but if if the idea is they're saying this value is to the token, the only reason they need to return it now is because there's lower confidence, but if if they can address that component and suggest that all value in at some future point will only go through the token, then you can still DCF off of earnings. You don't It doesn't have to be off of return capital. And so like I think it's just a broader crypto problem of this forced returning of capital, which kind of ties back to the other stuff, but yeah, assuming that they weren't going to do this would have been kind of silly.

Yeah, the I think the burn is irrelevant. It was already priced in. If they did something else, that would have been the the the shock to the market. And and the buybacks had to slow down, right? Like what you what you don't want to do is there's two scenarios. Either you slow them down now and they have cash to to grow and ultimately that's what you're buying the token for, or they probably have over a billion dollars. They they probably they probably like they they they made like something like 700 million before the ICO and then they raised 1.5 billion. So they they I mean, whatever happens, they probably have over a billion dollars in the bank. Like I have no idea what they're spending it on. It's It's It's not like It's you know, I don't know. I I Yeah [snorts] I'm a a bump bump holder still by the

way, but yeah, I don't know. I think I don't We don't know what their financial situation is, but I I I I still think it makes sense in in terms of stability. You do You'd rather them continue to bolster their balance sheet and and and grow that way versus this immediate return of cash, which you never see from any startup at this stage. And and so you'd rather them be in a scenario where they have years of runway rather than one where they're running short on it and then they're doing this out of a position of desperation rather than one of strength.

I think that would be fine. Like the DCF point and stuff is all fine. They You It doesn't rely on distributions to to to shareholders, but the difference is with with equity, you have like a contractual legally enforceable claim on the underlying business, its cash, etc. right? I think the worry that people have with with Pump is that they get Houdini'd right? >> For sure. I mean, not Houdini'd, but like yeah, no, I I that's that's been that's part of the discount, right? The discount is a combination of they there's a lot of things >> the fear that that you get Houdini'd? Like you're you're that you're they're reducing the the buyback in a position where they have, you know, over a billion dollars cash. Like you said, we don't know where their financials are.

Yeah. Yeah. I think what what help them is some clarity about some transparency is is um disclosing what they've done, uh how much they've spent, and and then potentially trying to create some legal tie-in. Cuz I I like I don't know if they're going to do that. >> Do do the ace themselves. Like they're running the the ace. That that I think the token would pump like like I don't know, over two for sure over two X if they if they do an ace. >> agree with that. I mean, cuz you think about like they pulled off a pretty amazing trade. They sold a boatload of tokens at 4 billion and then bought them back at like 1.8 to 3. Probably somewhere in the average price of in that range.

>> I mean, it's not a trade cuz they burned them, but yeah. The burn the burn value was like half of what they actually spent that in. Like the time I burn. Yeah, well, I'm also wondering like what what their average purchase price was. Yeah. To be honest, it's probably around four. >> [snorts] >> Cuz they bought a lot above two. They only spent like a few months there. True. If that. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, by the way, we're we incubated Metal X, so just uh full disclosure, but I do think Metal X solves like literally all of this. Um and it's the right structure for most

teams to say yeah, it could be be dope for Pump to Then and I I guess I mean, there's probably a legal reasons and all sorts of complexity with a business that size with with that many with that many much stuff going on that we're not aware of. That's the tough thing with this. It's like you want transparency, but there's probably a bunch of lawyers uh giving them, you know, very sound advice for why that doesn't make sense. Um but yeah. It also depends what you're optimizing for but Hyperliquid obviously was was an extreme example of this. They like never raised money and gave back 100% of of revenue to to token holders. And that's been like an insane success for them, right?

Um but I guess Pump has more of a need to build product. I don't know. I think the hope for everyone for for when Pump came went live was that it would be another Hyperliquid, right? It's one of the only businesses in crypto that was generation generating that level of cash flow. Um and it's I think it the current and I'm I I was I was uh bought into that thesis, bought into the ICO. And um I think now it's it's it's harder with without some link to the equity. Like um it's just just hard.

I mean, also like just like even without the link to the equity aspect, right? Like Hyperliquid has like so much other going on and has had so much other, you know, stuff come to market since all of this, you know, since Pump's ICO. And like Pump hasn't like done really, right? Like it's pretty much >> Yeah, they still have like the daily revenue, but it's like streaming didn't really work. It's kind of clear what the next step is. >> definitely a combination of the two. Um and like it's really not clear to me like what Pump would buy like streaming maybe whatever. Like it didn't really work. Maybe they try again. But like it's not super clear like what they would branch into or like what business they might buy.

Um whereas like for hype it's like pretty clear like what the, you know, road map looks like in terms of products that they could ship, markets they can go after, and everything like that. It's just like I don't know. It seemed a lot more clear when I bought my my pump tokens. And now I'm just a community holder. Yeah, I think going after new markets is a huge differentiator, obviously. Cuz like Pump's also tied to largely still the meme coin trading narrative, which yeah, aside from a couple little patches here and there has been largely Which is also like the difference with Titan. It's It's revenues well down from, you know, like 10 10 peak or like pre-10 10. It's actually higher than it was a year ago. Right? Um when the

market conditions were much better. Um so, like yeah, it's like the dichotomy that I keep coming back to and wanting to kill myself when I look at my pump position. >> [snorts] >> Or what's the Yeah, the important mistake was they they had a massive user base and and there were a lot of products that were pretty popular, but relatively commoditized. And so, it was all about kind of just being connected to the user directly and and then offering something similar, but that hasn't really materialized. Yeah, I mean, it's crazy that they're still making this level of revenue.

Like um it's it's kind of wild. >> people are skeptical of that, too, right? So, >> Yeah. I think that's reflected in price, for sure. >> 100%. >> They have a lot of future rev. >> Like yeah, the future rev, the where the revenue comes from, the token unlocks, like pretty sure all this stuff is priced in pretty heavily. So, if you get clarity in one of these directions, like maybe you could see it turn around well. I mean, but uh Surely someone would have done some analysis like on you know, on the on the patterns. Has anyone Has anyone So, basically my same >> pretty obvious if they were if they were Yeah. Yeah, they they they're basically like power issuers of meme coins.

and To call developers. Of course, of course. The devs. Uh or or like there's there's still a ton of volume that happens in that world. Um and the my question is basically like who's getting fleeced still? Dude, just go on YouTube and type in live meme coin trading and you'll see exactly who's getting fleeced. Yeah. But like you have to go so you have to go, you know, centimeter deep and and many miles wide because of how low ceiling these things have, right? So you're you're just >> Yeah. The whole idea is you basically launch a lot of them and a handful of winners offset the majority of losers.

Basically, these these are like venture meme coin devs. >> [laughter] >> Hey man, Pump has charity coins now, okay? So they're I saw they crossed a million in donations. There you go. They're really uh turning a bright light on the industry. Pump is really a bright bright guy. Whatever happened to that glass foundation thing where they were going to buy me Did they just stop doing that? The glass became full and then overflowed. I think it was called glass half full foundation. I do think Pump like if if they can get another um another run of making people some money with with with something. Like if we get, you know, another meme see I mean I doubt it never happens the same way,

right? So they they'd have to be early to something else. But with the distribution that they have and stuff like this, you would think there could be some some projects that would be interested in doing A's. Like Well, they did Pump can do A's, right? Yeah, but I but I mean like some some like AI project, you know, some some some some stuff like um relatively outside of of it's just tough because the the traditional fundraising like I think is is is so hot right now. Like >> Yeah. why would you go into something different, but yeah.

Yeah, [snorts] it'll be interesting to see how how it all plays out. Um I think that's plenty. We We still have some stuff on the docket. Maybe we'll save it for next time, but I think we covered a lot of ground here. Appreciate you guys joining as always. Those who tuned in, appreciate you sticking with us. We would love to hear comments, feedback. Drop them in the in the chat below. We're going to We got some plans for Spain. They're doing some new things. Um and subscribe if you haven't already. This is the new home for the Delphi High Bind podcast. And we'll be back We'll be back soon enough. Hopefully markets are just as exciting.

I'm sure they will be. Appreciate you guys joining. 95K [clears throat] next cycle. Thanks everyone. Lock it in. >> [music] [music]