BIP-361 Wants to Freeze Satoshi's Coins. What Happens If It Passes?: Uneasy Money

Transcript

Hey everyone, I'm here with my co-host Taylor Monahan, security expert. Luca is out today. I believe he's visiting Antarctica. That's what I heard. Um What? >> So, no, I'm joking. I'm joking. Obviously, he's not visiting penguins in Antarctica. >> [laughter] >> You're like, he's allowed to visit the penguins in Antarctica? Yeah. >> I was legitimately just got so jealous. >> [laughter] >> He could be. He could be. I didn't I never realized he wanted to go to Antarctica so badly.

So, yeah, it's just just the two of us today. So let's let's kick it off. This this first story is Uh this this first story is BIP 361. Um So, this is pretty crazy. I feel like the Bitcoin quantum stuff has been floating around for a while. People getting freaked out. Nick Carter's losing his mind over it.

This is the first thing that we've seen that hasn't been like oh, we should think about it, but like we should start doing things. And Bitcoin doesn't usually do things. So, like I don't know. What's your What's your take on this? Cuz this feels like a new front in the quantum Bitcoin war right now. I mean, it's wild because it's like the hardline Bitcoiners. And I think we talked about this on our previous show, but I said the thing that scares me about Bitcoin and quantum is their ecosystem and their developers, their engineers, their coordination mechanisms are not at all prepared. Like they've they've just done such hard lines in the sand over so many years.

And now where it's getting to the point where it's like, wait, this is actually a legitimate real threat. Now we're sitting here like uh what do we do, right? Like what do we do? And apparently They still have it in them. They still have the ability to do Well, okay. So, maybe maybe for for for the audience, let's go back let's go back and and go over some Bitcoin lore and Bitcoin history. But before we do, let's let's do a quick ad break to get started and then then we can come back and and hit this story. So,

all right. So, before we go deep into OG Bitcoin lore, here's a word from the sponsors that make this show possible. Bitcoin changed how money works. [music] Cetre changes how Bitcoin scales. With a trust minimized BTC and a native stablecoin CTUSD, Cetre enables Bitcoin capital markets with lending, privacy, Bitcoin yield, and more. Get started at cetre.xyz/unchained. Step into a new era of wealth. Discover Nexo, the premier digital wealth platform. Manage your crypto portfolio with confidence and control. Receive interest on your digital assets. Borrow against them without selling. Trade a

wide range of cryptocurrencies, all in one platform. Now available in the US with 30 days of exclusive privileges for new clients. Experience Wealth Club Premier. Access enhanced interest rates, reduced borrowing costs, and crypto cashback on swaps. Get started today at nexo.com/unchained. Multichain Advisors is an emerging technology growth firm that has helped create 50 plus billion dollars in enterprise value for 80 plus clients over the past 4 years. They're the partner to help navigate markets. Build real traction today at multichainadv.com.

All right, we're back everyone. So, so I think Bitcoin 2009 Let's talk about Bitcoin, right? 2009, Satoshi releases the white paper on the Cypherpunk mailing list. Um Most people are like, like some people like cool. They start doing some stuff. They mine some Bitcoins. They send some Bitcoins around. And at this point, you know, if you read those conversations and you read the discussions and and all of that stuff, there is a really strong sense at that point, at least for me. I'm curious your take. That code is code.

Mhm. Like this is a piece of software, right? Like Like code is code like we haven't yet come out of the code is code part of the Bitcoin story, right? And then um it goes a bit crazy. Some stuff happens like 2010, 2011. The first exchanges launch. And and it still feels, you know, like there's there's the the first bug where like infinite Bitcoins get minted. Mhm. The bug is squashed. The chain's rolled back. Like we're still in like code is code land, right? And then somehow between the peak in 2011 into

first-ish bear market, right? The religion of Bitcoin starts to become a thing, right? Satoshi steps away. Different people start to like take up the mantle. You get these evangelists who come in who are like super excited about Bitcoin. And it becomes somewhat religious at that point. But still software. Like there's still software guys doing software to it. And that's okay. And then we go through until like the fork wars, I guess.

>> Fork wars. And that And that's what That's what they're like, no no no no no no. Like no more This is no longer code, right? Yeah. Yeah. And this whole time, right? Ethereum is like 2014, Ethereum white paper, Vitalik's on stage. A lot of Bitcoiners were uh even the Bitcoiners who hadn't necessarily been that interested in like the other coins prior to Ethereum, a lot of the Bitcoiners moved to Ethereum or to at least like a multi-coin point of view at that point. And then once the fork wars happened a lot you you sort of

like the people that really remained in Bitcoin were the ones who were were so religious, let's say. And >> Which makes sense, right? Like there's a there's like a evolutionary self-selection process going on here, right? You know, I think that there was maybe you know, if you go read like the Bitcoin forums as well, right? There's like already you see this schism starting of people that rejected shitcoins, which back in the day it was like a fork of Bitcoin, right? Like, you know, colored coin All of these things, right? They rejected all that stuff.

Um They're like, no no no, guys. Like Bitcoin is the thing. You have to focus on Bitcoin. And the most interesting thing for me is if you if you go back and look at the psychology of that, right? It is very transparent and very clear how much of that is driven by financial incentives. The people who didn't go into [ __ ] you know, like it starts off as like, no no no, my coin is better. I want my coin to go up, right? And then it ossifies into my coin is a religion and your coins are the devil.

And and so um that >> And they also like every time anything would happen, right? We had Ethereum. We had the DAO hack. We had EOS trying to put like governments governance completely on chain via like a multi-billion dollar ICO. Like you just had so many things happen. So many chains died. So many I guess like centralized >> Probably Probably Lee like DAO coins. Like a lot of bad stuff happened, right?

Like And this validated their position as being correct over time, right? Like it um I mean, I fought with the hardline Bitcoiners about the DAO fork in 2016. And it was like violent. Like they were very like >> [laughter] >> This was this was like >> bit of This was always going to happen. This is inevitable. You guys are bad people. Of course, you're going to just start doing bad stuff. >> Yeah.

>> We told you. There was a lot of like told you so's. Like yeah. >> Like >> And then also like and now that you've done this, now you have to do it for everything else, right? Which is always the argument. Like once you do it once, you're going to do it for everything. No well no actually. >> [laughter] >> You don't have to do it with everything. And maybe we should have done it for more things, but anyway, so here we are, right? So, so all of this like and we're still in like 2017. Yeah. Right? We're still in 2017. You know, we then have the ICO boom, right? And but Bitcoin also hits 20K.

Which like was an insane number. Like to go from you know, there were things that had like kind of gone crazy before like gone up a lot, but like this suddenly this thing that was like in the you know, hundreds of dollars when I started, you know, uh when I entered the space, right? Um and was in the like dollars of dollars for a lot of the people who were like still around. Like, you know, like you go to a conference and you'd see like, you know, Charlie Shrem one of like they're all of these guys like wandering around that were like super OG Bitcoiners that had been around since 2010, you know, uh 2011 era Bitcoin. Um and all of a sudden it gone up 20,000 X. Yeah, it's

completely insane. And this coin >> Like it was just insane, right? Like and it and it did it like I remember I got on a plane and Bitcoin was 11K and I got off the plane and it was like 18K. And I was like, what is hap like how is this possible, right? Um so So we're still we're still in 2017 and then from like the 2018 bear market post four wars, post all of this stuff Bitcoin just ossified so hard. I I'd love to see a graph of like how many BIPs like the BIP rate slowed down a lot.

There were like a lot less BIPs, right? Um and then you I don't know if this is like the emergence of these people or the ascendancy or they kind of came in, but you had a lot of people come in that turned Bitcoin it was already somewhat there was a religiosity at that point, right? But they turned it into like hardcore religion of like no changes, no anything, um you know, this is uh like the not just like the stuff that was in the white paper, right? Like not like you know, cuz you go back to the white paper it's like this is a payment network. Yeah.

>> Right? No, it's um it's like uh it is it is like really deep fundamentalist like religion where like there are certain ideas that have taken a hold of the of the Bitcoiners. Uh and there are certain people who like sort of dominate the narrative. And one interesting thing is that they're very like aggressive and very quick. I think it's like a lot of times people describe it as like a like an immune system, right? Like a new idea or a new thing or new proposal.

>> we don't want this, right? Like we've seen what happens if we allow people to have ideas. And so it's like all of that gets immediately rejected even if like even if even if people don't understand what the idea is. Like just the idea of having ideas is like shunned and rejected like pretty violently. So you have this phenomenon where like anyone who's actually getting interested in Bitcoin often is pretty rapidly excluded. Like you have to be really you have to have really thick skin and a really like solid mind and like goal if you're going to stick around. Um otherwise you have so many other opportunities, right? Like you can go build anywhere. Why would you

like why would you sort of like trudge through this this [ __ ] Um but then the other thing that's I think interesting is that the only I guess like the the only ideas that weren't rejected were these these sort of like whatever like the Satoshi's vision [ __ ] right? Like the like the ones that were sort of approved. Um and so there have been new people that have come into Bitcoin and have a voice in Bitcoin. Um or even people like Jameson Lopp, right? Who's who's been in Bitcoin and still in Bitcoin. Um it's very hard for them to get new ideas in. Like you basically just have to like Even if you have respect and and, you know, you're an OG or whatever, it's

still very hard. And, you know, so then this cycle, right? This most recent cycle, we're in a bear market. During the like late late bear early bull of last cycle, um some people get some crackhead ideas. Um we're going to make like, you know, and and it's interesting cuz there there have been things that were like approved, acceptable ideas that were done like lightning network, right? Lightning network is one of those things where it's like I think all of the Bitcoiners are like no one's going to wait [ __ ] 10 minutes, bro, for like money to settle.

Like so let's just quietly all agree that we need the lightning network to allow us to actually be useful, right? Um and so so that was allowed to go through and that became a thing and then, you know, like that's an approved side chain, whatever. Like and and so it's weird, right? Like it's like uh this is fine. But then, you know, in this and again like this sort of speaks to I think this most recent cycle how little um kind of how little how hard it is for things to get even through the like Bitcoin consensus religion even if they happen, right? So then you have like ordinals and people that were like they start

they have to start to kind of find end runs around this religion where they're like, oh, what if we take this thing that they thought was safe and we morph it into something where we can like do NFTs, right? And like we can do these weird Bitcoins that are it's like a Satoshi that is special or whatever. And it's like, you know, let's ruin fungibility with this like weird bit of tech that they didn't >> [laughter] >> expect. And but it's all like end runs around the like the ossification of this thing, right? Um and then you have people like Saylor coming in that are like, you know, this is uh societal thing that's going to protect us from the world somehow. Like, you know, and

and you get these like these prophets coming in that are like somewhat self-appointed, but they're in the the vein of like Bitcoin religion and so they can kind of create their own little like semi-religious forks, right? Like Mormonism, you know? Like all of a sudden you have like Mormons running around who are like if this is kind of directionally the same, there's like guys and stuff and a book. But it's like and so so so all of that um all the background to all of that is meanwhile everyone has known that the cryptography that secures this entire thing is somewhat at risk. Like I don't like

is it fair to say is there anyone in Bitcoin who doesn't believe that quantum cryptography is a risk at all? Like I haven't seen that take like >> think so. Uh I think >> that's like so religious that they're like, no no no, math doesn't matter anymore. Like not only is code not code, but math is not math. Like Bitcoin is stronger than math, right? Like >> No, I think it's yeah, they accept it to a certain degree. I think that I I think there are people that you'll see on the timeline who it seems like they're saying that like quantum isn't a risk, but I think that's the disagreement is time. Like very yeah, the surface layer and it's like time and approach. And it's again it's this immune system

reaction where it's like people are trying to change things. We we must reject this. Like they're going to corrupt the system or whatever. Um but when you get to the heart of it, I think everyone agrees that like at some point quantum is going to be a thing. And if nothing is done then the entire blockchain breaks because the core architecture is based on the cryptography. If you break the cryptography then then it's broken, right? Like you there's everything that the blockchain gives you is gone. Um and so then the question becomes what the hell do you do about that, right? You can't just like let it like You can't just take this way and be

like, oh, oops, like and we're done, right? It's still software. We can still upgrade it. Like we can fix this. We can address this. Uh the decision is like how and when and How and when? >> to do it. And and, you know, also consensus, right? Like there is social consensus and you know, this is one of the things that I think uh like Vitalik really gets right. Among among, you know, there's a lot of things that Vitalik gets right, but this is the one of the ones where it's this idea of like, you know, fuzzy consensus. Not having, you know, the your point about EOS, right? Like let's just put it on chain. Well, now there's one like there's one guy that's like actually I will decide everything, right? Like this idea that there is a social consensus layer that must also, you know, that

humans are humans and code is for humans and therefore we must, you know, kind of uh subsume the code consensus part into like the human consensus part. Um and and so now they're like, okay, let's let's figure this out. Now, what is maybe the most interesting thing to me in this proposal. So the proposal is freeze the coins. I read this and I was like, what is happening right now? Like and and so I just I want to be I want to be really clear about how wild this is as a proposal. And even coming from like Jameson like

>> It's completely insane, guys. Because >> [laughter] >> it is the antithesis of Bitcoin. Not even like just the hardline Bitcoiners. Like if you're in Bitcoin, you are against freezing the word freezing, blocking, freezing. >> yeah. And it's not again, it's not just the hardline Bitcoiners. Like this is a this is a core tenant of Bitcoin is that like the chain the chain gods, the people writing the software, the people the nodes like cannot do this, right? Like they cannot No one can do this. Nobody can take your coins. Nobody can freeze your coins. There's whatever, like the number of coins is a religious aspect.

Like all this stuff is religious. And then James said, I wake up and I look at my feet. And James is like, so I have a BIP to propose that we freeze the coins. And I'm just like, I'm so excited for this timeline. It's going to be >> So, this is this is like my my hot take is this will be insane. Like we're going to have and it always happens in a bear market, right? Like there's always a bear market thing where like you know, and Bitcoin I don't know that Bitcoin can escape scrutiny anymore. I think it is too large of a thing. It's it'll be interesting to see if like inner Bitcoin cut schisms make it out into like the

larger but I feel like Sailor or someone's going to get up and talk about this and it's going to turn into a like I just don't think you can quietly do weird [ __ ] anymore in a bear market and have no one notice. But we'll see. It'll be interesting to see it how whether or not this happens, right? But even the concept of this being proposed is crazy. But my my my take when I saw this is this is genius on a couple of levels, right? Um The reason why people are so religious about the the you know, coin number and all of that stuff is like this immutable ledger that which by the way, you know, again, it's not 100%

immutable cuz there was a little mistake back in the day where it became not immutable for a minute, but um we'll ignore that for a second, but um one of the biggest issues in Bitcoin that is almost like a weird unintended consequence of Satoshi leaving which was amazing for Bitcoin, right? So like I think everyone agrees not being around to say dumb [ __ ] on Twitter or whatever would have happened, right? Has allowed Bitcoin to get to this level of you know, religious movement, whatever.

Uh but the consequence of that is of course Satoshi was around early and mined a [ __ ] load of Bitcoins. So, you have the Satoshi wallets that are sitting there that are like this ticking timebomb of like if these coins move, if you know, what if Satoshi tries to sell them or like what if like what if his family tries to like what are all of these things? This in one fell swoop is like, actually no. There's no Satoshi wallets. This has been part of the conversation for years, right? Like there this was like the earliest FUD. I think it's on my original FUD dice, right? The original FUD was Satoshi is actually alive and he just sells all of his coins. The dev is going to dump on us. The dev will

FSH and it'll be over. Which you know At the time. At the time. Yeah, like at the time it was true. It would have been catastrophic as well. Like 2014, 2015, it would have just ended Bitcoin. Like if if if Satoshi woke up and literally just dumped all his coins and just like capped it was it would be immediately over. Um and so I think it's interesting because there were conversations not necessarily by like the Bitcoin community, but there were conversations of people who were saying like we we could eliminate this one, this real risk, but also all of the FUD if we just freeze Satoshi's coins. Yeah. And it was never accepted. And this is why I find

the the the the governance, right? The way social like the social system works so interesting is that so often Bitcoin has done this thing where they just reject everything. They never really like debate it or consider it. It's just rejected on the face of it. It's rejected because it's a new idea. It's rejected for whatever reasons. Fast forward like okay, so you can say back then it was decided that it was not a sufficient risk or threat or it was against the moral values or the religion or whatever to like even propose freezing Satoshi's coins, right? But now we have quantum. And suddenly it's on the >> There's a reason. Suddenly there's a there's a real devil. There's a real

devil and this is for like you can you can imagine someone standing up in front of their parishioners, right? Some Bitcoin priest on on CNN being like, guys we must do this. Satoshi would have wanted this. This is what Satoshi would wanted. If Satoshi knew or was alive or whatever the and we should talk about this, right? Because there there was some interesting Phil Diamond posted a really interesting thing that I I wanted to actually dig into. I don't know if you saw this.

I retweeted it, but we'll get we'll get to the Satoshi thing, right? But it's very easy to say Satoshi would not have wanted those coins to be stolen by [ __ ] Google or whatever like or China or whoever we think has like a magical, you know, 4,000 cubic quantum computer, right? So like there's there's an absolute ticking timebomb here of like quantum will get to a point where we can just break the cryptography, right? And also correct me if I'm wrong, um the early Bitcoin wallet cryptography was worse than the like the wallets have

gotten better over time, right? And so part of the the proposal here is it's not uh it's not like every we're not going to freeze every Bitcoin wallet. There's like a a sense of if the wallet doesn't upgrade or it doesn't have some uh quantum resistance or something, right? So, you know, those OG wallets that were like minted with you know, whatever you know, the the original software was before um before a bunch of changes were made. If those coins are still sitting in those original wallets, they will get frozen. Now Yeah, I don't understand. I So, Bitcoin basically has had a few different

iterations of like let's call them like the core cryptography. Today like most people are familiar. Today if you like make a wallet, you get a seed phrase and that drives addresses and stuff. Back in the day it was different. The address types are different. Um for I think most of them >> Like there's there's been a bunch of but and but again, correct me if I'm wrong, right? Like um the quantum resistance-ness if you will, of these wallets is not identical.

Right. Like so, uh you know, the the er the first few wallets that were until you know, whenever like I don't know what the the first change was that BIP39 was like seed phrases and stuff. I don't know if that baked in a bunch I can't remember. I don't know my Bitcoin lore that well, but um but um but the early wallets were like, just like whatever, right? It's fine. Like they weren't designed to be like Yeah, so the from like nation-state actors trying to hack them, right? Like this is still like a software project.

And so those wallets would require less quantum cuz the thing is like quantum computers will get better and faster. So, the the point of this is the amount of time that a quantum computer would take to break the cryptography is going down. So, at the moment like uh standard computer would take longer than the heat death of the universe to break the encryption. Cool. Awesome, right? Um the best quantum computers we have would still take that long, right? Like it speeds it up by like you know, three orders of magnitude, but it doesn't matter, right? Like it's still going to take too long to actually crack these things. But if you get enough qubits in a quantum computer, all of a

sudden it goes to like, uh I can break it in 30 seconds, right? >> Yeah. And specifically, okay, it's we're going to get a little deep but I'll I'll keep it a little bit simple. You have the private key and the public key. And the public key is actually not your address. It's actually a separate thing that then derives your address. Um and with Bitcoin specifically because it's um it's not like account space like Ethereum and Solana are, you have the unspent transaction outputs. It's basically like these chains of transactions. You don't have like an account.

It's hard it's hard to explain if you don't if you're not like Bitcoin first. But basically the different ways that the coins were mined, the different ways that the wallets were generated, whether or not you've signed a transaction with that private key before, there's all these different factors that that come into play and back way back in the day, the public key, so again, this isn't necessarily your address, the public key, um the way like the early scripting was, that public key is actually public.

Which because it's like kind of your address, it's used to your drive your address that's fine usually, right? Like it's it's it's like in Ethereum, it's like an identifier right? You can't go backwards to the private key, right? Like that's the whole thing. If you know someone's Ethereum address or the public key, you can't get their private key. That's that's cryptography in a nutshell. That's why these things are secure. Quantum threatens that. Specifically, quantum like the way that they're assuming the signatures and the cryptography is going to be broken is partially that you're going to basically let's say go backwards from the public key. And

again, this is like a very oversimplified explanation of this stuff. Um, but there's like a few things that were especially prevalent with the very early early Bitcoin addresses that make it more likely that these super advanced like uh quantum mining operations will be able to get those prior to say some of the newer addresses. And then obviously if we evolve stuff, right? If we upgrade stuff and we we use cryptography that's you know, uh not susceptible to these flaws then then we're fine. The question is like >> [laughter] >> Satoshi Satoshi has all his coins in these addresses with a flaw.

Yeah. >> The worst like most susceptible to quantum stuff. So this is what's really interesting though about this proposal. This is why I think it's both genius and also kind of a nightmare right? >> Mhm. Let's imagine for a second. This is why I think it's it's important that we talk about Satoshi for for a sec, right? Did you find that Phil Diane thread? >> Yes. Yes. It was Yeah, it was it was the most recent thing that I retweeted. So so um if you say and here's the problem. If you say we're going to freeze all the addresses in 90 days that don't do whatever the thing is to become quantum resistant, right? Um

and and you know, this is this is not what this thing is proposing, but if you were to do this, if you were to say, okay, there's a hard deadline for you to upgrade your wallet. In order to upgrade your wallet, in most cases you're not upgrading your wallet, you're moving your coins. Yeah. And so in order for Satoshi, if this were to pass to be okay the coins would need to move. So this is now becomes a forcing function. If Satoshi has just quietly been sitting there not saying [ __ ] for 15 years, right? And all of a sudden it's like, well, actually I want the optionality of selling my coins, right?

Um I don't want to get locked forever. And this is this is the problem, right? Let's imagine that we knew in 30 days there's going to be quantum computers that will be able to crack all of these addresses, right? The interesting thing about this is then there's no way for anyone to prove that they own the address. Anyone who has a quantum computer that is sufficiently powerful can be like, no, no, no, I'm Satoshi, right? Yeah. >> Um and you know, And that's that's the only way to prove it, right? Like the only way to even if you don't want to even if you want to upgrade the cryptography, even if you want to do some fancy mechanism that doesn't require like moving the coins ultimately it comes down to the fact where those like you're going to sign something, whether it's a signature to

move the coins or signature that operates or puts the >> Exactly. And so the issue if if you do it now before quantum you can like rest assured that like the person who signs is the person is the person with the key, etc. Once you get to this point in time where like quantum becomes a real thing and and there's supercomputers that can break these then then anyone can like prove they're Satoshi and you can't there's no like the the court >> case of Satoshi, hopefully there's some like other evidence that they could present, but that's not the point. The point is we don't want anyone to prove they're Satoshi. We want no one to try

and prove this. We've we've dealt with this before. It was not fun. Um there is a crazy guy, Craig Wright, who and so let's let's So let's just close out, right? So the thing that's now interesting about this. Assume that this this passes. There are three phases um that are uh three years and five years, right? And this is where I think this is a not amazing. Like it's not amazing because if it does pass now you have like and the reason why I said 30 days, right? It's cuz 30 days we get handled.

I don't know if we can handle another eight years of like there's a deadline coming that Satoshi needs to do a thing in order to not lose access to these keys and before it was like, well, it's been 15 years, like of course it could happen, but it probably won't, but now it's like, if it could happen, it probably will. Right? Like if someone still controls those keys to move those coins, you would imagine that this will force them to do it, right? Or maybe not. Maybe they accept them being burned. So if they do in eight years' time off this passes, there will be a day where the coins will be locked forever.

And at that point you know, if Bitcoin's a million dollars or something, right? It becomes like hundreds of billions of dollars of Bitcoin that's now just off the market and it's this is never a problem ever again. Um you have to imagine on that day there's going to be a god candle the likes of which we have not seen before. Like Yeah. It would just be crazy, right? Because all of a sudden the risk of Satoshi is just gone, right? Eight years feels like a long time. Like can we just tie this down to like a year, guys? Like and just close it out in the bear market? Like I don't know if I'm >> I mean it's really interesting because the thing is is that

let's say that this proposal passes, right? And we and we all do this. One, it's a it's such a long time period that I feel like people are just going to be like, okay, well, we'll deal with it. Also things might change. And then all of a sudden it's going to be like a year from now and you're like, oh [ __ ] I need to do something. >> This is the thing. This is why I'm like we're going to do [ __ ] like this. If we have the technology, let's just get it done in the bear market. Like the bear market's not going to do [ __ ] like this. Um so >> But then there's another period of time after, right? Like you this is like an arbitrary self-imposed Yeah. >> timeline. Then there's an unknown period of time in between the the like the last

date where everything's frozen or whatever and the date where like quantum is real, meaning that like someone broke the keys. During that period of time, if Satoshi or like you know, people are talking about like, well, what if someone was in jail and they got out of jail and their coins are frozen, right? >> Yeah. >> We should have like a process for them. During that interim period of time there's theoretically a way where you could either you could do something quite arbitrary, right? Like right? You could selectively unlock certain things for people to prove or whatever without risk because of the without the quantum risk, right? Right. Um there's all sorts of things that you could do. Uh however,

the question is like, would Bitcoin actually do this? And uh it's tough because just the freezing of coins themselves sort of undoes a lot of what I know about Bitcoin. Right? And so you can imagine if you actually if they actually carry on and freeze these coins I think that the otherwise non-existent conversations will actually exist because it's kind of moved uh it's kind of they kind of moved the goal posts on themselves. Right? Um and I think it'll be really interesting, but it's a bit terrifying because even though I guess like you have this when you lock all these coins and it's

like definitely locked um that's like a huge Yeah, the god candle. Oh my god. However eight years, nine years, 10 years of just like blood It's a long time. >> It's going to dominate the conversation and I don't know that anyone wants to talk about this forever. And I suspect, I don't know. I wish we could have talked to Jameson, but like I suspect that he's part of the reason he's putting this proposal out is to like force people's hands. I I agree. It's like let's let's you know, sometimes it's like let's do something that is unpalatable. Yeah.

Force people to the table to actually do something that might be more palatable. So it could be just you know, 40 chests here and and it's trying to force the thing. But you have to imagine that there are some people in their heart of hearts that are like, it would be really good if we could just deal with these [ __ ] Satoshi coins and be done with this. Can we please do that? Can we lock these coins? Because if we do the thing, you know, especially if it was done under the guise of like we have no choice. This is a math problem, guys. Like we have no choice. We must do this. You know, we're not evil. We're not doing the wrong thing. We're just protecting the coins. And again, you know, I go

back to like imagine there's a guy in front of you with all of his Bitcoin parishioners that's like, this is what Satoshi would have wanted. I know. He came to me in a dream and said, lock the coins. Yeah. >> Lock the coins, bro. And so, you know, if that happens, I think this is the only way that you could ever close out that like Satoshi fund. Otherwise like this you can you know, we used to talk about what if Bitcoin's a mil what if Bitcoin's 10 million dollars each, right? In like 30 years and the Satoshi coins are like >> [laughter] >> it just gets like absurd, right? Like it's it gets to the point where it's like it's worth more money than like gold times 10 and there's just like one key that's securing all of this value.

It's it's a bit insane. Um all right. So, before we talk about Satoshi cuz I think this is this is a topical thing. Uh, let's go to another ad break and uh, we can come back and and talk about whether or not this person might be able to unlock the coins. Bitcoin changed how money works. So, Cetraya changes how Bitcoin scales. Cetraya uses Bitcoin as both the settlement and [music] data availability layer. As Bitcoin's application layer, Cetraya enables the first trust minimized BTC on a fully programmable platform and a native stablecoin for Bitcoin, CTUSD.

Cetraya offers Bitcoin capital markets with lending, privacy, payments, Bitcoin yield, trading, and predictions. Cetraya expands Bitcoin's utility without sacrificing its security. Cetraya mainnet is live. Get started at cetraya.xyz/unchained. Step into a new era of wealth. Discover Nexo, the premier digital wealth platform. Manage your crypto portfolio with confidence and control. Receive interest on your digital assets. Borrow against them without selling. Trade a wide range of cryptocurrencies, all in one platform.

Now available in the US with 30 days of exclusive privileges for new clients. Experience wealth club premiere. Access enhanced interest rates, reduced borrowing costs, and crypto cashback on swaps. Get started today at nexo.com/unchained. Multichain Advisors is an emerging technology growth firm that has helped create over $50 billion in enterprise value for more than 80 clients like Piff, MoonPay Commerce, and Wormhole. They've worked with some of the largest and most impactful companies in the space. They're the partner you want when you're navigating markets and trying to break out from the noise. They help navigate TGEs, go-to-market, BD, and partnerships, capital markets advisory,

PR, media placements, KOL activations, and more. Driving execution from launch to scale. Their results are measurable. To learn more and start building real traction today, visit multichainadv.com. All right, we're back. Um, so, there was a story that we were going to cover and we didn't end up covering um, a couple weeks ago um, where or maybe even last week where the New York Times was like, Adam Back is Satoshi. Yes.

>> Right? Um, and you know, this is this is like, there's a whole bunch of reasons why like it's not it's clearly not true, right? Um, but uh, Phil Dian um, who is like an OG crypto guy and an ETH guy um, has uh, tweeted something I think yesterday or the day before, right? Um, that was like, it's not Adam Back, guys. Like it's obviously not Adam Back, but but maybe it was Adam Back because if you look at his style of writing, his style of writing is very similar to the style of writing and you can go back and like

and the New York Times did this, right? Like there has to be something here to this and so the theory is that Adam Back um, is the guy that wrote the white paper. Yeah, or was like on some of the accounts like doing some of the emails. Yeah. So, so >> [cough] >> the idea that this is like a two or three person team, right? And you know, the idea that Satoshi uh, is not one person, it's multiple people has been going around for a long time, right? And there's questions like, was it 30 people? Was it the CIA? Was it, you know, the NSA? Was it like, you know, there's all like and and I think um, most of the rejections of that are like, you can't have a conspiracy of the NSA for 15 years and have it not leak out

that like actually they wrote Bitcoin, right? Um, and so, you know, there there is this like skepticism around this idea that uh, you know, it's this one guy, right? Um, there's a skepticism that one person could do it. There's a skepticism that it's multiple people and then it's like, well, it has to be some like a human did this. We didn't have agents yet. So, clearly a human did this, right? And so the idea is that they've matched up the writing and this is the one guy theory. If there's one guy that did it, it has to be this guy, right? And then um, a bunch of people like, but look at the code. Look at the way that like we've got code examples and like this is not the same person writing this code. Like

it's very obviously not the same person writing the code. Um, and so, um, Phil Dian is like, there was a guy that wrote the code. There was a guy that wrote the white paper and like had control of some of the accounts and then there was like the genius philosopher person that like pulled this all together and like, you know, took all this prior art because Bitcoin did not get created from whole cloth in 2009, right? There was like 20 years of prior art, e-cash, like, you know, a ton of different things, different schemes, cryptography schemes that someone has cobbled together. That's the genius part, like connecting all of these dots,

right? Um, you know, the the idea of of, you know, essentially creating a blockchain from all of these disparate components that have existed. No one had put them together. So, um, the the idea is that Hal Finney is that guy, right? Hal Finney was the like genius visionary person that like connected all the dots, right? Adam Back is the guy who was like uh, you know, talking and and writing things and like the public face of the thing, right? Um, and that's like that is incredible. Like this is incredible when you when you start looking. But then there the the theory goes for for Phil that there was

a guy who wrote the code. And apparently, he's been saying this for like a decade that it's this David Kleiman guy who wrote the code, right? So, on the weekend, I guess last week, right? Phil sees this thing and it's like, it's not Adam Back. Like it's just obviously not him. He could have been part of it, but it's not him. It's this Phil Kleiman guy who wrote the code. The code looks like dot net slob, >> [laughter] >> right? Code, right? And the closest uh, person who was in the area is this Phil Kleiman guy, right? Um, and so, uh, sorry, this Dave this Dave Kleiman guy.

So, then he somehow goes on like an autistic dumpster dive >> [laughter] >> all of this like material and finds an email in the Epstein files. Um, and this email in the Epstein files is like uh, a couple of people talking about something that happened in these computers that were like seized in like one of the early investigations, right? Um, and uh, the the person writing the email is like, hey, I've got a guy um, >> [laughter] >> I've got a guy This guy. This guy. This guy cloned the machines and like whatever did like did this with the hard drives and like can we get these hard

drives back? And the guy's name is Dave Kleiman. And Phil is like, this is it, right? That that's the three this is the third guy. Like this guy is, you know, and and so cuz apparently Adam Back was on the island and you know, we know that Epstein Oh my god, the whole Epstein the connections are wild at this point. But this Epstein nexus of now there is like a direct connection between all of these three people um, is crazy, right? And so, the interesting thing about this is Dave Kleiman is also dead.

Weirdly. So so >> Finney's also is also dead. And there's another favorite guy. I cannot remember his name, an OG cryptographer who is also dead. >> Is also dead. So, so there's there's like multiple ways that this could have been two people, three people, four people and most of them are dead except for Adam Back, right? Um, and and so, >> Wow. I know, right? Um, and and so, uh, so so anyway, this this is a whole thing this this conspiracy theory that it like this is the group of people. But the the most interesting thing about this conspiracy theory is it's not exactly a conspiracy theory because someone had to

do this. Like there is an answer to the question of who was Satoshi and it was either one person or multiple people and even for me I'm like, this is the close I haven't like scrutinized this like super deeply, but I I you know, I trust Phil's autism and I'm like, >> [laughter] >> this is a good theory. I mean, I think that like my takeaway is I don't think we'll ever know for sure. I think at this point it's they're either they're dead or if they're alive, like they made the decision long ago to like destroy everything. Like really destroy it. Um, and like no matter how

much they regret that choice today, like they can't they can't go back. >> Yeah. Um, but I actually I don't know. Motives are interesting, right? But if someone did that, let's say in 2011, right? Um, there was a single Satoshi and that single person burned all the coins and is still alive, right? It would it's, you know, they've gone 15 years without like trying to chase glory, right? And also Satoshi had like a bunch of addresses, right? So like this is there's like a cluster of the main addresses, but you know, it's possible that that person burned the main addresses and still has hundreds of millions of dollars with the Bitcoin today, right? So um so you know, it's not like they're like living in poverty

and you know, a back alley somewhere or whatever. Um So anyway, we we can we can maybe we can get Phil on the show um and and talk about this. Um talk about this theory. This is the topic. I mean I would love I love the Satoshi theory. I love all of them. Like all of them. so interesting. It's so interesting. But this is the only this is the first time that I've seen like a coherent theory of like here's the group of people that was small enough to be small enough and dead enough and that is possible.

>> [laughter] >> Like literally like if your theory is it was these five people and they're all alive and they never talked to each other or whatever. Like I just don't believe that. Like I I don't know that that's possible for that to be the case that there were five people in 2009 that were all collaborating and conspiring to do this thing and none of them have broken ranks or none of them have ever been seen in the same room. Like I that that just beggars belief, right? Um Anyway, uh let's move on to our next story um which is conveniently also about freezing coins um and and so this is World Liberty Financial versus Justin Sun um and and

>> [laughter] >> the situation is and this this is a thing that happened a while ago, but Justin I think has come out and somehow something's broken his brain and he's like I'm not going to just quietly sit here anymore. I'm going to actually like start you know, firing shots back. Maybe he's mad that we're not winning as much as we were promised. Uh I think that's So that's part of it. Is that he's just mad and the other part of it is that I guess the World Liberty Financial guys have proposed the Okay, so if you bought you bought these coins, right? They're all locked.

>> not. So no, I went to the I bought the I bought the Trump coin. >> I know. No, no, no. I bought the Trump coin. Um I did not go into the World Liberty ICO. Um I was stupidly I wish that I had, but I did not do it. Um and and I so I bought I bought Trump coin and interestingly I bought Trump coin. I went to that first Trump dinner and Justin Sun was there and he got presented with a Trump watch and he was very happy about it at the time. So it's going a little bit the relationship has soured a little bit over the intervening year or so. >> Interesting. Okay, so there was an ICO for I can't keep all this straight, but I know this. There was an ICO in like late 2024 for World Liberty Financial.

The terms were the tokens are locked. The end. We'll figure it out later. But right now you can buy in, but they're locked. >> a rush. We're in a rush, guys. We don't have time to think through all the details. Let's just get this thing done. And so I guess now it's not that today has arrived where they figure out the details, but today is the day that they have decided to propose the new lock structure, but it's created an interesting dynamic because um well, uh because everyone bought these tokens with literally accepting the fact that they would be locked until someone decided at a future date that something else would be done to change the circumstances.

Um and so now they're making a proposal that basically is like there's some of the coins it's going to be a 2-year lock with another 2-year cliff. With some of the coins it's like a 2-year lock with a 3-year cliff. Maybe there's some other things etc. etc. That's what they're proposing. >> are They're frozen, though. They're frozen, though. They're frozen. They're like locked, right? >> No, it's weird because Yes, because nobody can transfer their coins, but there's a few people who bought the coins who then had the coins additionally frozen. Right.

So [laughter] So even if uh even if they could even if the global rules lift and they're allowed to transfer the funds, there's a select Yeah, there's a select group of people where they can't they'll still be blocklisted. So that's why Justin's upset, right? Hopefully so. Everyone else is also upset because they're like we don't like these terms. And then it's again it's the to me it's the interesting the the perverse incentives, right? Your choice is carry on how things were, which is literally they're going to be locked forever.

Yeah. Or accept these terms and people are mad that they have to make that choice. Why did you buy into the ICO with those terms in the first place? >> we're going to win. They thought we're going to keep winning and there's going to be so much winning that they wouldn't care. They wouldn't need the money. They would have plenty of money. They would have won so much. What this was a detail. This was a minor detail back in in 2025. So so um >> [laughter] >> One thing that that I think we've talked about in the show quite a bit is like uh you know, this idea of um token holder rights.

You know, and and what rights do token holders have? And when we're looking at this story, the thing that kind of jumped out at me is like part of the tension here, right? Um is as a token holder you have no legal rights usually, right? The the interesting thing about tokens is most of the time the most rights you ever have is when you have the piece of paper that says that you will get tokens in the future. That's actually like a legal document in most cases, right? Now there's usually a bunch of ways that that document has, you know, little loopholes written in where things can change, but like at least you can go to a court of law and say like, "Hey, I've got this thing and if they give this to someone, they've got to give the same

thing to me even if they change all of the terms and make it terrible for everyone." Um and and I was reflecting on like part of the tension here is um that in normal reality you have the ability to um adapt to the world through the issuance of new shares, right? So you as a founder, you're an idiot, right? Um and one of my one of my best uh examples of this is like Shane from Polymarket, right? So Shane from Polymarket um who who I went into the seed round. Um I knew him I knew him quite well at the time. Um I'd go and visit him in New York when I was in New York and and hang

out. And this guy was like the most cracked guy. Like you couldn't even bring him out in public. Like he was so like just for the mission. He just wanted to talk about like, you know, he was just like so so deep down the like prediction market rabbit hole and why it was so critical and why it was so important like genuinely like ideologically, but also a really good startup founder, which is a scary combination, right? When you have someone who gets startups, gets the grind, gets all of these things, like is trying to be successful, trying to build something, um but also is like ideologically like Mhm. like jacked in, right? And so so he

as everyone does when they're an early founder, like does a bunch of dumb [ __ ] like raises money from idiots and like does all this stuff and like almost runs out of money and you know, he had the double uh whammy of like also having three-letter agencies coming after him all the time for [ __ ] annoying reasons, right? Back in the day. Um and he you know, he resisted all of that, fought through it. This is the guy who like got raided by the FBI and then tweeted an hour later, "New phone, who this?" Like just like absolute crackhead person, right? Like just crackhead energy. Um but the interesting thing is you never hear anything about people complaining about like you know, there's

no token there's no Polymarket. People kind of say, "When is the token coming?" right? But those are usually people who are farming the airdrop. But you never hear like investor complaints about like, "Oh, Shane, you know, screwed me over or whatever." And and you know, this is despite the fact they've raised a ton of money from a ton of places from like ICE or whatever. He really flipped the three-letter agency thing and was like, "Ah, the FBI can get money from ICE." And And so uh so So anyway, so uh different ICE. Um different ICE. To clarify. Um and and so um But but interestingly like as as seed investors and there's a bunch of people that were like seed investors, then they went in the series A, series B. There is

this mechanism where your early mistakes as a in his case like 18-year-old founder or 17-year-old founder or whatever, where you raise money from the wrong people, get erased over time. You raise more money, you issue more shares. There is like a built-in very clear, well-understood mechanism where you can raise some money and have not the best terms, but like it's very easy for you to like over time kind of water that down and get to a better structure that makes more sense for you. Tokens unfortunately it's like, "Hey, we're going to sell all the tokens.

There's 50 of them. I'm going to sell them to 20 people. One of them is Justin Sun. He owns 30 of them." And then 20 minutes later you're like, "Ah, that was dumb. Like why did I do that?" And so then you're forced into being like, "Well, what can I do? I'll just freeze his tokens. That'll be fine, right?" So like but seriously like you you you don't have there's no relief valve for the dumb things that you do early on in token land because they're immutable fixed supply things and you can't issue more of them and I think this is like the the nexus of the tension that creates all of these issues, right? Um Yeah, that and and by the way and the

fact that like nobody is being clear on these things like at all ever. Right? Like nobody has clarity on what I'm sorry but like what why did you invest in an ICO where like everything is indefinitely locked until like >> Because I thought I was going to win, bro. I don't know how many times I like I was sure this guy told me we're going to win so much that we never won that much before. You're trusting these people who are not have zero incentive to tell you the actual right. Like you're just trusting But little like legitimately this is the reason, right? When you invest in any token

if you are clear-eyed about it, you know that there like there's there's no rights so they can do anything to you and the problem with that is it means that there is no gradient of like risk. >> Yeah. Right? At any moment at any time anyone who is a token issuer can completely [ __ ] you over and just go ah like we just changed the tokens, bro. Like I don't know what you know, I don't know why you thought we wouldn't. We just froze your we just did you know, we can do almost anything which means that they become uninvestable.

Yeah. >> If anyone can do anything to you at any time and there is no legal recourse, right? I mean, you know, I go back like there's still a lawsuit to the best of my knowledge. I gave up. I capitulated off for like 5 years, right? There's still there's [clears throat] still a lawsuit where a bunch of us invested in Curve. We gave Michael in Curve a bunch of money you know, at the time. This is pre-D5 summer. This is like you know, call it May 2020, right? And at the time Michael didn't really need the money. He he'd done well from from like Swissborg a couple of other previous startups, whatever.

And so but he thought it was a good idea to raise some money from like good investors. They would help to like evangelize Curve, whatever. And then 2 months later D5 summer starts and he's like Yeah, I don't need your money anymore. I just said no, right? I'm not Now the interesting thing about that is he says no, I don't want your money and we all say we won't take it back. And so >> [laughter] >> the money sits Now he could have sent it back but like I don't know why he didn't send it back but he didn't. So I sent him $80,000 in USDT. I'm I'm I'm pretty sure it's 80 80 grand in USDT in like >> it wasn't ETH, bro. Jesus. No, no, this is stables. Yeah, it was Curve. It was a

stablecoin exchange. Come on. Take ETH. Okay. Okay. Okay. What was he going to put next to the raft ETH like an idiot? Like Anyway, so so um So we send stables and there's this like Mexican standoff for 5 years of like the investors who are involved go after him. They sue him in Switzerland. They sue him in America. They sue him in like every jurisdiction they can find, right? Um and they keep losing because I have to imagine and I never read like the transcripts or like I don't even know if there are transcripts but I have to imagine the judge was like you gave you sent someone some magic beans Yeah. 5 years ago

and never got them back. Never got any like what did you expect? What did you expect? >> structure. There's no structure. And so you know, like Michael took everyone's money, refused to give it back or didn't want to give it back or whatever. And then but then eventually like I was like all right, clearly I'm never getting these Curve tokens. So I just went and messaged him one day and was like can I have my 80 grand USDT back and he's like yeah, sure thing. Sent it straight back. It was like actually quite easy. Um and so >> Wait, so he just didn't want he just didn't want to do like the Curve part of it. Yeah, he just didn't want to sell the tokens. He was like cuz the >> [laughter] >> cuz the token price was like >> Cuz he didn't need to. 0.0001

so you know, we would have gotten when D5 summer hit and the Curve price went like $7, right? We would have and and in fairness, you know, like to him selling tokens to people too cheaply is the worst possible thing you can do to your protocol because they will they will dump on you the instant they get the chance, right? And so he was just like ah actually this is negative EV. I'm giving you the money back. And you didn't have to because you guys didn't agree to anything up front. >> They held it for like literally sitting in the same every once in a while like every 3 months I'll be like I wonder if the money's still there. It's always still there. He never touched it. He just left it sitting in a wall. He didn't need it. Like he did not need the

money. I know. So >> This is okay. At some point we're going to have to fix this but I >> fix I'm not I'm not Lesnar is trying to fix it for us, right? Robert Lesnar. We should we should have him on the show at some point. He's he's basically saying like guys, this nonsense token shenanigans. This is not it. >> have no rights. Like of course people are going to get screwed and by the way like even if they don't get screwed, right? Even if the objectively best possible outcome happens for all involved parties people are still going to be upset because they think they got screwed.

Right? Because the grass is always greener. You didn't have clarity. The expectations are out of whack. Whenever you have misaligned expectations people start feeling betrayed. Then people get very irrational and very illogical and and everything goes out the freaking window. And so until we get to a point where um there's like it's not just it's not just like this trust like we're going to do right or you know uh or there are no laws. Like we're not going to do anything so everything's fine. Like just Right? Like no, neither one of those is true. Like if you're investing in something if you're buying something especially with a lockup

I don't know. Just it's just insane terms. Um you yeah, I don't know. Investing in something that has a lockup where there's literally no forcing function, timing, anything to ensure that your uh like the the choices they make in the future are going to uphold you what like they're not going to it's not they're not going to period. Something will break. Something over Yeah, like given enough time something will break and and it will break down. And you know, again, why did this happen? Incentives. It happened because the incentives are really skewed towards it will be fine, right? We don't need to worry about this because it's positive EV to give people money, send them stables. You know, like

at that time I didn't know Michael that well. He wasn't like a you know, like he was a guy that I knew but like I just sent him 80 grand. Like there's no I don't even I don't think there was even a I can't remember signing a contract. I just sent him >> There absolutely was not a contract. Otherwise you would have [clears throat] some recourse. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, that's a good point. >> be like jurisdiction hopping finding a judge explaining the magical beans situation. Oh man. All right, before we wrap up >> I wanted to just super quickly cuz this is the same it's basically the same conversation, right? Have you been following the Scroll Ether fighting? I have not. Let's let's talk about it.

>> Okay. So basically there's some tea. We don't know the tea. There's tea. It'll come out later, okay? But basically Ether fi is leaving Scroll. And then it appears that Scroll has like Is it weird that I didn't know Ether fi was on Scroll? I didn't either. What? They're not just on Scroll. Like like what like >> No, I don't know. There's no way that they're just on Scroll. >> They're not just on Scroll. So like this seems weird like they were on a chain and they're leaving the chain. It doesn't seem like that big of a drama but maybe I'm missing something.

>> Okay. Well, yeah. I mean but I guess because Scroll is that was probably like one of their biggest things. Scroll's obviously like oh shoot. So Scroll then then the validators or the fee mechanisms like because I guess Ether fi has to like migrate stuff off and like do things to wind things down, whatever. I guess they like cranked up the fees on the on the chain to like make it really expensive. Sorry. It's great. It's [laughter] so funny.

Yeah. They're like oh, you're leaving us like let's charge a butt like we're going to make you pay as much as possible. That's the story so far. I don't know if there's some other stuff going on, too. The much as possible is like 15 grand a day, right? Like it's not like um Okay. So >> from like $0 a day to to like 50 grand or something like that across across you know, a few thousand people. >> so basically it says like for Ether fi things the fees like originally were 250 a day and then it cranked up to 16k a day.

However, there's other activity. These are like network fees, right? So there's other activity on the network that also now have to pay higher fees. And so I think that's one of the conversations is like other people are like wait, just cuz you're like punishing them or whatever like why >> you collectively punish them instead of punishing us? Yeah. Yeah. And I don't know like the whole thing to me is just it's just I don't know. It's very weird. Um Well, so I've got a okay. I've got a conspiracy theory for you now. We can start a conspiracy theory here.

>> go. Let's go. Why has Polymarket not left Polygon i.e. Matic, right? For like 7 years when they easily could? What if Sandeep the entire time, is the CEO of of of Matic? What if the entire time he's been saying to Shane, "If you try and leave, we will charge $100 per transaction." Yeah, I mean I didn't know this was possible, to be honest. I mean, I guess like I never thought about it.

That's the whole point of blockchain, right? Anything's possible. Anything can happen. So, that's wild. I also think it's just a wild choice because if your blockchain is not getting the desired traction in terms of usage, and then when your like main guy is leaving I feel like you're the worst possible choice to make is to make it more unusable by making it more unusable. Yeah, but it's like on the way out, we're just going to burn everything down, right? Like my my favorite my favorite thing in like startup reality, like dimension of like, you know, optimization and risk is platform risk.

Platform risk is like the realest risk that you, you know, and there's like just amazing examples across all of startups of like FarmVille on Facebook, and then they're like, "Actually, we're going to do games ourselves." Like so many examples of like people that were like, "We've made it. It's going amazingly well." And then the platform's like, "Haha, we own you, right?" This is just such another great example of platform risk. Like you think you're going to like an immutable ledger, and these ZK moon math guys are going to like you're good friends, and then they're like, "Actually, we own the platform and you can't leave."

Yeah, and that I think the platform risk I think a lot of times people like look at it a bit black and white, like uh like can they freeze you, right? That's the conversation. Um are they going to rug pull you? >> There's always a way. There's always a But it's like there is so much risk introduced when you're dealing with um this sort of stuff, and I think that a lot of people are like, "Well, they would never freeze us." Like Scroll would never freeze either five. Like and if they did, there would actually be like recourse. But that's not the only risk, right? There's a lot of risk. We never told you the fees would be cheap, bro. Like I bet they did. I bet you like the first thing that they said in their like white paper is like the fees will always be the

cheapest here ever. And they're like, "Ah, don't just delete the white paper. It's fine. Just get rid >> It's just the whole thing is crazy, and I don't know. Again, like I a lot of times like when we talk about like the L2s and like the centralization and the risk, I feel like we're we're not we're still not having mature enough conversations about this where like we're actually thinking about the risk and then actually mitigating the risk. I think it just often the conversation turns again back to this like the FBI is going to force us to freeze your wallets, and so long as that's not possible, then it's fine. No, it's not freaking fine, dude. The perverse incentives are real, and people will screw each other over, and if you have no accountability, no recourse, like you just got to sit there and eat your But

this is so this Okay, so this is this I think there's a through line. We've got two more stories we can like quickly speed run them, right? The next one is Cal Swap. >> I got 4 minutes, so. All right, we got 4 minutes. Let's do this. So, like this is platform risk all the way down, right? So, Cal Swap's DNS gets hijacked, which is a thing that happens to like a bunch of people all the time. It happened to my family office. They were able to like get into my domain hosting place for my family office URL and social engineer that would like It happens all the time. DNS is a giant [ __ ] platform risk for every single crypto company. And so, one of the things that I I saw um someone say is they're like, "Oh,

there's like some better DNS service that But DNS is like a thing, right? Like it's a thing on the internet that you can't get away from, right? So, um I don't know if you have any hot takes on this before we before we go to the next And there's we're at the point where the DNS hijacks that we're seeing are not actually compromising the teams' accounts. They're social engineering people behind the scenes, and >> what happened to me. I went and they they said, "No, no, no, our agents our got These were human agents for years here, right? Our agents are not uh able to change DNS, right?" And then I went social engineer This is my favorite part. I went and social engineered another one of the agents and was like, "Hey, I have this problem. You

seem like a really nice guy." Like we went through a whole thing, and the guy was like, "Oh, yeah, we can totally do that." I just admitted that they I was like, "Well, okay, that's good. At least I have some closure here." Um so, That's exactly what probably happened. Like of course they can change the thing. They're in the system. Like come on, guys. Um so, the final thing is cash tags, speaking of platform risk cuz my my hot take is that X is one of the most giant It's been platform risk all year where they keep nuking all of the crypto stuff. And then the key to gets on the timeline is like, "It's been a bad year for crypto." And it's like, yeah, you caused this, man. Like it's so much of this is you doing insane things to us and killing our reach and like whatever,

right? He's like, "It's been a bad year, so we're going to replace our old cash tag system with this new cash tag system so that you're now even more locked into X and beholden to us, and we will determine whose cash tags are shown when you have a certain ticker." They're basically turning themselves into like the ticker police now where they own the like tickers. It's crazy. Also, who the [ __ ] uses cash tags? Like this is such a 2017 thing.

Well, no, no, no, they nerfed cash tags. Elon announced that anyone who uses cash tags, you're we're like nerfing you. You're not getting any reach, like whatever. Yes, cuz you're a crypto scammer obviously. Oh man. So, yeah, platform risk all the way down. So, let's wrap it up here. So, thanks for joining us. Hopefully, we'll have Luca back from Antarctica next week. Maybe Tay will go to Antarctica next week. I don't know. Now Now we know that it's your life's dream.

Low-key is, dude. Yeah, I get it. I get it. Remember, what happens on chain never stays on chain. We'll be back next week. Until then, do your own research before aping in. See you. Bye.