Breaking Down the PUMP Launch | Analyst Round Table

Transcript

As I spend more time in markets, I'm increasingly of the belief that more data actually hurts a lot of people. Like to to get daily revenue data is like a curse. Um if you had daily revenue data on like I don't know Google as a startup, you'd probably find a lot of reasons to be bearish. Um in reality, you just want to look at the bigger picture. And I think that, you know, perhaps a lot of people are doing that with a lot of different things in crypto today. Um on both the upside and the downside like like I you guys saw in the chat this morning where I'm like, "Oh, drifts per revenues are at all-time highs." Like does that matter at all?

>> Um it's one week worth of data. Box says no. So it's like death, you know, it's just it's um you can really tie yourself into a pretzel just looking at the daily data. I think it's better to zoom out with respect to pump. They have they have a great brand and that probably matters more for the next few months. >> A quick shout out to today's sponsor, Katana. We'll hear more about Katana and their ongoing pre-eposit campaign later today, but for now, let's get into the episode. Nothing said on Xerox Research is a recommendation to buy or sell securities or tokens. This podcast is forformational purposes only and any views expressed by anyone on the show

are solely our opinions, not financial advice. Pocachio Ryan and our guests may hold positions in the company's funds or projects discussed. What's up, guys? Welcome back to another episode of Xerx Research. Today I'm joined by Danny, Ian, Ryan, and Jack Cuban. Um guys, welcome to the show. How are you all doing? Terrific. >> Doing great. >> Doing great. >> Oh, there he is. Okay. >> Oh, he's in. And Carlos, our sixth member today. How you doing, Carlos? >> What's up, boys?

>> New camera angle. >> Yeah, I'm trying to set it up, but >> kind of freaking me out a bit. >> That's okay. We're used to technical difficulties on this show, so no problems there. Um, glad we could have such a big crowd out today. Uh, the big news I think in on everyone's mind is Pump. The sale was this weekend. Uh, a bunch of exchanges as well as like the pump sale page on Salana on chain. Um, I want to just I want to dive into that. Let's talk about it. Either, you know, musings from people who tried to do the sale, try to get in in or out of the sale. um differences between the onchain versus the the centralized exchange

environment. Um it seems like one of the big big takeaways here was that a ton of the sale was completed on Salana and the exchanges like really struggled to process any orders if you know like a small amount or if any in in a few cases of uh some exchanges that that struggle to get like any allocation it seems. Um, does anyone have big big takeaways, big highlights on this? >> I have a very medium lukewarm take and it's that this is the first time that I can think of like historically if you wanted if there if if anybody gave you the option like you can either do this on a centralized exchange versus on like decentralized rails, you would always do it on a centralized exchange because

it's typically more performant, it's more stable. Um, I think this is the only example that I can think of where like you got [ __ ] if you tried to do it on a centralized exchange and if you did it on a decentralized like on Salana itself, you actually managed to get in. I think the average check size is like 500 as well. So like you didn't have to be particularly sophisticated to get in. You just like you just clicked a few buttons and got in. Um, it was a bit surprising to me because I was very adamant that anybody who can do it should just do it for centralized exchanges just because I I thought it was going to be the best way in, but I

was wrong and I'm suffering because of it. Yeah, it uh it looked like so so being US-based, I could not participate in the pump ICO, but just from what I followed, it looked like Bybit um had some issues with uh basically like it says that the token sale was oversubscribed um due to like an issue with their APIs. So some people received their allocation, others didn't. Um, which not a good look for buy I guess. Uh, speaking with someone who was involved with the ICO over at pump, the two

details I got post ICO was that the median uh, order size was 400 bucks and over 20,000 people completed KYC and participated. Um, so it seems like it was I mean obviously there was a whole private sale part of this. So it's not like this is uber grassroots like you know only small checks because this was just the ICO part of it of people who didn't get in on the private sale. Um although we do know that the private sale and the public sale happened at the same valuation which is kind of cool. Um and over 20,000 people is like a substantial number of different people.

It's not huge, but um in like a heavily botted space, you know, over 20k people doing KYC means 20,000 unique individuals. So I I think both interesting details that I'm hearing. Um and and obviously, yeah, the note that it all happened on Salana rather than sexes is seems like kind of a sea change moment. It's hard to think of another instance where the blockchain route was much better for an ICO or something like this than centralized exchanges were.

>> Yeah, potentially a fork in the road. I think I think it's big egg on your face for the centralized exchanges. Let let a lot of people down. Um it's very easy for a lot of people internationally to switch between exchanges. uh none of them have huge volume advantages that participated, right? It's not like they're Binance. So, I think it wouldn't be surprised if there was substantial reputational damage um here. Um but no, it's super exciting to see it happen on chain and I don't know, maybe we look back and this is a moment.

Yeah, I legitimately think that Bid got zero allocation. Like people who had their orders come in like at 20 seconds, they still got their orders cancelled. Like I went through buy uh orders appeared despending for like four hours and then they were all just unsuccessful and you just had to like withdrew your money basically. It seems they know like the these teams are aware of the misstep. Like we've seen Kraken as well. There's been like emails snapshots going around of like we know you tried to buy the sale and could not. Uh we're going to airdrop you some some freebie tokens uh after this token, you know, the market goes live. Um you

know, maybe realizing a little bit of like a failure or misstep on their end. try to not completely lose maybe some customers that uh are put off by this event. >> Well, to make it right, they decided to airdrop everybody who didn't get in 20 United States dollars, which is fantastic. >> Yes. What's better than 20 United States dollars? >> Nothing. Nothing. >> 21 United States dollars. >> Perhaps 20 invested into Pump at a$4 billion valuation. Yeah, >> Danny, weren't you tweeting Weren't you tweeting over the weekend that the valuation on Hyperlid or something now implies like a much higher than $4

billion valuation? >> Yeah, the pre-market's priced at like around a $6 billion FTV. It might be a little lower than that now. Box pulling it up. >> It's really crazy how much volume has been taking place on Hyperlid for pump as well. That's like really just nuts to me. All the all of the price discovery for it has been on on hyperlquid. >> Can I say something? >> Speak freely >> about Ryan. >> This is I think a lot of the time we are now I'm not going to argue about like the valuation and whatnot because that's everybody gets their own opinions.

That's the whole point of the market. But this is the first instance I think I've ever seen of a decentralized exchange being able to facilitate as you said uh price discovery like >> and I think it's it speaks a lot to like like you said Ryan I think this is probably a fork in the road because a it dispels the myth that Solana is unstable and you can't do anything on it at least to like what a lot of ees have said historically is that you can't do anything. You can't trust Salana necessarily because it used to have um outages. We saw that it outperformed sexes and I think it's also speaks to

hyperlquid is that it's able to capture some volume of this like I think it could be a fork in the road for decentralized um avenues as opposed to centralized exchanges. That's it. That's my >> Go ahead, Ryan. >> No, you go for it, man. I talk all the time. >> I would say if Salana didn't work for this, that's a massive failure. Like this is it's just people like sending USDC to an address. So like I mean it's like table stakes. If the chain goes down for this, it's like I mean there's a lot of things wrong under the hood.

Um, but I think like kind of the real test will be when that actual token starts trading um on chain for spot and kind of see how you know how much demand there is there because I imagine there's going to be quite a lot and it's definitely be much more of a stress test than um, you know, simple like USDC transfers. >> This episode is sponsored by Katana. If your assets are sitting idly, they're dead. Katana is built from the ground up to bring your bags back to life. Get started with Katana by joining their pre-eposit campaign before mainet launches at the end of this month. Follow the links in today's show notes to get started. This episode is brought to you by Ledger, the global leader in digital asset security. Celebrating 10 years of innovation, Ledger remains the most secure hardware wallet for your

crypto and login. Trusted by 7 million users and securing 20% of the world's digital assets. Follow the link in today's show notes to grab your Ledger now. As always, investments in blockchain technology involve risk. Terms and conditions apply. Do your own research. Could you argue that this is maybe a litmus test for if like onchain IPOs would work? I I know that this is quite a bit different from how like an IPO would happen uh process-wise, but you know, we haven't seen someone attempt an ICO in some time. And depending on how this thing goes after trading begins, you know, if Pump is able to like continue to sustain this crazy valuation, maybe it looks more

attractive to teams than going the airdrop route. And whether or not they try to do like a more equity-like thing or just bring back ICOs altogether. Um, you know, it it feels like the the outcome of once this thing begins to trade could determine whether we see more attempts to do this like pump token like ICO. Um, I'll be I'll be curious if there's a huge selloff now that it's overpriced from the 4 billion where it was uh where where it began trading. Um, I wouldn't be surprised to see that, but I'm curious if you guys think like what what are the forward-looking implications of this rather than just the pump thing itself?

>> Well, I I think ICOs have just been regulatory arbitrage. Like you weren't able to do IC I think airdrops have just been regulatory arbitrage. haven't been able to do ICOs and then now um well I I think most people agree that like unless you get an airdrop and a lot of money off of it then you you realize that ICOs are pro airdrops are probably not the best way to use your tokens. Um but I think you want people to buy in and I think you want to offer some form of allocation to retail and regular users.

So I think we'll see more and more ICOs. I mean I like we'll see with plasma as well. I think if sonar works well with plasma echo sonar that like trilmma thing then we'll hopefully see more and more things launch over there. >> Yeah. Yeah. I would totally agree with that. I think also like just the fact that pump is actually making money. It's like, okay, we actually don't need to shut out a bunch of tokens to users, but you know, they cleared like like it was 800 million in like cumulative revenue prior to the um ICO. So, it's like, you know, but if you're a protocol that needs to airdrop to try to get some sort of like incentive flywheel going, maybe it's

just a different story. But, I mean, for guys like this, I think, yeah, to Buck's point, it's kind of the way to go. I think >> yeah, I think we're out of that twin headed like section where it's, you know, you don't do a sale because the SEC is going to clamp down on you. Um, but you also maybe don't need to airdrop tokens anymore because like like Ian said, if you're pump and you're making a ton of money, like you don't need to incentivize. I mean, there might be arguments about maybe they do need to incentivize some activity given the the recent uh push from Bon, but that's that's sort of separate, I think, from raising like $600 million. Um maybe they could do some small incentives to get that back.

But yeah, we're we're out of that forest of like, you know, hundreds of protocols that make no money that are dropping tokens on people to kind of incentivize them to come over there and draw drive some usage. >> Also, like incentivizing usage is not a crazy thing. Uber did it like for I think the first year when I was in university, you could take Ubers for like two bucks and it was fantastic and it was all just VC money incentivizing it. So it's not like a bad business decision to incentivize. It's probably not great to airdrop $600 million. Um but you can't really complain if it happens to you. So, you know, it's like we've seen people not argue against it, but if you're allowing people to buy it in an ICO, it's also the same thing.

>> Yeah. I mean, there's also a difference between giving away a million dollars to a user and like giving them a 50% discount on the purchase price of a product on your platform. >> Yeah, Jack, there we go. >> Go ahead, Jack. I know you wanted to say something. >> Yeah, speaking of free money, uh, this tweet caused quite a bit of controversy, got the people riled up, so I wanted to, uh, to bring it before the council here and get some thoughts. But basically, Katherine Ross and I from the editorial team had a scoop that uh Pump Fund plans to share 25% of its revenue with uh holders of the Pump token. This is notably a pretty new thing in in crypto relatively speaking. UniS swap famously

has never shared its revenue with token holders. Um I guess Hyperlquid is another um case where they are trying to kind of do buybacks and things like this. But someone tweeted only 25%. Why is it not 100% of your revenue that's being shared back with token holders? I thought that was a little silly because if if you give away all your revenue then you can't pay for like the business part of the business and employees and development and all that stuff. But many people in the comments were saying no, this is a good idea. And I I mean I think they're making the point that um like publicly traded companies give all of their profit to uh equity holders, but that's obviously different from revenue. But that distinction aside, um

do like I guess what is a fair revenue share for Pump to make with token holders? Um >> yeah, I'll start there. I want to start I want to start with something that's before the concept of how much should be shared one way or the other. I think the problem that we have is that there's a distrust here on both sides of this arrangement where we've had this token and equity structure for a long time. And in some cases sending money to the token doesn't actually mean giving it to the people holding the tokens. It might mean a DAO entity that then you know operates with those funds to to build out things for the protocol.

Um whereas the rest of the money goes to like this founding labs team. Um, so I I think there's also like a nuance here in like they could buy back the token with 25%. They could also like create some decentralized DAO group that operates with that 25% buyback as like funding for their efforts. Um, but yeah, I don't know. I think there's a lot of confusion over these like multiple different ways that the money can flow, right? You could just go ahead and buy back the tokens with the cash. you could give it to some some group that operates in your presence like a you know an arbitum DAO uh etc and like pay pay people via that means or the money goes to the labs team

and they keep building for the sake of the protocol. >> Yeah, I agree with you Daniel. think this is more a comment. Well, I don't know what the intended the replyer intended, but I think it's more of a comment on equity token structure as opposed to like sharing 100% of revenue. Um, that's it. Like if the pump token only has 25% of the revenue, it's kind of mean like no matter what they do with that, it's not great, is it? It's like because 75% goes to equity and that's something that >> but I but I kind of agree with Jack in the sense that people are not like revenue is not the same as profit right

>> like sure you should have like a 100% uh rights over the profits but like revenue it's like that's just the top line like you still need to account for business expenses reinvestment stuff like that. Yeah, >> that's fair. >> I I did look through Zerox Moose Man's tweets to see if he was just like kind of trolling Jack here. But he's just kind of one of those guys who just tweets a lot of like open questions. >> My favorite guy. >> Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Why? Why this? Why that? But I mean, clearly he's stoked the fire here. So, >> can we bring Mooseman on the pod? Can >> I be a good man? That'd be a riot.

>> I do think like the biggest issue we have today is of course like this dual structure, but like this distrust that the industry has kind of earned for itself. You know, you have unis swap who's not, you know what I mean? They're enriching themselves at the expense like what's the point? The token is a meme. The unis swap token is a meme. It doesn't nothing goes to that token. There's no point in holding it. you're you're betting on this future chance that like they turn on some fee switch or like you know that you're hoping the labs team continues to work for the sake of making the token price go up via growth of the protocol. Uh that's a really weird bet to make I think when the equity exists and they're taking all the money from the protocol to to the labs team. Um and so I think that like

people in the industry are burned by that and so when they look and see new protocols they think well I want the I want the the money to go to the protocol. I don't want it to go to the equity because I don't I don't have any, you know, exposure to the equity. I can't get any exposure to it. >> Yeah. No. And the unis swap ends up spending that money on stickers at a little booth or like buying out a [ __ ] house in Tokyo to put holographic pink unicorns on it. And then they're like, "Oh, why are you upset?" And like I want to be fair to the haters here because the point a lot of folks are making is like you know Pump's margins are probably huge and so they could spend like 90% of their revenue on

or or they could um distribute 90% of their revenue to the pump token and they would be fine. um or like they hold a sizable allocation of the pump token, so why don't they just give away 100% of the revenue and then fund their business that way, which I don't really think you would want that. I guess I don't know if you guys know exactly how this would work, but my understanding of how like a revenue share might happen is for tax reasons you'd want something like an LST maybe where it goes into like val like the value of the token itself rather than giving you these dividend payments.

Uh so so at that point you're asking Pump to like dump its own token to fund operations which you probably don't want. But m am I misunderstanding this? >> They could just do a buyback like what we've seen with other protocols. >> So then yes, they would be just selling their token to fund the business. >> But like that's my understanding how like every protocol funds their business like like if they actually had like balance sheets and you would look at it, it'd be like all the expenses are just like in their token itself. So then if you can actually just to Carlos's point like have have a buyback or some sort of like um market value cruel mechanism to just

have everything denominated in their token. It's like things maybe look a little bit easier from that standpoint. But I mean the can of worms gets opened initially when you find out there there's even revenue to be shared and like it's not just like the token kind of performing uh you know on its own. I think um I think the reason that the 25 or that that it's rumored that the there's going to be a 25% buyback is um I think I think it's all path dependent. Like realistically, pump should not be returning revenue. Um in an ideal world, it would not return revenue. It would be investing for growth. But I think that the reputation of token issuers is so poor right now that um you have to give

the market something or else you're going to get punished. Um and and and Pump I think Pump understands this and that they they announced that it was or I think the rumor was that it's a discretionary buyback and not a programmatic one. Programmatic is so silly. Um discretionary is is the way it's done, right? Like you don't want to buy your token at any price. No one would. It's like a breach of I don't know if they have fiduciary duty on issuing a token but like to to do a programmatic buyback at any price is I would show that you know the team hadn't thought about this thing but clearly they have. They're super smart guys. So I think as a result of path dependency and just like where we are in the market today. If tokens had a better reputation I think they'd be able to get away with

doing the right thing which is not just you know which is not returning capital at this stage. >> Yeah. didn't really do anything to deserve the capital being brought to them. Like these guys built it on their own more or less, but they have two VCs in there. Um so, you know, token holders, yeah, their their um their contribution to the pump, by and large, their contribution to pump is yet to be seen. >> Do you know the structure that they have on token versus equity? >> No, but they definitely have equity, right?

They do have they do have equity, >> but it's unclear how at least to me I I don't exactly understand how it's structured, but I do know that they they have Yeah. kind of the dual structure. >> Yeah, I'd agree with Ryan though, like a buyback here or a rev share is it's like a bit of faith. um you have to you have to kind of give the market a little bit because they have no reason to believe that you're going to reinvest the money for growth at this stage because there's been zero examples of it being done in the past.

>> The low float high FTV tokens are really being punished. Look at the Zora launch. That thing's being punished. You have to tell the market that it's more than a meme coin at this point. And you know, maybe in 12 months that changes. >> Shout out to today's sponsor, Katana. Katana is a DeFi first chain built for deep liquidity and high yield. No empty emissions, just real yield and sequencer fees routed back to DeFi users. Incubated by Polygon Labs and GSR, Katana is launching with a notable ecosystem of primitives, assets, and partners like Morpho, Chainlink, and more. Be early to Katana by joining the pre-eposit campaign before mainet opens at the end of this month. Follow the links in today's show notes to get started. Ledger is the global leader in digital asset security, trusted by 7 million users and securing 20% of the

world's digital assets. In recent years, Ledger has built a comprehensive ecosystem of products and services, making digital ownership more secure and accessible for everyone. Ledger's newest devices, Ledger Stacks and Ledger Flex, introduced the world's first secure touchcreens, making it easier and safer to manage your transactions and assets. Alongside Ledger Stacks and Ledger Flex, they have also launched the Ledger Security Key app, offering a safer alternative to traditional passwords in enhancing your digital security. Follow the link into today's show notes to get started with Ledger today. As always, investments in blockchain technology involve risk. Terms and conditions apply. Do your own research. Uh, one of the other big question marks maybe beforehand was uh what what assets are people going to sell? Is this going to

be a liquidity suck uh on the trenches or on other tokens? Uh we do have from our boy Ox Sharples some data on sourcing of funds and um some of the big stuff just shows that I mean there's a little bit of a split here across dexes and sexes and then some unknown addresses that got in. Um, one call out, Jack, on that like average $400 buyin was that there was one address that funded 500 addresses with 200k and their average amount purchased was that $400 number. So, um, there may have been some waiting into that. Uh, the realistic like average

purchase amount might be much higher. Um, and it could be that like maybe they're anticipating some bonus for like smaller purchasers for whatever reason. Like maybe there'll be some bonus airdrop or something after the fact. Who knows? Um, that must have been some kind of motivation there for them to do that. Um, >> interesting. >> Yeah, I looked into that with Dan yesterday. Uh, it was one of those fun moments where I had like 20 Arkham Intel tabs open. Um, but it looks like that's just um a like industrial scam farm more or less. Like the guy's done it with like two other protocols before then where um just like sends out a bunch of tokens to different addresses, tries to

buy those tokens and like the pre-sale or whatever uh and then essentially just like funnels all the money back to the original address. Um, I think here they're just trying to like essentially test how good Pump Funds uh token distribution DD is going to be because like if they can just get some like extra tokens here, I think that's a win for them. >> Worst case to lose like 200k, but from their history looks like they've been um you know, kind of at this game for a while.

Um but yeah, I'm also curious how much that skewed the median amount of like deposits there. >> Why would they lose 200k? >> Well, if they can't get the tokens and the tokens or like because they send the USDC to a bunch of addresses and then they take that USDC, send it to the pump ICO address. if the pump ICO address doesn't like revert and send that money back to them which like they don't necessarily have to and they might be like kind of generally unaware of it um then they lose 200k so like I mean there are risking and like that's like kind of the total amount like it all flowed from buy to like buy bit if you're listening we have the address up there if you want

to go check and see who this is they've been like kind of serial scamming so >> oh wow >> go check it out but yeah >> was there there a max amount you could buy? Like um why why was this a why would why is this a scam or like why would this be beneficial to someone to split it into smaller amounts? >> A mill million bucks, right? >> It was a million per wallet, I think. So not there would be no reason to split up 200k unless you had some reason to believe that there'd be a benefit to doing it. >> I think it just probably looks a little bit I mean it's just like the playbook they've been running as well. Like it it worked with two other protocols. So I think they're like just kind of just keep it going for this one. Uh, and I

think there's been other times as well, we've seen protocols been like, "Hey, we're going to reward like this smaller guy, um, and like give like a small bonus of like whatever more to address that deposit less than like $1,000 or whatever. >> Um, >> they could also, >> sorry, go ahead. >> They could also be creating like wallets for future non-pump protocols. Like sometimes you find that this happens on Ethereum a lot. I don't know if it's happened on Salana yet, but it's like if you participated in X launch or whatever, they'll end up giving you some money. So maybe it's for that. I think in crypto you are typically rewarded for using multiple wallets as opposed to

just consolidating everything in one wallet. So they might just be working off that. It just must be such a struggle though to I don't know if you have to KYC all the walls. That seems ridiculous. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. If you KYC, you could you can only KYC one wallet. So, you you'd have to go around and ask like 500 different people or >> but you can buy mass KYC in >> yeah countries. It's not >> like that's what Bach does. Bach just buys his KYC on what's the website again? I forget the website. Anyway.com >> it's called kyros research.com.

used to buy KYC's. They do all kinds of illegal stuff over there. The SC needs to shut them down. >> Pow. >> I'll uh I'll share the rest of this dash that uh Sharples threw together though. But again, I think we can take this this median pump purchase maybe with a little bit of a grain of salt if there was a bunch of mass, you know, smaller wallet purchasing going on. But uh over 200 addresses put in a million. So that was a large chunk of the sale over you know over 200 million right there. Um and then good chunks of other like several hundred in the 100k to a million bucket.

So um typical I think typical like sort of power law distribution here you get a lot of wallets at the smaller numbers and and a few at the top that concentrate the sale. Um and then again just that updated chart. Maybe the only other interesting thing is that you can see in here like the pump purchased by wallet age there was a basically half of the sale was brand new wallets you know funded from exchanges or wherever else and then another large chunk like basically the other big half were pre-existing wallets that that people had been using. So, >> active addresses, baby.

>> The uh the the frequency distribution is is interesting because you would still have a median close to um close to 500 bucks. It seems if you were to parse out those 500 wallets, right? >> If that was the only case of it happening. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But if you know that that's why I'm saying maybe you take that with a grain of salt. Like if 2,000 of these addresses were all, you know, maybe it was four or five individuals that mass farmed out wallets, then uh it might change a little bit what this looks like.

>> Um but I think you're probably right. Yeah. >> What do you guys expect for the token to do following the launch? >> Oh, uh can I can I make one more point first? Is it's just interesting to look at uh just on this liquidity question. If you go to like Coin Gecko, Salana meme category, basically everything is up like 20% plus over the past week. So it seems like the market absorbed the ICO positively. Um, which is not was not a universal prediction. Some people were like, "This is going to take liquidity out of the trenches or whatever."

>> Well, we'll see what happens. The token still hasn't launched. >> Exactly. I know what I think. >> So, so to Picacio's question, what what do people think happens when post launch? >> I'm long >> Monday, July 14th. I'm long. >> I also think it goes up. I think people will also chase badass in other launch pads. Um, probably. Um, I'm also long launchcoin, by the way. So, hopefully Launch coin looks good here.

>> The flywheel is going. >> I think everybody's long a long launch coin at this point. Ben pass Evelyn. Who needs another bag? >> Needs another bag. >> Needs another bag. >> We all share something. Maybe we can look at this and consider what what we think about the Gate IO pump fund price prediction. They're saying 2025 minimum uh a little over 4 cents, highest price a little over seven. Uh, and it just trends up over the next 10 years. >> Holy [ __ ] If I hold this for 10 years, I'm guaranteed a free X.

>> Interestingly, like the average price here, well, I forget Bach, if you have the uh pre-market up, but the average price listed here is is still below I think where the pre-market's trading at, which is like uh five 59 58. >> What is this? Who's doing 10-year price predictions? >> This is on Gate.io. I don't know. I don't know where they must get this from their users but >> is this something that we can start doing on block works research? >> That is fantastic. They're like in traditional equity research that they'll give like one or two year price predictions and like a very stable company like Philip Morris might get like five or seven. No, [ __ ] it. Let's do uh let's do the 10-year price price prediction on the memecoin token.

>> Also, if I'm reading that chart right, that's their minimum 2025 price is a 10x, right? If because it's at a tenth of 4 cents and this is saying minimum price is 4 cents. >> I like what I see in the >> Oh, you might be right. Are they unless they got the decimal wrong. They had to have gotten the decimal wrong. >> Yeah, >> I think they're just extremely bullish >> because the numbers otherwise kind of reflect where things are at. >> Yeah, >> they're just pulled up. >> Minimum 10x minimum 10x.

Oh man. Good old gate. >> I don't know. I don't know. I think it goes up. >> It's trading at 59. Is that what it's at right now? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I think it goes up. NFA, not financial advice. >> Yeah. So, what do we I guess that's there's some context, right? It's plus 50% from the sale. Um, all those people are unlocked day day one. So, if you bought in with size, you can sell for plus 50% right now. Well, I I feel like anybody who's sophisticated enough could have just put on a short at this point because shorts were getting paid anyway.

So, >> okay. A a $6 billion FTV would make it the 32nd largest token. >> That just seems too high. >> Does it value based on stack rank? >> It's like the second or third highest revenue generating token. It would be. >> Yeah, I think that's very justified. Like if you look at some of the first of all, like a lot of those prices are fake on there. Like a lot of the valuations are like made up. Um, a lot of those coins shouldn't even exist. So, I mean, it could honestly it should be like top 20 if like we're being like legitimate.

Um, >> top 20 puts you 10 billion market cap or higher. Also circulating will be at 55% or 45%. One of the two. So it's around like 2.7 to 3.3 bill in terms of circulating and part of that won't unlock for a really long time and the other part is like locked for the next two. >> We do we have full clarity on what what supply will be circulating? Obviously all of the sale will be circulating. That's a large chunk. >> Well, you can look at this is like such a difficult conversation to have because it depends on what you count. Like I would personally not count treasury as part of circulating market cap, but I know people who will count treasury as part of circulating market cap. So it's

>> no I'm not concerned about that. It's more like are are insiders unlocked like uh you know VCs anyone else that that pre purchased in previous rounds are they unlocked on day zero or no? >> I think 1.3 billion at four bill is unlocked at day. >> Okay. So like a third >> 600 time 600 plus 720. So 132. So 33%. Round it up to 35. >> Yeah. So if it if it's 6 billion FTV, then it's a $2 billion market cap coin.

>> What is Launchcoin at? What is the parody? >> Launchcoin's in like a 100 million something. I think it's like yeah, probably a little closer to 200 now. >> But we have a we have a big week coming up. We have pump, we have plasma, and then we have one more thing. I'm trying to think, right? We have world liberty finance doing something. >> Anyone that? >> No. >> Yeah, the governance forum has lots of activity for world liberty finance.

Lots of activity going on over there. Unironically, like it's the most votes and comments I've ever seen on anything ever. >> Are there like notable crypto people participating or >> uh for define notable? >> Someone in this chat would know them. >> Notorious or >> Yeah. Yeah. probably more the latter. Um, some things better left unsaid.

>> All right, I ran I just wanted to get this out. I ran some quick math. Like, so even at Pump Fund's current run rate, like the past week, where they've lost some market share to Bonk, which is like roughly 500k a day in revenue, uh, and you take into account a 25% rev share. If they're at a $2 billion circulating market cap at at launch or list or whatever you want to call this, then that implies like a 44 multiple. It's not insane. Not for crypto. >> I don't know. That doesn't sound as attractive as I originally thought it was.

>> It doesn't sound as attractive as when the revenue was 2x higher a week ago, but um >> you're saying the burn on on the recent step down in revenue, annualized burn on is that 40%? I I took into account their revenue from the past week. Like if this were to continue then um then you're looking at a 44. Obviously you could chop that in half or more if they were to return to those prior numbers. >> It's it's pretty interesting. I >> have upside on that. I I'm um you know for I I as I as I spend more time in markets I'm increasingly of the belief that more data actually hurts a lot of people like to to get daily revenue data is like a

curse. Um if you had daily revenue data on like I don't know Google as a startup you'd probably find a lot of reasons to be bearish. um in reality you just want to look at the bigger picture and I think that you know perhaps a lot of people are doing that with a lot of different things in crypto today um on both the upside and the downside like like I you guys saw in the chat this morning where I'm like oh drifts per revenues are at all-time highs like does that matter at all >> um it's one week worth of data box says no >> it's like death you It's just it's um you can really tie yourself into a

pretzel just looking at the daily data. I think it's better to zoom out with respect to pump. They have they have a great brand and that probably matters more for the next few months. I also think with um crypto in general like nature of open source technology it's like everything consolidates into a capital game and yeah like with pump having like you know couple billion dollars cash um assuming they didn't just dump all of the money they made from u revenue already which I don't think they did. I think we definitely would have seen that show up a bit more. Um, >> what?

>> No, go ahead. >> They sold 800 million souls in the US. >> You think they sold 8 You think they sold 800 million soul? >> Yeah. Not 800 million sold. $800 million. >> $800 million is I don't Why? Why do you think they >> using Kraken? Kraken. Kraken. >> And this is one of those examples where I think knowing too much hurts. Like, oh my god, sell the soul or sell the soul. Like people are arguing about it all day. Like in actuality they made a ton of money and that's probably the only thing that matters.

>> Wouldn't Wouldn't that be a great argument though? Like if we go back to that prior number like if it's at two billion market cap circulating and you're telling me they have two billion in cash. >> Yeah. If they have two billion of cash like >> you're like let's let's trade it on the MNAV. Like let's run this thing to 10x MNAV right now. It's a Treasury Co. >> Yeah. No, seriously. But yeah, I think having that much capital is just like a massive win for them already. Um because like what is Bon doing differently from the let's say like the product standpoint? I'm not really sure. To my understanding, it's like there's a large part of like the slopp supply chain, the

slopp industrial complex if if you will, where it's like you have the deployers that are going to like a new platform now and just like spinning up a bunch of new tokens over there. And I think like there's um not a lot of chatter about that because it's like pretty unknown like who these guys are um why they're incentivized to go over there. like is there a revshare deal? Um and they seem to leave right as it was confirmed that like uh pump people were not getting any sort of IC or airdrop.

So I think there is something to watch there. But like in general, if you have like two billion of cash, you can incentivize those guys to come back. I don't think they're necessarily like ideologically aligned. I think they're probably profit aligned. Um, and I assume that Blanc is doing some sort of like incentive share with them, but um, competition's good nonetheless. But what's up, Bon? I love how you raise your hand. You're you're always the most polite one on these podcasts. >> I want to correct myself. They have not sold their soul. They just deposited into Kraken probably just to hold it there and not do anything else with it.

So, just FYI, >> there's no way to like if you don't want people to see what you're doing with your funds, you usually move it through like a centralized exchange and then come out. It's like the they're the new tornado cash. >> I don't know. I I prefer to see the worst in people personally. >> I don't even think selling I don't even think if you make if you make $800 million of soul and you're selling it, it's like are you morally wrong for sell? No, not at all. like you're literally just like >> putting your Yeah, there's nothing there's nothing wrong with that at all.

It's not extractive. Um I just kind of disagree with like that term in general. I think we just kind of like lost the definition of it because like there it's not like they're taking it and they're going and buying like I don't know Australian beachfront property um like we've seen you know maybe some other other folks do. Um like to our understanding like they're still they're still in like building this. These are like young guys. Um >> yeah, the difference here is that there's one team that is shipping free mill into the native token a day and there's another team selling free mill of the native token of their chain a day. And that's that's really just a big

difference here. But agree >> one of them is a tremendous waste of capital. The other's prudent. >> Yeah. And one of them is going up and the other >> the other one isn't live yet. >> You said that they're you said that they're both >> the other one's plus 50% in premarket. What do you >> One of them's 25x. We don't have to talk about this. I'm I've already given >> No. Well, I don't think we need to pit pump and hype together. I think there's actually a little bit of a beautiful combination going on with pre-market on on pump token and uh this combination of memes and per as we've seen with Phantom Axiom like they're all jumping on this bandwagon. This episode is brought to you by Marinade. Marinade is focused on

developing staking technology that strengthens the Salana network and connects soul holders with the best staking rates available with solutions for both DeFi and Trady including liquid and native staking as well as direct enterprise integrations. Marinade's high performance staking delegation platform brings billions in liquidity and security to the sole market. To learn more, follow the link in today's show notes. And thanks again to Marinade for sponsoring today's episode. As always, investments in blockchain technology involve risk. Terms and conditions apply. Do your own research. I wanted to get back to the actually though the we we were hinting a little bit at like the the pump versus bonk uh or radium. It it's sort of one and the same at this point. um kind of uh battle right now.

And I think maybe the one of the big things that sticks out to me is like Radium going after being like the back end basically because they're employing a strategy here that's uh maybe relatively similar to something like Hyperlid's builder codes thing where they want other brands to launch Launchpads using their stack uh and capture a portion of fees there, which is what Bonk has done. And there's been some other ones, but Bonk is really the only one that has traction behind it. Um, as we've seen from token creators shifting from from Pump to Bonk. Uh, I think that opens up the question though, like if Pump Pump wants to be the front end, that seems to be their goal, right?

They want to do live streaming, they want to do social, they want to tie it all in with the casino. Um, the longer term like growth sort of upside there feels more meaningful to me than being like this back end that's taking BIPS. I don't know. What are you guys thoughts? I think it's the perfect strategy for Radium because Radium could not handle being a front end because their front end is horrible. But I agree with you that it probably pays more to be a front end than to be a back end. I just think that both are semi viable strategies. Like I think yeah, I think like the Radium angle probably works better for them than anybody else.

>> Another thing is like launchpads are basically a race to zero from my point of view. Like why do you need 1,000 launch pads? Like you you don't even need like five launch pads. Like you have pump maybe a few three or four differentiated more and then that's it. Like why do you need more than that? Like it's it's it's not logical like to have it's like hyperl, right? Like you don't need like 1,000 BPS exchanges. You just need like one, two or three, right? It's it's like it it will consolidate around a few brands basically.

>> I I agree on the launchpad thing though I I do think given the path dependency of launchpads that you need a few because I think they they cater to different capital bases. I think it's going to be really hard for Pump to turn on like to to cater to more sophisticated capital given just its reputation. And I I I wouldn't say that Pump has look I I think very highly of Pump, but I think it it it'll be really hard for them to cater to like traditional technology markets given where they're coming from. So I I do think that there's an opening for a more buttoned up legitimate launchpad. I think it'll be tough for Pump to bridge that gap. Uh but yeah, totally. Yeah. To have more than five seems like too much.

>> What is What is a buttoned up professional launchpad, Ryan? >> Launchcoin. He's bull posting your bags, >> but it's like famously not. So, what would that >> Benac is launching Slack and Discord integrations this >> button up? >> Oh, I'm sorry. I I didn't realize. But no, like every memecoin trades like a memecoin. So, I just don't I don't see how you have a memecoin launchpad that isn't unserious. >> The point is to not be a memecoin launchpad. >> Not. Yes. Yeah, exactly. It's not that everything should be a memecoin launchpad. It's that there should be some curation layer that allows different types of projects to launch.

>> Yeah, completely agree. I think if you if you believe in the if you believe in the believe thesis, the launchcoin thesis is is that actual, you know, businesses and startups will launch tokens on chain and do a pump-like or other, you know, token like thing where they share some revenue of that product with the token and make it more of an equity like thing though not necessarily an equity. Yeah, believe is coming from an interesting angle that they have the memecoin thing, but if you go to their website like they have the I forget what they call it like the builder believe book or something like that where they like tell founders how to launch coins or launch meme coins for their project.

Uh I don't know if it's the right move but I think directionally you need you need some curation layer. People people want that. A lot of people won't participate if they don't have it. I do think we're at that stage where the famous Picacio maxim comes into play where V2 is greater than V1. I think in this case we're probably at the point of wanting V3 over V2. Um some conversations I've had just like with some of the whether they're founders or whoever in this space is like there's still a hesitancy here to launch a crypto token. um it's seen as very risky and so like if you're already taking a lot of risk by making a startup uh it's questionable that you'd want to compound that today. They they're not seeing like

enough confidence out of a platform like this yet. So I do kind of agree with Ryan's point like we probably need a little bit more buttoning up. My lukewarm take here is that I think it makes more sense for Echo or Soner to act as this buttoned up token launching or like whatever ICO retail allow retail to buy platform as opposed to whatever we launch on Salana. Um that's like I think it's probably more palatable for founders, for VCs, um for retail. I think there's it'll probably work better and I I see that as as being like as filling in that gap as opposed to launch.

>> I also think it's bad dependent, right? If you get one reputable launch in the leave, then others may be more comfortable and then you get more and more and more launches. And but I also see the point of like just going to echo and do it like a more like >> because you actually get exposure to the equity side of the business in that case and that benefits both founders and the like ICO participants. So I see both points but yeah >> if we say path dependent one more time my parlay is going to hit. So let's say okay.

>> All right I'll hit it for you. I think the interesting part for the onchain like fully onchain ones is this regulatory arb here avoiding KYC and you know in the US if it's like being an accredited investor um hitting certain status milestones to participate in sales there's like there's like a value there there's like a latent demand clearly from this like retail audience that just wants to bid these things um and so I think if you have to build a platform that loses that you kind of miss out on a big piece of the puzzle there because obviously the people who can participate in angel rounds and private deals today like this isn't like a blocker and a limiter for them. Um so

I do think it's tough and I think that's where maybe some path dependency comes in. Um, like Carlos mentions, if you get if you get one really interesting founder, uh, and you let, you know, retail that loves this guy on Twitter or whatever come in and and buy a piece of his token and he shares some, you know, revenue with it and then grows his company 100x, like that's a great outcome and would probably drive more people on chain. >> Yeah. I think if plasma does well though, we'll see the opposite where like a lot more people go on ster dependent. >> Yes.

>> Slam. The answer is just more sales, more ICOs. Huh? >> Like said, >> sonar just seems more cryptonative to me than um >> seems more what >> more cryptonative in a way. Like I I don't think many people outside of crypto know about Sonar, whereas Believe is just like Pastor Neack is very well connected in web two. So he kind of has like that edge with uh his network. >> I imagine Kobe's better connected than Basson. I'd way do that. >> There there's um there's one point we haven't touched on regarding Pump that I wanted to bring up, which is uh their their acquisition of K Scan. Um around the time of uh the like leading up to

the ICO and stuff, there was kind of this like narrative um this like this like narrative train around Pump that was fun to riff on. I think Wart had a tweet that was like, you know, at this point I don't see why Pump can't compete with Saudi Aramco. Like th this thing is going to take down LinkedIn and Discord and Tik Tok all at once. Um, and so it was interesting to speculate with all this capital, what is Pump actually going to do? And their first acquisition to me was a pretty disciplined one, I guess you could say.

Um, KC Scan essentially to my knowledge just sort of a platform for copy trading. you can see what profitable wallets or well-known wallets are doing and uh follow them and and track them. And there there's like a leaderboard integrated as well, but it it basically just takes Pump a little deeper into the like social media for memecoins thing. Um it doesn't build out their live stream business much or anything like that, but I'm curious what people's takes were seeing that acquisition happen. >> Well, I thought it was going to be Axium and then I brought that up and Ryan said I was because they could never afford buying Axiom. Um, but I I don't really see the K scan thing because it kind of looks like a bite coding project from three months ago. So, I'm sure that

people actually use it, but I don't really like why wouldn't they just I don't know how much money they spent on it. So, it's obviously dependent on that, but I don't really see why they wouldn't just try and build that in-house as opposed to it. It didn't seem like a huge engineering lift to me that they had to buy it. And I don't think that it would have better network effects than if Pump were to launch something of that sort on themselves. >> We don't know. So, it's >> here. Here's some details. It has a token. Prior to the announcement of them purchasing it, it was valued at less than 300K. So, I can't imagine they spent very much money in this acquisition.

>> And the most random Twitter accounts leaked it. It was like after the fact it would be like X account with 80 followers being like hearing Pump acquired K scan more shortly and they all got it right. >> Do we have any evidence that Pump has historically not been shrewd with their capital? I don't think so. >> Yeah. So, I I I'm going to assume that they paid a fair price and that it was, you know, a smart acquisition as opposed to like blowing money.

>> I wouldn't say they're blowing money. I just felt like it was going to be a bigger thing when they announced it on their Twitter and then it was chaos. >> Well, that I mean a so a splashy acquisition I would say would be bearish. Like I think a lot of the things in crypto you can build mostly yourself. Um, so for them to buy a 300K market cap project, I think is pretty um, you know, if they had if if there were rumors that they were trying to buy, you know, a large Telegram bot or something, I think that that would be show a lack of discipline, but I think, you know, I I expect them to be pretty shrewd. I I think they I think that they know what they're doing or at least we don't have any evidence that they that they waste money. I don't understand why

it would be bad if they, let's say, went out and bought Foton for whatever. >> Too much money. >> What? >> It makes too much money. >> Not Photon. Like I guess >> I I I I assumed the same thing. Um I had said Photon um a few times publicly assuming that it was irrelevant now, but it still prints. It's still a top 15 app by onchain revenue. >> Even even though Axioms, you know, seems to be blowing everyone out of the water, Photon's still bringing in a good amount of cash. So I, you know, I don't think that they could >> You could go down that list a little bit though, right? Like a Bloom, a Nova.

Yeah, >> they still make decent money, like you know, maybe a million a day or something like that, but they're you could probably get one of these for for cheaper. I mean, they don't trade at high multiples just given how cyclical and like low defensibility there has been in this category. >> I don't know if it's still bringing in a million a million a day. >> Cool. I've seen him. >> I I think Yeah, I think you have to go really far down that list to find something that's kind of more or less dead. >> Oh, sorry. I tossed out a trading volume number. So, if you're doing a million in trading volume, you're making >> you're making very little money.

>> Gotcha. >> I think that like future parody. Go ahead Jack. >> The the rivalry between Axiom and Pump is an interesting one. much much more interesting to me than pump and bonk fun. Um it's like two sets of cracked 21 year olds who like built these apps that became just unbelievably lucrative very fast. Um the uh the Axiom guys are like 21 22. They they dropped out of UC Davis or something and went through Y Combinator. Um kind of the same for the pump guys. So I yeah the an Axiom acquisition would have been fun. I don't think Axiom would want to be acquired though by Pump that there's like almost

like um I mean outside of the money of it all, Axiom maybe tries to portray itself in a little more buttoned up of a way than Pump does, which is very like uh zeitgeisty like meme meme posting on its main Twitter and stuff. So, but it it's as I think about it, there's like kind of a fun there's a fun narrative there where it's kind of uh two similar sets of very young founders who just have so much money now and how are they going to battle going into the future. >> That is that is that's the most exciting like kind of competition in crypto today. Axium versus PUP.

They both have very um yeah, they're the two best apps and they're they're in direct competition with one another and we'll see what happens. >> They also notably like um Axiom raised no venture funding outside of the YC check and Pump Fund raised like pretty little. So they're also both just kind of not these like typical crypto heavily VC backed things. So there's a fun aspect there too. Didn't Pump just raise 1.3 bill?

>> Yes, but not from like venture investors. >> Sure, but that was an ICO in it. >> Well, but they also raised 720 from investors. From VCs, >> from private investors. They weren't necessarily VCs. >> Whatever. Private investors. They raised Well still >> it's very different. It's not like Andre is on the pump cap table. >> It's a little bit different than a preede in this. Someone put in a I if the data is right that I saw someone put in a hund00 million check in the pump. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a >> $und00 million check. >> I don't know if this data was right, but um an anal like an onchain guy posted a bunch of addresses and big numbers for pump.

>> Also, I'm sure Andre's a LP and some crypto funds probably did. >> Oh, yes. No, exactly. They they are in funds that are in this. I know that for a fact. Um, >> so you got fact checked, Jack? >> No, but I I think my point still stands. An ICO is notably different from raising like a hundred million in venture funds, I would say. Even if even if half of it was uh a private sale. >> Yeah. No, agreed. But let's also not be like poor Pump. They didn't raise any money and then they're the underdog.

Like these guys raised quite a bit of capital. Both >> I think you're both right. I think from like a from a you know pump's later stage than Axiom right like they and they did go from raising you know little dollars to begin with from very few professional investors and I do think it's right to frame the most recent sale as an institutional sale. >> I I guess I'm I'm also not trying to say necessarily that like pump not raising as much VC money makes it like for the people or whatever. Um I I think that's like a narrative that Pump wants to push that, you know, it's not necessarily true uh that they're like completely aligned with the uh the whims of crypto Twitter or whatever. Um but like I think

that the VC glut of the 2021 cycle just created a lot of like the oraoris like circular money and nothing very interesting really happened. So it's like these guys aren't um they don't have VCs on the cap table who are going to kind of control the things that they do. So it's interesting in that sense where um I think I had a sense with old some of these older startups that uh their money was was coming from the same sources and going in very circular ways and what they could do was kind of constricted by who they had on the cap table.

>> Yeah, I think that's fair. Um, awesome. Great chat, guys. Any other last big takeaways? Uh, I don't have one other than I think there are actually to the prior conversation with Ryan. Plenty of trading bots falling by the wayside, not making much money. That could be probably an easy cheap acquisition. Pumps trading app though it's better than it was a month or two ago, is still ass by comparison. So, I think they could get a big win by just >> getting a quick, you know, upgrade to their entire setup and then and chug along from there. Um, otherwise, yeah, pump fun. Pump the token should go live today. Uh, we're going to get off this

call and I guess this pod won't go live for a few days. But, uh, we're going to see how that goes. I think everyone maybe we'll do one more prediction here and then we'll see if we're wrong when this goes live on Thursday. Uh Jack, you had us on the live stream last week and we talked about whether it'd be up or down uh on the year. Uh maybe let's just talk about whether it's going to be up or down by the time this episode goes live. So predictions uh $4 billion FTV ICO. Are we going to be a higher or lower when this when this episode posts on Thursday? >> Oh, way higher. >> Higher. Way higher. >> What What if we set it at a more interesting number, Danny? Like what's the We said six billion is the pre-market price.

>> Okay. Will it be above or below seven billion? >> O >> higher. >> Above. >> Yeah. Where's the line? >> I think it's higher. >> I'm not giving odds and we're we're not betting on it because I'm already long the market. But Ian thoughts high or lower than seven billion by Thursday. >> By Thursday. When does it actually start trading spot? >> It starts trading today in like a few hours on exchanges. Oh, by Thursday.

>> Yeah, >> couple days. >> I don't know. But >> I'd say around I don't know. Probably around where it is right now, honestly. But it's going to be extremely volatile. >> You know what I think you're going to see in pre-markets? I think that you're going to see people close out positions in um in the hyperlquid market just to minimize risk when you kind of like switch to this public price. So like people are going to have the kind of some people aren't going to understand that dynamic and think that the price is coming down when actually like it's just people trying to minimize the risk and then after today it's going to go higher once all that's flushed out.

>> Yeah, I think they've already been doing that. We've seen the price actually come down. It's below six and it was above I mean it tapped seven the other day. So I think people are like concerned about volatility at sort of like market open I guess. >> Yeah. But I feel like I I don't you risk getting liquidated. >> Yeah. >> When trading it's going to go nuts. >> That doesn't make me very happy. I wish you didn't say that, Ryan. >> It could be. I don't know the mechanics well enough. Like I'm sure the exchanges are going to do a great job or hyperlquid is with whatever price feed they use, but I don't know. I'm very scared.

>> He hates it. Um, right now they're using eight hour moving averages to do funding and the price feed is just based on the order book. >> So that price is the actual price. I think from what I saw, MEXC is going to launch at five bill. So I don't know if anybody will sell though at five. Like to me that seems like a stupid what you're >> some people will sell. >> You're up. >> If you if you bought with the intention to sell then you'll sell. I mean here's the thing is the sale went live when the pre-market was trading at six billion.

So I mean if you bought in with size with the intention to just capture that gain then there there may be some >> Yeah. But who sells it at 25%. Are you not afraid to disappoint your >> There's There's different types of investors and traders out there. Um >> 25 If you want a 25% gain, go trade equity. Don't don't make any sense. >> All right. All right. Let's close it out there. Uh I also I'm going to go ahead and say below seven billion by the time this episode posts. We'll see if I'm right or wrong. I'm long right now, so maybe I'm going against myself.

>> Comes out Thursday. >> Yep. This this episode will be released. I think we'll be above 10B. Wow. >> 12 bill on Thursday, shortened the weekend, capture and then 40 next month. >> All right, we covered the whole price spectrum here, I think. So, we're going to find out on Thursday who was right, who was wrong. Uh, no money will exchange hands except for anyone that was already bidding on the the pre-markets. But, thanks for coming on, guys. Uh, great up. A lot of fun bantering around and we will see you all next time.

[Music]