Pendle V2 and Looking At Boros | TN

Transcript

Nothing said on Zerox 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. Pokio 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 am joined by TN uh from Pendle and Luke from Blockworks Research. Um, thank you for coming on T. How you doing? >> I'm very well. Thanks for having me. >> Perfect. And Luke, thank you for coming on as well. You're a very rare site on Xerx Research.

>> Fantastic to be here. Pleasure, Baka. >> Perfect. Um, Ten, just to get us started, I I mean, you guys have launched quite a bit over the past year. Um, feels like one of the few protocols that is continuously like launching new products and trying to figure things out. Um let's start with like your newest addition or newest change I guess um which is S Pendle. Do you want to run over um maybe in short like what was the reasoning behind replacing V Pendle and how the Spendle system is going to work?

>> Sure. So th this was something that we've been thinking of for for for some time and we thought right now would be a good time for us to transit from V Pendle to S Pendle. Now the the main reason why we wanted to make that switch is because when like yeah we're now operating at a different scale and V Pendle as much as we believe in the benefits of V Pendle at the early stage of V2 growth now given the difference in scale we wanted to pivot to something that is more encompassing and we think as Pendle would be a better fit. given

our current state. So going back to Vendle, it was a very good implementation to help us bootstrap liquidity because like for Vendle there had there were a couple of uh functions. Firstly, it boost APY. So in order for us to bootstrap liquidity for new pools, having the boosted APY was very effective. And then it was also a way for incentive like uh the weekly incentive um to be voted and and be channeled to the respective pool.

Um and and finally it was a way for it's a way for for uh fee sharing to the voters. So if they vote to the right pool they they will get a pro at it share of the fee that the the the pool generates on a weekly basis and yeah just given the current state I think as we observe when we look at the state of e pendle we noticed that because there had been a lot more organic demand and activity on pendle platform most of the time people wouldn't care too much about the boosted yield they would just deposit asset into the pool because they want to support the pool and the trading activity generally makes up the APY. So the

boosted APY doesn't make too much of a difference anymore. And then on top of that, we also notice that with VE, you have to lock you have to lock Pendle for a period of between one week and two years. So that also abstains a lot of funds, liquid funds specifically from participating and having a position on Pendle and that that that actually is one of the more consistent feedback that we obtain from speaking with different funds in in that like they want to participate and have a position on Pendle but their mandate does not allow them to do so. So it it it also triggered us to think about a structural

change to to the tokconomics and finally it's yeah that the voting part because um we we we noticed that like with the liquid lockers and the bribing economy at at at one point in time over 50% of the weekly emission goes to the bottom 10% of fee generator uh at at Pendle. So this is not the most effective use of Pendle emissions. We wanted ultimately right, we want emission to bootstrap liquidity, bring in new capital. Um but now a lot of that emission is stuck in pools that are not generating meaningful amount of revenue to the protocol and

yeah that is partly driven by bribes and and it's it's a very expected outcome given the economic uh benefits to the bribers and liquid lockers. So we wanted to reconsider our proposition and and yeah with Espendol we decided to streamline everything um make it easier for users to participate and align with the long-term uh direction of of of Pendle um and then yeah make it easier for uh funds to also establish a position.

I think that makes sense. It feels kind of like a common thread I think amongst I guess protocols with liquidity pools is that you need to implement some form of liquidity locking or like voting process to initially bootstrap. Was that always your plan or did you guys kind of launch VE Pendle because it made the most sense at the time and then recently you were like actually we should switch it up. And in terms of investors, apart from the lockup, did you also get feedback on the fact that it was maybe maybe they weren't able to participate in the governance? Maybe they weren't able to um maybe it was too complex for them. Was that also part of the reason behind it?

>> Yeah, it's it's it's a it's a mix of all all those factors that you mentioned. We naturally I think like at couple of years ago um one of the main drivers for us to consider V was um because we we we've seen successes with VC curve. we wanted to adapt it to our use case and then we think um yeah at that point in time regulators across the board weren't too supportive of crypto and then typically finding finding reasons to attribute a specific token governance token to to like being a securities and we thought

it would be more prudent for us to enforce that VE model and then require users, fe panel holders to do some work in exchange for reward. Now circumstance has changed. Market environment is is different from a couple of years ago and we think at our scale different considerations um are present. So so we think it makes more sense to do things a bit differently from before. And one ch key change in the spendle announcement is historically with ve pendle uh revenue was distributed in USDC but with spendle um it's now being used to buy back

Kendall tokens and distribute to espendle stakers. So curious about your rationale for that and your thought process behind choosing to buy back and distribute as opposed to buy back and burn. >> Yeah. Yeah. So um as we were thinking through how we wanted S pendle to look like we were referencing to a couple of models and we recognize that hyperlquid um is is like hyperlquid's model the buyback model has been quite successful.

So basically with protocol activity it translates to more revenue and then more buyback demand for the token and that is by our interpretation a very good way to translate protocol traction to to to buy back demand. So this is a similar kind of trajectory and the ideal end state for for for Pendle and yeah we we largely believe that uh while we're not at the state of hyperlquid like our revenue is significantly smaller than hyperlquid at this point in time but in terms of the end state we

want to align buyback with protocol traction. So now we have an incentive as a protocol operator to drive to to to to to figure out like very strong PMF and drive traction to the protocol so that it can translate to higher buyback demand and induce deflationary pressure of the token. And as to why buy back and distribute instead of buyback and burn, um, a couple of reasons. Again, like we referenced a couple of models. We see like with buyback and burn, BNB is probably the the the most popular example there, but in our case, we want users to participate in

governance token. So if we were to buy back and burn then we might deprive a lot of people from the ability to participate in governance voting. So that is one aspect. The other part is at this stage I still believe like with new new new boros updates with v2 implementations that are still ongoing. We're still in a growth stage and I believe at different times of the product product life cycle we might need incentive to bootstrap TVL bootstrap liquidity and activity. So if we were to buy back burn the supply we might inhibit ourselves basically completely eliminating our ability to use tokens to

incentivize certain activity on the protocol in the future. Whereas like if we retain that optionality by doing buyback, keeping a portion of that and then distributing a mo most of it, we allow users that flexibility to do what they want with their their portion of the token. Um at the same time, we also retain some bit that we can use to bootstrap traction or activity in the future. >> That makes sense. Um in terms of revenues I saw that 80% is going to be used for this buyback and distribute. I guess the remaining 20% is uh is for growth right?

>> Yes. >> And then how how do you guys plan on I mean I assume not everything is decided now but what are some general um decisions like that you guys are thinking of making or like what is the strategy behind that? Yeah. So, so this this actually follows the V vendle uh fee fee switch. So when we were doing the when we had V pendle we were keeping like so the protocol keeps 10% for expenses and then ecosystem portion is 10% the remaining 80% would be used to distribute back to users. So when we move to S Pendle with the 8020 split, this is still very consistent with what

we had with Vendle. So we didn't want to increase or decrease it. Just keeping it consistent. Now that's the V2 portion. At this point in time, we are not decided on how to utilize the revenue for Boro from from Boros. So basically the revenue that Boros generates right now goes back to reinvestment growth reinvestment and until we can very comfortably say that there's a very strong PMF and that like it can generate very healthy revenue we will keep it status quo. Um but in the future like um we we we're very clear that

Boros revenue would find its way to penal token. >> That makes sense. I and I guess this is a good time to kind of segue over to Boros as well, which I think is the second most or I guess like one of the two more exciting things that you guys have done this year. Um maybe for the uninitiated, do you want to give a short overview of what Boros allows people to do? >> Sure. So boros is a is a is a is a rates instrument. So it allows for funding rates to be traded uh like either from fix to float or float to fix. So that's the only use case borrow services at this point to give an example right

because right now when a user has funding rate exposure through per products they are usually quite subject to the volatility of funding rates. So what Boros offers is an avenue for the payer or the receiver to fix their rate so that they can be completely abstained from the volatility of funding rates. >> Perfect. And um what is I guess in terms of Pendle and Boros what is the average user for Boros look like? Like is this retail? Is this cryptonative funds? Is this maybe not cryptonative funds? And what does the Pendle user look like >> for now? I I want to say like for for

Pendle like V2, it's becoming more institutionalized. So when we have new markets, we typically see funds AUM that that is extremely diverse from like 30 30 mil to maybe 500 million AUM to participate in V2 opportunities. So PT specifically is usually more appealing to the bigger funds and then the YT opportunities are probably more attractive to to sophisticated retail or speculators. Now that that's like the profile that we're seeing. But in terms

of trading activity actually both sides are quite consistent with respect to boros at this point in time. I want to say just because Fors is a little over five months old, the user profile is still very it still centers around like the sophisticated traders. So they might be working with a big trading shop. They already know rates, they already know per. They want to experiment with Boros and figure out how they can utilize Boros as as an instrument to to to their respective strategies at their funds. So that's the kind of profile we're seeing.

Not so much retail um like amateur traders just yet. >> Yeah, I think that makes sense. Um and in terms of uh that I guess that demographic growing or shifting um maybe two kind of separate questions. you first of all like how are you guys planning on onboarding either more institutioners institutions more sophisticated traders or more retail which I don't know if the product will be a fit for but I I'm sure you guys have different ideas um and the second one is how has the feedback been so far from users um in the little over five months that it's been live >> in general the feedback has been largely positive from the ones that we are

monitoring but of course like um bugs here and there like th those reports come out every now and then but by and large in terms of the use case we're seeing pretty positive feedback and in fact we're seeing users returning to our product just to lock in rates in in certain scale now so from from our perspective now we have identified OTC to be a pretty important gotomarket strategy for boros Right now it's about 200 a little more than $200 million in open interest and then daily trading volume would fluctuate anywhere between $50 million and $100 million.

And a lot of times when we notice certain opportunities, we would just give a heads up to traders in our community. if they're interested, we can try to matchmake them and then allow them to trade in size uh have them settle on boros. Um and and and that that usually results in pretty meaningful trade between different parties. So that's something that we've been doing just matchmaking different different types of users and and um over time build up that user base and the use cases.

>> That's pretty cool. something unexpected I guess on my end. Um I have one last thing Luke before I'm going to let you unless what you want to ask is on this specifically. >> Go ahead. >> Last one is what are other markets that you guys want to launch on borrows? >> Yeah. So for borrowers given that we are very targeted at funding rates we have supported ETH BTC to begin and then high B&B markets. Last week we launched Nvidia as an experiment the parameters because it's the first first like equities prep that that we we we're listing on Boros. So we wanted to be

more conservative with the risk parameters and then over time make adjustments and allow for higher leverage, lower margin floor all those considerations. But right now that's the first and then we're also looking into like gold uh markets because like they they are already gold per on different venues. So that that is something that our users have feedback to us and we're looking into launching these markets. So going forward, how how we're thinking about our listing strategy is uh firstly uh observe some of the more sought after markets and then have them listed on

Pendle as quickly on boros as quickly as possible. So increasing the diversity of our offering not just confining to native crypto assets but to tokenized equities um to to commodities etc. And then the other thing is to also increase the number of venues we support. So we started with Binance and then Hyperlquid OKX. So we want to support even more venues. The good thing is with more venues and more markets, we can potentially highlight more odd opportunities. Now, as an example, right, Bitcoin or Binance trades at 5%.

And then Bitcoin or Hyperlquid trades at 10%. So, with the same underlying market, the there's a difference in funding rate between these two venues. So we can encourage our users to capture that spread using borrows and then lock in that that that funding rate earnings arbitrage. So I I believe with more asset types with more venues these sort of opportunities will become increasingly common and we might observe rates across different venues start to compress.

>> Yeah. One thing we found particularly interesting about the Nvidia uh perks listing is, you know, the other uh Bitcoin and ETH per markets listed on Boros, those reference markets might have um billions in open interest, but for Nibidon Hyperlid, it's only about uh 20 million right now in open interest. So uh Blackhorse research has been pretty constructive on the growth in OI and equity per uh we think it's going a lot higher but yeah curious to hear your rationale behind listing you know this kind kind of small addressable market right now or what your thoughts are for

what it will ultimately grow to and the opportunity it presents. >> Yeah so our our view is very consistent with block works. We think this year equities per would likely grow much more exponentially, but right now people are just getting used to the idea of trading equities per and I I I think there are probably a couple of factors at play here. Equities per right now still fairly small. It's not that uh like if you want to do size, it's a bit difficult and the fact is the funding rate swings too wild wildly. uh Nvidia could be trading at like negative 180 170% at one hour uh and then the next hour it it goes to

like 100%. So that that funding rate consideration could also potentially deter a lot of people from taking a position. Um so what we intend to do at least like from uh participant or stakeholder in the entire ecosystem is to offer boros as a product to help mitigate that funding rate exposure that that uh volatility right so that the the like training training training on equities per shouldn't have to be as intimidating um like just because the funding rate is very volatile um and then I I think naturally with more tokenized equities

on chain like with bigger liquidity market efficiency will find its way. Um but until then like there are things that we need to sort out uh like potentially constructing newer use cases um enabling tokenized equities to be used in different ways that were not possible in in in Trefy or incumbent financial sector uh using D5 technologies. So these are just some of the real uh like real worlds that that need to be in place before we see more meaningful traction. But otherwise I'm I'm very hopeful and bullish in in in the traction of equities per this year especially.

>> Yeah. So it's almost like that market needs a venue like Boros to be able to hedge to um support its growth, facilitate more trading. Uh, another thing I'm curious about is I guess when we first spoke about Boros, um, back in August, so open interest on some markets were capped. Believe that's since been removed. And additionally, leverage was capped at about 1.5x. Uh, but now on some of the bigger markets uh, with more open interest, uh, leverage is capped up at, I believe, 3x.

So curious like what metrics or KPIs you need to see hit to continue toggling those leverage caps higher and whether or not you've seen uh any significant liquidation flow in the system since yeah we've observed a couple of uh liquidation events. Um, but you're right, in general, we're still on the more conservative side and we're actively making adjustments to increase the n uh the the amount of leverage that we allow users to to to take up. In terms of the consideration, it's mostly on the reactivity of like just organic

um orders when certain market events happen. like let's say the the the funny rate swings like 100% in in like five minutes. Are there market participants coming in to scoop up or or put in orders to to to capitalize on that opportunity? So, right now we're still not seeing too much of that uh in in in action. um that they are already starting to like it it's definitely better than a couple of months ago but um when when there's a dislocation in the market it might take a little bit of time for the markets to start normalizing again so the yeah this this

is one um and then I think the other the other consideration is primarily just time as we become like as as we go through like more weeks more months observe surf and like having gone through more market events then we would naturally feel more comfortable with the risk system like I want to say compared to when we first started out in August we are in much better position right now we are more comfortable enabling higher leverage a higher cap to to to new markets and I think things will just naturally improve over time >> yeah I think that makes sense um I guess switching a bit away from boro Uh, I want to talk a bit about Pendle

V2. Um, specifically, I feel like we kind of covered this, um, in that you guys are planning on cutting emissions for, um, with the VE Pendle system, um, especially for like pools that aren't generating a lot of fees. How do you see LPS um, be incentivized going forward? Or am I do you know what I mean? like what are you guys going to do to make LPing in panel pools attractive? >> Yeah. So, so this is actually something we'll announce in in about a week time. So, basically previously the model that we have with V pendle is for just community to to vote on pools and then for the

emission to be based on the pool that the emission distribution to be based on the pool votes. Now we are we're we're improving the efficiency of uh polar emissions and doing doing it in a more algorithmic way. So next week we will actually publish our our um the methodology for how pools get incentivized. But basically in simple terms, right, we want to reward more like we want more more pedal emissions to go to pulls that are effective. Um and and when when there's very proven market activity over the course

of a week and there's like continuous deposit of liquidity then that that pull naturally warrants more pendal incentive. Yeah. So we do it auto like we with algorithm to determine the weights of different factors. We believe we can streamline that process and improve the efficiency of pedal emissions. >> That makes sense. I assume you'll also have some strategically important pools that you decide right like apart from the algorithm that get additional waiting is that um that's right.

>> Do you do you have any indication of what those might be like? How do you guys come up with that internally where you're like we want to because I mean with Nvidia right that's clearly uh something that you guys think is going to grow. So you're putting emphasis on it. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. So, so like there's definitely a big part of it is algorithmic and then there's also a small part that is discretionary. Let's say if we feel very strongly about a specific sector uh for example like RWA, we feel very strongly about it and we find a very strong high quality project that is offering very high quality yield to V2 holders. uh sorry V2 users then we

want to be more active in incentivizing that that pool so that it can bootstrap track uh liquidity and then it facilitates more trading activity. So yeah there there's always a discretionary component that that we can exercise. >> Perfect. Um with regard to Pendle V2, I have um and in terms of growth opportunities for V2, um the total address, I guess the addressable market, not the total addressable market. Um what do you guys envision those being going forward? What are some specific focuses you have?

>> Yeah, so this year we continue to be very focused on st stable coin and synthetic dollar. We see that yeah we we expect more of these assets to continue to to to to be created to show up the new sector that we're also getting involved in I is is um the the real world asset uh category but of course like real world asset is is like a big big sector and and with respect to how we think about going like our go to market uh for for this category of assets, right? We will very likely start with those that can already circulate permissionlessly

so that um like D5 protocols like us can can can be uh can create markets for for these like permissionless real asset tokens. Now to my knowledge there might be a little more than 20 billion dollars of RWA tokens at this point but most of them are still permission. So immediately we might not be able to cater our product to service the permission assets. uh for those that have like permissionless rappers or they have like stable coins uh issued backed by yield from real asset then th those those are the first set of assets we can

work with and and offer like meaningful yield markets on on Pendle and then going forward as the traction of this category of asset builds up then it would make sense for us to also launch a permission instance to service the permission assets. Um the end state of course like is for us to be able to offer these two instances um so that our users can can switch between these two instances to their liking. >> Yeah, I had one question just about um looking at V2 metrics historically and what they could look like going forward.

We've seen incredibly strong product market fit um for instruments that might there might be low variance in the principle but high variance in the yield um particularly like SUSD. Um but also very strong product market fit for like incentive programs um where the YTS have um some some additional coupon that the market can speculate on. And this has been somewhat both a feature and a bug where during the the bootstrapping phase. Um, Pendle V2 might exhibit upwards of like 80% utilization of the underlying market whether that's

something like SUSD or USD AI um which is incredibly high traction. But then once those points programs end or airdrops are allocated um we see these pretty large maturity events. Um so I'm curious is this is this just a uh a fact of life for the nature of um V2 liquidity or are there steps or processes you're you're trying to put in place to kind of combat that cyclicality of V2 metrics?

Yeah, definitely there are definitely steps that we're actively taking to mitigate the effect of TVL like as an example. So TVL is of course like a very important metric to pendal v2 because it a portion of revenue quant it comes from like TVL but the bigger bulk of pendle revenue actually comes from swap fees. So that means like objectively we should try to increase the trading activity with like with with the same amount of TVL we should improve the efficiency of TVL so that we can generate more swap fees on the same amount of TVL. So with limit orders with most of the performant

markets on Pendle now heavily relying on limit orders for trading activity to take place. I think this is one important and effective step that we've undertaken to uh improve or or like reduce their reliance on TVL as a core metric to to our uh like protocol performance in in the longer term. There are other improvements that we have planned in the pipeline to uh further mitigate the effect of TVL like as an example right because right now we see that there's typically a huge drop off of TVL at maturity. So let's say if SUSD matures end of September,

usually there is a pretty significant withdrawal immediately after the maturity event and then they would in the next two weeks or so find their way back to the protocol. So if we can just eliminate the consideration of maturity as an example, right? like that can also allow for user to just stake forget. They don't have to think about maturity anymore. They they just deposit asset. They can withdraw whenever they want, but otherwise they can just keep it in the pool and let it run and generate yield. So that's something that that is potentially uh a research angle for V2. Uh this is an area of interest um and and we'll

have to figure out how we can best implement that. Is the fix for that allowing for I guess like permanent provision or is it rolling with closer dates? Have you guys discussed it initially or is the research too early now and you haven't figured it out yet? >> Yeah, it's it's still fairly early in in the research phase. Um I think there are many different possibilities. At the end of the day, I think it it it probably doesn't matter so much which route we take as long as the outcome of user not having to do it manually is achieved.

>> And back at the start of 2025, um you all announced your citadels initiative which focused on three main goals. So PTS for non-EVM ecosystems, PTS for tradi and PTS for Islamic funds. So curious what the progress looks like on these initiatives and what we should expect moving forward. >> Yeah. So I want to say like with respect to Citadel by and large in terms of distribution it's been largely successful because as part of that Citadel that distribution it was focused on like crosschain is one uh and then getting it to be adopted across more

different venues is also another aspect of uh like the Citadel uh from a distribution standpoint. So as of last year PT asset make up at its peak around $6 billion of TVL on Ave and then over a billion dollars of morpho and similarly for for oil. So these are just I think um metrics that we considered for distribution of pendal assets and then this year we want to further increase the distribution outlet. So beyond just money market, we want more vault products to utilize Pendle for their strategies and then for earn products for neo banks card issuers to also consider PD as like fixed rate for for

their respective users. So yeah for for the first part of Citadel I think the strategy has proven to be quite successful and this year continues to be an important year for us to focus on the distribution of assets pendal assets with respect to institutional um side of things we've not made so much of a progress the the the the truth is we considered many different routes to enable permission pendle to be supported But I don't think the current condition uh allows for um for for for for what we have in mind to

to to do well. Um given that like as an example, right, given that the yield is largely compressed right now, most of the time unless the yield on a tokenized platform is significantly higher than um what the counterpart offers, most people would abstain from taking on that contract risk. they would much prefer to just stay like just stay stay in the trapi and then use the existing instruments to generate yield trade whatever it is um so I think the current condition doesn't quite allow for our ambition for for institutional um venture so so we will have to review

that again further further further this year um hopefully when the market situation improves I think that makes sense. Um I guess in line kind of with the first of the Citadel's objectives, have you um have you guys considered launching Pendle or allowing for deposits from other chains or is this something because I think lending and you guys are not lending adjacent but you have had like a large TVL historic and you do benefit off of lending protocols as you know. Um they typically focus on the EVM as like Solana lending landscape grows.

we see more rate trading applications launched there as well. Is this something that you guys have considered or is it not interest you? You just want to be focused on the EVM for now. >> Yeah, we we we we are interested in we're interested in in having as as wide a distribution as possible. Um yeah, and Solana is definitely an ecosystem of interest. in terms of progress, I think we might see more meaningful development this year. >> And I guess one question on the um institutional or trady fund front. Um back when Athena was working on converge and the IUSD product which would have

offered you know like a KYC um AML instrument for SUSD. Um, I was of the mindset this this would have been particularly attractive to I guess achieve that Citadel initiative for Pendle's purposes. Um, but given that that progress has stalled um I'm curious is that part of the rationale for um as a a lack of traction on that front? Not quite. I think it's just like from our evaluation it's generally across the board. So I USD is one of the target assets we wanted to launch with, but we also wanted to experiment with potentially uh like a permission

tokenized uh private credit fund uh tokenized equities. Um yeah, but we we weren't able to very clearly justify that that uh yield opportunity. Um so it was a difficult case to make again given the the the lack of yield opportunities uh in crypto and DeFi like it there there's still some premium there but um usually it's not enough to warrant a move from the existing infrastructure to to DeFi uh for that additional like 50 50 bibs or so in in yield.

>> Perfect. Um, I guess to wrap things up, um, what is for 2026, what are your top priorities across both V2 and Boros? Um, over the next I I want to put a Yeah, 2026 I think is good. And then maybe if you have like a grand fiveyear plan, that would also be exciting. But >> yeah, sure. So 2026 uh will still be very um like product centric. So with respect to V2 definitely want to explore how like increase the diversity of yield offerings. We've been very focused on stable coin synthetic dollars. We want to support other forms of yield uh

coming from real world assets. So certain kind of notes, bonds, equities, these are these are assets that we are very interested in making available on pedal v2. So that that that will be an avenue of uh to to explore for for V2. And then for Boros, it's really just scaling it up. We're now around 200 mil in in open interest. Trading activity has picked up. Now it's a matter of growing that user base and and finding more use cases to to reinforce [clears throat] the proposition of of Boros. So very simple there. Um, as for five-year plan and outlook, right, I do think over time V2 will become a very important venue

for new protocols, new ecosystem to bootstrap liquidity. So that's that's how we've been positioning Pendle to to like pedal v2 to be and and of course like in a in like there will we can expect like newer implementations on on the V2 product. So improve efficiency for example uh potentially negate the effect of time maturity maybe other forms of outcomes to to to indicate like a maturity event. So these are all like interesting ideas that we are experimenting. Um and then for Boros we don't want to confine to just funding rate but funding rate is an important start. We want to be able to offer the

same instrument to POS taking staking yield to the overnight funding rate. Yeah. And and many different types of rates outside of the DeFi ecosystem. So, as long as there are rates, we want to be able to support. >> Perfect. Very exciting. Um, Tienne, wait, Luke, unless you have another question, I'm going to wrap things up. No, I I will say Ten, I hear you're going to be coming to D New York City in in March to uh to speak on on this front. So, yeah, excited to have you there and uh eager to get some of our listeners in the attendees as well.

>> Yeah. And March 24th to March 26th to all our listeners, it's in Javit Center, Javitz North Center in New York City. Um I didn't know that TM was going to be there. That's very exciting. Um Ten, thank you so much for coming on. This was really fun and I know that you don't do as much publicity as some other founders do. So I feel very proud that you came on Xerox Research. I'm very happy that I was able to pull Luke out of his interest rate study hole to actually speak publicly. >> Thanks for having me. Like really appreciate your time. Perfect.

>> Appreciate it, Tian.