Uniswap Fee Switch, Lido FUD & Endgame Craziness | Roundup

Transcript

all right everyone welcome back to another episode of bell curve before we jump in quick disclaimer the views expressed by my co-hosts today are their personal views and they do not represent the views of any organization with which the co-hosts are associated with uh nothing in the episode is construed or relied upon as Financial technical tax legal or other advice you know the deal now let's jump into the episode thanks all right everyone welcome back to another bell curve Roundup you got the the four ombres back today you got uh Vance and Yano I missed you guys last couple weeks and Michael's one and two welcome back guys I missed you guys I wasn't thinking too much about Belcher I'll be honest but

it's good to the absolute closet like Harry Potter coming to us right under the stairs yeah truly whole new view we don't have the nice Studio lighting for your not like the message I've never watched on Spotify and apple not on YouTube yeah Jack Farley needed the big boy room we're giving a little piece it's a little kid stable yeah truly all right you guys want to get into it I think the it makes sense to start with the uni fee switch so for the last couple of weeks there's been um uh I think it's the the second or maybe

even third attempt to turn on the fee switch for uniswap this was a proposal that was put forth by Getty Hill over at gfx Labs it had pretty broad-based support the broad Strokes of The Proposal were that it there was essentially going to be a test deployment on uni V3 on polygon so I think uh when the proposal was written it's about 50 million uh dollars in volume or something like that um on a daily basis but yeah so basically it was basically sort of like a lower Stakes test on polygon and the proposal failed unfortunately by a relatively slim margin so just curious what you guys what you guys think if you're surprised about the result of the vote

um and just your high level thoughts I'm surprised we're this close honestly like it feels like they're getting closer over time I'm just looking at the comments on uh well Vince I don't the whole vote I think was structured incorrectly um because if you actually look at the vote the uni uh fee switch is is gonna fail or did fail even though there are more votes in favor of adding a fee than not anything right so you're looking at the note if you get 18 million uni the you know one fifth and 17 million and 110 had 5 million and then 1 6 and 16k so there was really 22 million in favor of turning Rich 18 million and 18 million

didn't want to turn on the fee so there should have been two separate polls here there should have been a yes or no fee switch and then if it said yes for the fee switch it should have been how big should the fee switch be so I actually think this was a the whole vote was set up incorrectly uh would be my feedback here yeah and and just to add to that they said uh there's gonna be three polls the first one is the fee options for V3 and then the second poll is the initial deployment chain and then and um the the third poll is asset to be held in treasury but yeah no to your point the first poll and there should have been four was whether or not to go forward with this right and that's that's what they should have been voting

on here yeah I mean this is real like it's really telling like I think fee switch is getting closer this is now what yeah this is a failure each time this uni fee switch is coming um and I think it's just like this is the most progress they've had towards towards the fee switch one of the bad takes I see is like if your protocol doesn't have fees turned on right now it's never going to turn on fees um I just think that's a bad take that like this has gotten every single vote the snapshot process is robust there's the ability to re-vote it seems like the consensus is building like I think about uniswap on the path to this v-switch and then what they will do

with it not like whether this is going to happen at all that feels like not the right thing to focus on yep yeah I think one of the the reasons why if I had to speculate this is getting held back is I think the individual delegates at uniswap are worried about personal liability so one of the benefits of something like an LLC or C Corp is sort of this uh liability protection in between management at the company and um the actions that the company takes right so you can't be personally sued and there was a there was a decision I think at a at a court with lbry whatever the name of that doubt was which implicated that actually that limited

liability protection that you get in Corporate America you doesn't necessarily extend to Dows and there can be personal liability so you're more treated as like a general partner um and I think what delegates are worried about is if a fee switch is turned on then you need the token ends up looking a lot more security-like than it does today if you have fees that are being streamed to a dow and then distributed in some way so so just uh just to be careful with that that hasn't been decided yet that that is still in process but the argument is that instead of it being an LLC or c-corp like where you have you know LLC literally stands for limited liability company right or Corporation so that's the entire premise

and structure of that legal entity in the United States the argument that is put forth is that in fact these Dows are more like under Incorporated Partnerships which don't in incur the limited liability protections that you would have with these other legal entity structures so you know it's not a said and done case and and that you know decision isn't official but it is you know something that people are tracking because it is a pretty robust change to how you would think about you know participating in those yeah also not a general rule depends on where your base depends on what type of product you build like there's not a notion of security or non-security in very many countries the existence of a Dao or a legal entity is different in

very many countries it relates to liability so I think this is like you should you should kind of view this as a startup working in you know the most punitive jurisdiction in the most probably punitive potential asset you know type of or I guess type of startup that's swapping assets and doing Trading you know I think it's pretty interesting and bullish and optimistic that they're going down this path despite all of that um and there's places like Texas which have Dao as a legal entity protections um you know that have you know the ability to hopefully facilitate this stuff but I think this is pretty optimistic in my opinion what what if let's say you lay aside legal concerns do you guys think that

this is the the right time to turn on the p-switch for uniswap and you know what would be sort of your your pro and con case for why why not so I what I would say is it really depends on what the intention is for what you do with the fees that are generated is it you know because what you're effectively doing is you're trading off protocol treasury fees which you know you kind of have a couple of options to do with once they're collected but you've got the treasury that would be assuming some fee collection and that's taken away from LPS and that kind of give and take is really kind of the question here uh meanwhile you've got what seems to be the the bulk of the uniswap labs team has moved into a direction of building a

uh you know as we talked about in this podcast a couple of times moving in in the direction of building a centralized wallet and service on top of the uniswell protocol and you know maybe there's going to be a fee element there as well um so I think you know you can't just look at this as a binary yes or no it really has to do with what is the use of the fees once they're collected or is this going to be the only fee that's incurred within the entire value flow of unit swap yep I mean depends what you do with the fees to Michael's point like I don't think the Dow is just meant to accrue fees and hold on to them forever like these things are not meant to be banks these things are not meant to be capital allocators in my opinion that doesn't

make any sense um so you should either have a plan to reinvest it in the growth of the protocol immediately hopefully like in a programmatic way or distribute it to token holders um you know like I think it's also balancing this idea that like uniswap is finished with the reality that there's probably better more sophisticated models of trading coming to the market and so like do you eventually need those fees to fight off a Challenger probably but like I also don't think you should just accrue them indefinitely to the to the Dao and uh and risk your position potentially winning the LPS that are facilitating this trading so it's you have to balance a lot of different things but ultimately it's really not up to them it's up to the entirety people who hold this token

I'd be pretty uh I would say that unit swap should turn on the few switch eventually but I'd be pretty hardcore against turning on the feed switch right now one is like I guess it's like why would you turn on the fee switch right now you are that is a huge like think about turning on the fee switch in a bull market that is a huge token Catalyst that you are just like wasting that big opportunity in the bear markets that's one reason the second is you're turning on a fee switch at like the most risky time in the history of crypto regulation uh and I think the legal and tax implications of turning on the fee switch right now are massive and it's like why why take that risk um and then yeah like like Michael and the answer saying like I I think the Dow has not been a super

great allocator of capital um in in the past and so it's like why like maybe they need to show a little better uh show a little bit that they can allocate Capital better before turning that on all right hold on I would push back on sorry both of those actually first of all I the legal and Regulatory stuff absolutely but one of the advantages of a bear Market is that you have cover right the stakes feel much higher when it's a bull market and everything is growing super fast and competition feels really Fierce this is the period of time that you have to experiment like if you don't take risks now you're not going to do it during the bull market so I kind of think you're just blowing it and as this whole you know Dows can't allocate capital

they've clearly done it pretty well so far you know Capital was allocated we got uniswap then we got V2 then we got V3 it's the leader in the market you know so that that wasn't the uniswap foundation that wasn't the unusual treasury that was uniswap labs true very different like you know they're very different entities where you've got different different governance structures you've got different Equity holders versus token holders like there there is a pretty large difference between what I would assume is the uniswap foundation I don't know the full name versus uniswap Labs Incorporated okay so but then play that out right so we've got these great Primitives in crypto they work for the most part right created by operating companies by Labs teams so is the idea

now that Innovation is just going to stop and The Primitives that we have exist because we have Labs teams that built them and then Dows are just going to return money from this from this point on or what's the sort of way forward path from here it's a good question I think you have to assume that uniswap Labs will be incentivized to build like in in my mind unit swap Labs has built the wallet but their monetization and the big outcome is still tied to the Token which is tied to the amm and so like their incentives are to keep that competitive what I do agree with is you should figure out these things before they become huge problems because there's always this scenario where you know either there is like a dow with a bunch of money or there is like the potential for a dow to get a bunch of

money and when the stakes get high you're just like fighting over these magical internet coins and like it just gets really contentious and it's generally better to do everything before it becomes a big problem or the stakes are too high so like I like that idea um I just yeah I don't know if the uniswap Dow is ever built to allocate capital and like you know the times they had done in the past like the the D5 legal fund I think was a good idea but there aren't too many one-offs like that where you can just give someone a huge pile of money and and it was actually effective I think it's always better to just go back to the the stakeholders of the Dow itself so I'm like you would turn it you would turn it on now for one pool test it out

dabble see how it goes you would do it you would do it for all of uniswab yeah I think to be honest I think the if I I think what's tricky about this is if I was in the position of being a large stakeholder in in uniswap then it would be very hard for me to press the button because yeah I would be very worried about my own personal liability and I just think it's the most fair thing in the world to say and we could all sit here and say yeah I would totally do that but like I've said before I like living in the United States and I honestly don't want to leave but that said I do think this is the time to push experimentation and uh miles who's been on this podcast a bunch uh wrote a pretty good piece at reverie about this

um you know if you think about these these Dows as uh software marketplaces you have a demand side and a supply side the LPS are the supply side of uniswap I would love to see which Dows actually have pricing power over their supply side I think that's a pretty good indicator if you have a commodity business or a business that actually has a moat so from the standpoint of a pretty interested Observer I would love that I would love it if these experiments got run now frankly um I'd just be interested to see what happened I like that yeah I remember when you swap segregated out the pools like 30 basis points 10 basis points like there's another I think that was V2

that certainly like opened the aperture of like pricing power and how much leverage you actually have of her TBL in your protocol and what you can charge people before they leave I think frankly like amms are this strangely captive Market with a lot of stale liquidity where the LPS are the ultimate end consumer and they seem to be pretty price insensitive like they get run over sometimes they get um different things done to them when their their positions are out of range like I I don't really know how to think about the you to swap LP set it doesn't feel like the most professional traders that would be my guess they would be less sensitive to pricing in my mind do you have an understanding of like the Pareto of uni V3 LPS like how dispersed it is and who those entities are my sense is

it's there's a bunch of latent liquidity that's just kind of sitting there but there's also a lot of people who are doing like just in time Mev um you know to these separate pools a lot of the flow is rebalancing flow so like you know prices move on centralized exchanges and people rebalance um I would say that's probably most of the of the flow and we've done some analysis and I think like I forget what it was but like 30 or 40 percent or maybe a little bit less than that comes from the unit swap uh front end and the rest is all programmatic trading it's like people who are not clicking buy or sell yeah that that data that data might be outdated yeah that data is very outdated it's probably a year outdated

the sense that I get is that it's actually quite concentrated and that there was a thread uh that got put together on Twitter about this I'll see if I can go back and find it but I think it's about like 10 entities that provide liquidity for you know the majority there's definitely like a 80 20 rule in effect with L you know liquidity provision on unib3 I'd just be very curious to see like what their motivation is for doing that but the the Univision three percent very different than the univ2 customer set uni V2 is kind of what I think of when I think of D5 like a lot of people just throwing in cat like pool twos you know like initial bootstrapping you know pools for for tokens things like that V3 is more of like the you know latent

liquidity that's just sitting there and then like the the 10 Pros that are doing like just in time liquidity provisioning and that's not because people realize that it's very very hard to make money on unib3 I mean we we couldn't we couldn't do it yeah you know and and we worked at it for a long time univ too is very profitable just because it's like easier to make money on ub3 is um yeah I mean you you just you need a very low latency very you know just High reliability system to trade that I mean to be clear you you can make money you just have to have a strategy that incorporates an element that's off of unit V3 and this could be you know on-chain you know centralized hedging this could be you know using that to

farm assets this could be um my fans of saying a low latency system that was Auto hedging uh over time or potentially you know participating in any Arbitrage between centralized and decentralized exchanges like there's a lot of ways of making money it's just if you're only going to be an LP in unib3 it's very very difficult if not impossible to have you know a net positive effect our our style of like on-chain stuff is more doing like using very simple D5 Primitives at scale to do ideas that were high conviction on it's not like uh you know like let's go do Mev just-in-time liquidity provisioning on YouTube Three it's like you know maker vaults and large-scale staking and things like that

yeah um I've got a uh maybe this would be a just a return to that question they were sort of asking like when is a project in crypto done and um one of the things that I struggle with a little bit when it comes to something like uniswap is for some of these Dows it feels like the Dow structure of it flies directly in the face of the value proposition of the product in that hey we probably could make a better product here if we just had a company that was shipping updates here where I maybe want to transition to Lido here Lido is actually a very interesting project in defy in for me in the sense

that the decentralization of it actually is a direct value proposition of Lido and the more decentralized and down like it is and the more they limit the surface area of what they do the more valuable the product is um so we can get into why that is I think it's sort of unique actually in that in that sense but before we get into that I would love to get your take Advanced I saw you had sort of a a spicy tweet about this but basically the idea that people are getting worried about Lido again and it has an enormous amount of I think it has more tvl than any other D5 protocol this standpoint I think it's almost twice actually what maker is over 12 billion of TBL something like that it's just very like very close to the middle of how ethereum

works and just there's a lot of stake that's locked up there and so you said that people are maybe a little bit um worrying understand necessarily about this what are your sort of thoughts on Lido yeah I mean what what Lotto is basically serving to people is a validator set and right now the discussion is is that validator set decentralized enough or not and the reality is basically everything you know at the moment is permission validator sets if it's fracks if it's rocket pool if it's coinbase staking if it's Lido and the discussion is basically how do you broaden that and this is something that Lotto acknowledges this is something that they know this is basically the entire roadmap and what it's being developed towards is basically in the future probably Q4 q1 and this is enabled by what they just shipped in

Lido V2 which is called distributed validator technology you'll go from the you know 40 50 Lido validators that are validating today to clustering validators so what I mean by that is you're going to have one you know institutional node operator paired with a bunch of self-stakers that can permissionlessly just use Lido as middleware to go off and stake their youth and so by doing this you allow the smaller people to get in and validate but you also have the backstop of you know if something God forbid were to happen you can rely on that institutional node operator to be validating correctly and effectively save that cluster and so you know the answer to all of these concerns is like we need to do a better job of decentralizing Lido but like that's kind of already on the road map

and you know I just see that as uh still probably not being acceptable to like you know other staking protocols um you know certain ethereum influencers that like Lido you know in providing this middleware service would still potentially have leverage over ethereum like I just don't think that's the right way to think about this I think the right way to think about this is why do is providing something that is critical infrastructure to the protocol it's far better and far more aligned than minors ever were and it's moving on a path towards not only decentralizing the validation process with DBT and having solo stickers but you're also going to transition the governance to be steath-based as well and what I mean by that is right now Lido ldo is the token that effectively validates everything

in the future you're going to have steath have like a second order governance perspective over the protocol and if there's a vote that's contentious if there's something that they want to block steath holders will literally be able to go off and block a vote and so like what does that mean from from a government's perspective well it means that the seventh largest asset in crypto steth is now going to have governance over the underlying protocol of Lido which is very aligned with ethereum like if you have you know I think it's like 13 or 14 billion of tvl locked in the protocol today how can you say that if all of those people have a say over at the governance of the protocol and validating his permission

list that that's not aligned with ethereum I just really don't understand that perspective yeah it it it might be worth doing a little bit of a history lesson as well for his why Lido exists there was initially a decision to not do something like delegated proof of stake right ethereum uh the ethereum foundation basically took this stance that what they actually didn't want was people delegating their stake to a limited set of validators that would therefore have outsized control over the protocol kind of just shows you that there's sometimes like Market forces will just take over despite whatever mechanisms you try to put in place but the work the worry after that decision was made

was that the centralized exchanges would become they would allow people their their customers to stake they would stake on their behalf and therefore the coinbases and the Krakens and the finances of the world would effectively control ethereum so Lido is actually created to obviate some of that control so there there's a there's a bit there's a bit more Nuance to that in that um the the limitation specifically was that a node operator would have to have 32 eth on the Node to be able to operate and start validating the blockchain as opposed to the delegated model where you could have you know basically these syncs of assets where it would be like the coinbase node or a subset of

coinbase nodes that would be able to assume you know massive amounts of ethereum and that would you know be a centralization risk and so the fact that you put in this 32 each limit meant that you either you had basically two options and then Lido became a third the two options were to self-stake where you would be operating your own node running your own infrastructure simultaneously to the Lido conversations on Twitter I've I've read a number of threads this week around how like self-staking is still at exceedingly difficult thing to do which is why you see a lot of Attraction from centralized staking or lsds um and then the other one was the beating chain launch in November 20 November December 2020 and until April of this year you know two and a half

years later you had no liquidity on the assets that you chose to put up for for that staking process over two and a half years and so that's where the Advent of lsds came about because you wanted to be able to stake and earn and validate the blockchain but you also wanted to be able to have potential for liquidity in in the form of a receipt token like like Steve so I I think you know there's a couple of elements to it but why do coincidentally took off in that two and a half period two and a half year period when um you know self-stating or centralized staking were the only options um and I think it has to do with liquidity just as much as you know moving away from delegated proof stake yeah yeah you might be absolutely right

can you actually either you or or Vance can you explain why there are you know generally when you ask people about the the projected Market structure of something like uh lsts it's if not winner take all it's certainly winner take most or most people don't think it's going to become a fragmented Marketplace can you just explain some of the returns to scale that you get as a as an issue of a liquid staking derivative a liquid sticking token so um it's kind of like path dependent in terms of like how we got here but like Michael's description was right you know everyone wanted liquidity for staking eth wado was the first one to provide that at scale it partnered that with a smart token incentive program and curve

to keep it at Peg sometimes it fell off sometimes it was stable they just accrued a lot of rewards as they you know as I mentioned the product they are serving to people is the validators people who use this teeth but that's a tokenized representation of a validator effectively um and they managed to get a bunch of very effective validators um and just basically have a lot more individual nodes than anybody else and so what that means is like you get a higher share of the lumpier Mev style fees when they happen um and so like that boosts their their APR they're also the lowest fee uh protocol they're 10 Rock pools at 15 coinbase Heath is at 25. believe it or not so like there there's like a lot of different things that they did well defy

Integrations um and like the Dow is just well run to like we we know a lot of the people there we trust a lot of them um you know they're they're good people um and that's kind of hard to find in crypto so like they did a bunch of things right basically I I will say just like on a different note liquid staking is not actually an idea that originated within ethereum it originated within Cosmos and this probably shows like how dated you know this this learnings are but like this was invented by like Zacky and a lot of kind of like the the cosmos Folks at that time ethereum was like very anti-proof of stake anti you know liquid staking in a different context for a long time and eventually got convinced so like it's not surprising to see that this has been contentious in

terms of ethereum was a protocol designed to basically have no Partners everything would be internalized and I think along the way there's two things that kind of got out of the ethereum foundation that they wish they would have internalized one is uh flashbots that would be one that I would say they probably would like to figure out a way to enshrine Mev a little bit more effectively into the protocol they're doing proposer Builder separation things are like after the fact efforts to change that and I think why do and you know liquid staking as a whole is probably another you know how would you set up self-staking and these other things in a way that would be more effective for ethereum holders people who want to stake ethereum but um it just didn't it didn't happen that way and you know I think a lot of the uh

the narratives around like Lotto being too concentrated are a little bit of the result of people just wanting to kind of wind back the clock and do it differently but like that's just not how the market played out like I wish everyone was just like you know had a solar generator in a box of granola and just like self-stake all of their youth in the woods somewhere but like that's just like not how this played out well and and just to further the point you know the flip side and and the the second largest state or if not the largest I think from a total percentage of state is coinbase and the way that coinbase works is you put your eth into a staging address or stating Vault and you have to have uh um increments of 32 weeks and the only difference between

delegated proof of stake and and you know what they're doing is effectively their software their system separates out each validator into 32 weeks and then they manage the keys they manage the controls and they distribute your eth you know in in 32 uh um 32 each increments to your Collective you know staking Vault staking address um and you know that's how the staking process works the coinbase and so you know there's it's still a very centralized process on the flip side and you're putting a lot of trust in the software and systems of coinbase which you know it's something that we we trust as well but you know there there is a better solution to that I would say which is liquid staking and you know we can debate you know the the relative

market share of Lido versus others and and I do actually think it's not going to be a winner take all Market I think there's going to be the different flavors of staking that have different token models different kind of growth strategies and therefore use cases um but I do think that you know what we're talking about here shouldn't be how big is Lido it's you know how big is Lido or how big is liquid staking versus centralized taking Michael why don't you think it's a winner take all Market or winner I think there's going to be a lot of different I mean we're already seeing like Steve is very different from some of the token models that are are more akin to wrap teeth which means that you have the composability elements um much easier assumed when when used in D5

you're also starting to look at some of the different token incentive models and growth strategies of these protocols which will drive adoption I I would say you know there's just gonna be novel ways of Distributing value back to token holders for some of these ecosystems that are willing to do it um that may boost liquidity and interest and and um yeah more so or in a different way than than you know Lido or any of the other big ones the the thing you have to think about with Lotto is like there's two things going on number one why do is validating the chain number two they're steath on chain moving around in D5 buying stuff swapping whatever that's generating fees for those validators so it's like it's an application phenomenon it's also like a middleware phenomenon

and the thing I like I love 99 of ethereum culture and ethereum you know influence in people but like the things I really don't like are the uh like the a little bit of like you know you're either like blessed by the EF or you're not or you're like a pleb or you're like harmful to the protocol I don't think that's the case here at all like the EF and elido need to kind of you know just like figure out a way to work together not that they aren't already but like these things are only going to become more pronounced as liquid staking protocols not just Lido but others grow too like there are some liquid staking protocols out there with really shitty validator sets you know like three guys with different costumes on running the same validator like if those like those are the things which we should be we're

looking out for not things that are actively trying to decentralize that's just my opinion I think that's a good point Vince I mean I think you actually create a really bad incentive system if the ethereum foundation or anyone else is is asking people to basically self-limit the the growth of the protocol um because that's kind of saying like if you build on ethereum and you win you win too big we we may go against you right unless until we gatekeep it basically disincentivizes teams to build these value-add projects on top of on top of these does anybody think think that having less teeth would be beneficial for fees and the underlying economics of the blockchain no it's like you're giving people a reason to use things and generate fees and make it

secure so like I don't know yeah you know well just to you know I think the reason why why people get concerned is if there was something like some sort of bug and Lido and there was a catastrophic slashing event right um where an enormous part of State sort of got got vaporized right what what would end up happening right vitalik sort of wrote about this and he used the example of if there was a some sort of slashing event on a layer two or a catastrophic not a slash unit but like a bug on a layer two uh would the chain get rolled back and he heavily implied no it wouldn't get rolled back but if something if there was a real big problem with Lido that I think is sort of the one application on ethereum where there would definitely be a discussion

about it you know if you roll the chain back and I think that's what people get concerned about my my questions are like what are the what are the risks of that happening um so far there haven't been any slashing incidents that have been you know at scale but like I do think about that frankly I think the slashing incidents um like think about the framework for D5 hacks it wasn't really ever maker it wasn't really ever Ave or curve it was like the hundredth clone of those that got killed and if you add enough of those up those become serious issues like actually losing like 650 million dollars just people who probably shouldn't have tvl in them you know with TBL in them and so like look at all the LSD Farms that have been popping up

there's some huge ones sell one was 400 million in it the other day what happens if that gets hacked is more of a question for me so that's like relative risk and then you know like alternative to alternative to Lotto that are outside of staking which are risky like we'll see how restaking goes but that's on on my like calendar for like you know potential catastrophic event like if something does happen probably happens with like people trying to re-hypothecate Steve in some way right so we we talked about that uh pretty adult team in one of the other episodes I don't want to go too far back down that but yeah the but just rounding back to you know sort of connecting the dots the unit swap discussion the reason Lido I find so interesting is

the the value proposition of Lido is very much based on the sense that they have dual governance and that they're permissionless right like the the lower the surface area of the what they try to do and uh how decentralized they actually are doesn't fly in the face of the product it is additive to the product like if if the community is um a swaged that it is very decentralized and not super riskless then yeah that's actually good for the market share of something like Lido as opposed to I just I totally hear you Vance I'm not trying to you know be argumentative for for no reason but I just find it very hard to get behind the idea that yeah we

can't allocate Capital so I just give it back I just I find that sort of uninspiring to be honest but but that's why it sort of works with Lido right that's why they're so um obsessed with the staking router and dual governance which dual governance isn't the work still so I do think like there is now this like Paradigm Shift where like before you just had the miners and you could kind of beat up on them and like push whatever soft grade upgrades and like they couldn't really do anything because they're just you know a kind of incompetent B they're just like Tethered to the network no matter what but now like you do have real constituent sets like the none of the seventh largest asset in crypto is teeth like you're gonna have to talk to those people at some point and like hear them

out if they want you know like for instance 80 20 you know 80 of the youth fees go to burn 20 goes to stakers I may have that backwards but correct me if I'm wrong like that become 70 30 at some point 50 50. like I think there's like a lot of interesting questions that you start to ask now that you have real stakeholders and uh yeah I like I don't think just like the old governance process of ethereum is necessarily purpose built for that it's that governance process is more like the devs side push the upgrades the miners like just eat it um now it's now it's a lot different I agree with that I agree um what do you think just before we move on to just social consensus and I'd love

to poke you guys opinions about the Jon chard piece that he put out but what do you think about the relative adoption of something like Steve even versus eth in something like uh like a LP pool or something like that I guess the idea being if you totally de-risked Lido like let's just say all the stuff that we've been talking about basically it's uh some smart contract bug that wasn't a concern I guess all things being equal you'd rather own Steve than eth right because teeth is just yield bearing and eth isn't so what do you think about that well only caveat I'd say is that you'd want to own wraps rap Steve most likely um but which is yeah it's effectively the same thing it just has you know a

non-rebasing element but yeah to your point like why would you not own rhaps teeth versus Heath there's there's not really any point well on the same vein maybe the one caveat would be if your teeth that you would be swapping is highly appreciated you know depending on your jurisdiction there could be a taxable event but like that that's really kind of the only argument the way I think about it is like the most active capital is teeth like for one reason or the other for the past you know year I think like six million or five million have been added to Steve like that Capital woke up it trans it you know think of like the bear Market the hibernation you know whatever analogy you want to recruit like it was kind of

hibernating notice there was yield it swapped his teeth and now it's kind of a bit more awake than a lot of the dorm and Youth I think that's you know how I think about basically everything right now it's like that's the capital that's gonna bootstrap thing that's the capital that's going to do all the interesting stuff it's you know it's kind of got this community going like that's how I think about it and uh you know I just like earning yields like like I hate when things are not productive and it's nice when you go to sleep and like you wake up with a little bit more that's cool it is cool yeah it actually reminds me of uh I think on maybe a month ago or a month or two ago we were sort of playing out this hypothetical you know the state grade for other chains that were proof

of stake from day one like uh Solana are much higher than it is for ethereum and I think it was you Vance that said yeah I mean sort of the the way that you go is first you stake that's like the very first thing that you do and then you go do do other stuff from there and you know ethereum sort of made this transition after the merge and now people are staking and then you've got liquid Stakes so you can go and do stuff with that and the yield's actually pretty good so yeah I sort of agree with you I think there are some interesting experimentation being done in um LST Phi you know there are stable coins that are being used to Cloud yes it's interesting there's uh you know yield bearing Stables that are getting created but it's cool and yeah no this this is even further in

the point of experimentation is going to be why it's not a winner take all Market because I don't think you're going to have the long tail of Ls lsds be able to move as fast and experiment with things and if something really hits I think you'll be able to see some market share at Option yeah like you have fracks doing like this weird stable coin lending you know like they're adding treasuries I saw like it's all going to be part of the same fraxieth I think yield you have rocket pool which is like you know doing whatever they're doing um I kind of see like there's gonna be a long tail of like really aggressive like we're running one validator stake a million each with us like and and like that's how it blows up um and they're just gonna subsidize that with like a ton of tokens

so you'll probably see like the rise and fall of a lot of these LST protocols which we we called out I think we said that last year but it's uh it really is happening exactly as we drew up fair thing to say and then we can move past Lido that the critique so the main critique on Twitter right now is that light is becoming kind of this like staking Monopoly that that is the wrong critique to make and that the thing that people actually should be looking at is that you've got this protocol that's kind of controlled by like 50 addresses and that like the number of addresses should should go up and like should increase and that there's probably two little addresses or you you don't see any problems across the board right now I I see problems I see the problems as um we should have as many uh people

staking self-staking as possible we should have them paired with institutional backed node operators that you know can be the stop Gap if you know something went wrong but we should also acknowledge the reality of like people aren't going to set up their own self-staking in the current context they would have already done that if that was a viable option and so the things that are going to make it easier to add more nodes such as DBT where you know if your node gets up and it crashes you know there's a fallback that is a lot better of a solution and a lot more practical than and you know everyone you know spin up your kernel we're gonna go self-stake like it just doesn't make any sense yeah cool yeah I agree there um can we talk about actually before we

get to the John jar piece you know you interviewed roon uh the the founder of maker could you give a sense of just kind of a high level of what the end game is and maybe we can segue that into the die savings rate moving up uh yeah basically um there's five phases of the end game um I'll give you like the tldr on on each phase really quickly the first phase is this beta phase which is I guess could be summarized by building a unified brand so in runes in runes mindset there are there's maker uh and then there's die and he believes that this is limiting the future of maker Dao because first off it's like very cryptoy brand and then there's like two separate Brands so he described creating this like almost Robin Hood like brand that's

very consumer friendly not really a crypto brand that uses the protocol of maker uses the stable like uses die but consumers don't really understand it and he's in in his mindset um or not that they don't understand it but they don't really care what's happening behind the scenes it's just like Robin Hood like very consumer friendly so that's the first phase is this Theta beta launch focused on establishing this unified brand the second phase is the launch of the subdos so in his mind there are two classes of subdials there's facilitator Dows and allocator dows um there'll be I think there's five or six different sub-dials that is that are each very focused on doing one specific thing uh and then each of those Dows will get a token

um so there'll be five or six new tokens launching each one for the subdial the third phase is the what he calls the governance AI launch um these are AI tools for governance monitoring um and in his mind the why behind this is like to reduce the asymmetry of information in his mind there are about 30 people in the world who really understand what's happening with maker um but like hundreds of people who really want to get involved with maker but those people and actually I was kind of giving him some here but like I do understand this like I tried getting involved with maker and there's I mean been trying and there's just so much information and so much going on with maker and nowhere to really search for this um so in his mind like kind of what

GitHub did with GitHub co-pilot he wants a maker co-pilot that like knows all the overarching rules that the the that maker the maker doubt the main protocol Dao sets like they set the risk parameters that they set the rules they give you all the information it's kind of like how teams create Wikipedia pages and notion pages with like all the information uh he wants to build an AI that has all that information so that's phase three three phase four is like governance participation incentivization launch um like voting mechanisms locking mechanisms a 15 exit fee basically trying to get more people to participate in governance and the fifth the end game is uh launching a new chain so launching a

he's just calling it the new chain new chain is this blockchain that houses all the back end logic for the sub Dow tokenomics all the makered out governance security uh yeah he I think he described the key feature of the new change this like ability to use hard Forks as a governance mechanism to recover from catastrophic governance disputes I didn't fully understand that part um anyways that's that's how long will it take uh years years yeah I mean ambitious the reason that I like maker are all the rules in the existing protocol are extremely battle hardened um they have value capture figured out I

think they still do the buy and burn I'm not sure if they're still doing that but they're not doing it yeah they're not doing that anymore but um they used to and I guess they can turn it back on um I like it because it's like simple and large and you can do like you know big versions of ideas with it uh I don't know how much this like sub-dial like I would be interested in as a user maybe like it kind of seems like uh a defy summer style Playbook where you just start spewing tokens of different projects I would just need to understand more about what they're actually building um in the near term he talks a lot about D5 the original D5 summer he thinks you know I made the argument that we're not

going to have another like D5 summer until there's like big bull run even like macro pump some money into the markets again and he's like you know he's like maker will kick off the next D5 summer make like maker the yield farming mechanisms we're putting into place um that's that's his belief I I think the points in his favor are like these big LST Farms that are happening like there's clearly like pop balls of money that are trying to go somewhere and maybe he can just catch enough of that it's like to make it a wave that he can ride but um I don't know I feel like right now is the time for like I think you could make make her just super successful as is honestly um and I I would probably focus on the

simpler things but you know what do I know yeah I guess my problem with it I mean I I really respect anyone who tries to take on anything that's ambitious uh my problem with it is an incredible amount of focus on governance no focus on distribution marketing and product uh like I didn't really hear many conversations about the product for example and how you're going to make the product better than any maker competitor and like I don't know that's what I that's what I would want to hear um what one one question I mean you you were a delegate or still R1 I'm not exactly sure how's it going buddy I just got five I think there were like

five thousand maker delegated to me I just got all my maker taken away because I uh I voted I voted in the wrong way voted in a way that the making gods did not enjoy you better watch it so yeah so would would you say that participation and inertia in the governance process of maker so far has been strong participating there's not much participation so that was my that was generally my point how is it that you know splitting off this level of participation into five new Dows is going to somehow increase that level of participation to the point where those dials will be

governing aspects I know what you're walking and I know yeah yeah I so I know so the answer the easy answer is like it obviously doesn't right you do that but but the counter no the counter would be that like trying to participate in the maker is so overwhelming because one day I'm voting on like an interest rate increase and the next day I'm voting on like uh like where they're going to take their off-site and how much money it's going to be for the offsite and the next day I'm voting on it so it kind of actually you're saying separation separation of concerns will will streamline the process that would be the argument is that like you should have people who are only thinking about like the marketing of maker in the way that a cut like this is this would be the argument I think in

the way that like at block works we don't have like if you work on marketing like you're not also trying to sell sponsorships and like build the engineer you know build the research product that would be the it just seems like the governance is all ruined honestly like well I mean I'm I have a lot of respect but like this just feels a little bit like theater a little bit my like visual reaction listening to this and I also listen to the interview um it's just one word complicated it's so complicated yeah I feel like everyone's being very polite on this this makes no sense guys this doesn't make any well this doesn't make any sense it you know down from even I think the the create it gets crazier the more you actually peel back the layers of

this like there's a plan to have sub-dials and each sub Dow is going to have its own token which it can then use to farm maker doesn't make any sense this like Devil's Advocate Devil's Advocate like we're we're talking about the unit swap fee switch and everybody being scared to turn that on like this is like one guy who wants like extreme agency over the direction makers heading in like I respect him willing to like willing to put out new tokens I so I I agree with willing to like mix it up and change things I think that this move is actually to disaggregate that control and actually disintermediate it from him because you're not going to be like someone who gets a certain number of votes share on

a specific subject it's going to be people who are elected to these Dows who then have to make the decisions on behalf of which means that you're going to have to have you know an odd number of greater than three people for five different Dows who are participating in decision making in five different areas of maker like that's a lot of people just to be like participating in this ecosystem at that level yeah I mean Michael I don't know if you picked up on this but there were a couple times ruined was like yeah and then I tried to step away from the protocol and then I tried right and then I tried to step away and it does really seem like root and then he's like yeah you talked to a couple times about like yeah I really want to go do something else basically and um I'm sure that's

his end game he said that in passing which yeah I do think that roon doesn't want to necessarily be working on Maker full time for the next several years um that's probably one of my biggest concerns about endgame Mike said it best it's too it's too complicated it's too confusing you can't align internal people or external people but also that room this is not a three-year thing this is like a seven to ten year thing in my mind um just with everything that they're trying to build and you you need a Founder who's like locked in and very committed there and Rune seems to be like in for two years out for a year in

for a year out for two years so like like Kane is a decent analogy here like he stepped away for from synthetics for like you know probably half a year um and yeah I'm probably like closer to a year and recruited you know a whole new team of amazing guys like they're the whole team that's behind like this new Resurgence of perps and V2 and V3 and like you know actually you know generating real returns for the protocol um I think it's just like they did well because they were told to focus on one thing and do it really well and nail that and after that you know like you could expand and even Kane's most recent blog post is like the team's really killing it um I find that you know there's not enough time for like these crazy ideas and so like here's a few things that I'm

excited about like it's helpful to have the core team you know day-to-day grinding towards a tangible kpi tangible goals you know big Market that's immediately addressable and then Kane can kind of feel it feel free to come in you know he's on the treasury Council now he's doing some of the highest level governance stuff he's doing recruiting he's doing like ideas like he doesn't necessarily need to be involved every single day um but there is still a role for him and I think the role is like a combination of just like having agency and wisdom and having you know the mentorship over this this core team but like you know if if there's no one following you up the hill that you're charging up like that's it's usually not a great sign well and and what I'd add to that is um a lot of the perspective that he

shared in this blog post and and he talks about you know publicly and then Discord is it's frankly just like the we don't need to go that much further to get you know to disintermediate and dissolve these things and like move on and kind of like the protocol will be done perspective um whereas it seems like this is the complete opposite approach which is like we need to you know amplify and multiply so that we can be done with this thing yeah I I just don't think this would any of you guys work here would any of you be like I'm gonna full-time contribute to maker no I mean like so like one of one of the points in Kane's blog post is like we

have to incentivize all the new core contributors just like they were founders of the protocol right and so like you know it doesn't mean that every five years you're gonna get new core contributors and you need to keep paying them every single five years like it's probably like we have three or four years of work and then we're going to be done so this is like the last class of Founders there's just like I don't think there's a maker for those people I don't think they would be paid that much and and be like I don't think the vision is super credible so I probably wouldn't honestly synthetics I probably would if I was like a young kid coming out of college just like looking for you know to do I would probably work for synthetics I think one of one of the drives of

bringing a people on a team is that they want to work with other a people and they want to be doing the work that they were hired to do they don't want to be worrying about all of this nut stuff that's happening around them and I do think for a project be it a crypto primitive or a company I think you want to limit the surface area that you're choosing to compete on and I think maker started with this really bold audacious vision and goal I am not sure that this is in service of that goal and I I just I just think it feels way too chaotic and complicated at the end of the day but I could be totally wrong about that so I I also would have been differently would have been different probably if the token was a bit more distributed if

there was a bit more of like this is our thing versus you know this is his or my thing yeah yeah the and the last thing I I don't say this to be I I also am in the camp of I respect anyone that takes a big bold swing at something and I don't mean this is a shot at Rune at all but I also think you know this is just my opinion uh looking at it from the outside but they all they also they're raising the die savings rate as well which um has implicated basically raises the cost of borrowing across other Stables um which which could be interesting it actually kind of brought up an interesting discussion at blockworks which is I'd be curious if you guys think there's a notion of a risk-free

rate in crypto or if it's just treasuries um or if there are kind of two different risk-free rates that maybe boom and tandem across crypto and tradify what do you guys think about that I mean we're going to see a bunch of risk-free rates for like risk-free rates curve Ave maker you know like they're all gonna put out probably heavily subsidized stable coins and those are going to be like a tier below like even liquidy that's zero percent funding yeah you basically just clip a coupon at the start you give it to them there's no liquidation so you don't have a funding rate my take on what we've hypothesized as a potential risk-free rate and crypto is the priced hedged rate of return of staking ethereum um which which basically means you you

know and you can do this centralized you can do this decentralized you one for one hedge with long short and it's really simple you basically hold Steve on one end or rap steep on one end and and you know negative eth on the other and you you find you you know are the whatever that rate is um so you have to factor in the cost of whatever it takes to go short but that that I think you know is around four four and a half percent right now give or take depending on where you do it and you know matches up pretty decently with Federal fund trade I think it's sort of an interesting an interesting question um I could I think you could make a like the reason why the the die savings rate is going up is because uh maker has a bunch of exposure to short dated

treasuries you know so there is some amount of transmission I would say there's like kind of a weak linkage in between the risk-free rate of treasuries like tradfy and crypto But ultimately yield comes from growth right um you know some entity says hey I think I'm going to be able to grow XYZ and therefore I'll take on debt and that's where the yield ultimately ends up coming from and I I do kind of think that you know using that from that framework um it kind of makes sense that there would be ties in between crypto's risk-free rate and the Trad fire risk free rate but it'll probably be slightly different I would say moving forward it'll depend because I don't think crypto and the economy grow in a perfectly correlated way I'm not sure if

you've read the John Charbonneau piece about Roll-Ups and how they actually actually sort of work but I um I could I could sum it up it was a it was it was an interesting piece because I think the point oh can you guys see your mirror you yeah yeah we got you okay um I think the point that he was he was trying to draw attention and sort of tldr fashion to there is a very important difference about where an asset is issued and basically if an asset is issued on natively on a chain or if it gets issued through a bridge and you know if you it's it's mostly relevant to something like Roll-Ups where you could imagine

like let's just say again fast forward two years and arbitrum or optimism has a whole bunch of tvl and let's say it's got usdc issued on there well let's say there's three billion of usdc and one and a half billion comes from it was bridged from ethereum so it's using that trust minimized bridge and then the other half of that usdc 1.5 billion is issued from you know natively natively issued on the on the roll up and then let's say there's some sort of catastrophic uh bug and the protocol the roll-up ultimately needs to get forked the in that instance what you can safely Fork is the usdc that was issued natively on the roll-up where Paris the

other usdc is much more in question so if you've been kind of reading and saying oh isn't L2 and L1 you know that's kind of a tongue-in-cheek way of saying really the most important thing to consider is from the perspective you really want to hold there's a from a from a Safety and Security perspective there's a strong incentive to hold your asset on the chain that it was issued I'd be curious just what you guys thought about that or if you've given it much thought so not not a ton of additional thought just other than the fact that we um rarely keep assets on layer twos that are not natively issued there

and it's not really because we don't trust in the situation but as fiduciaries we just have to be really careful about the ecosystems that we play around in I think this is also one of the reasons why so much tvl is still locked on ethyl one versus the l2s um and that would change I know usdc just came out and said that they're going to natively issue on arbitrum and so that may change as you know it Partnerships like that really start to scale um but you know being able to segregate something that you've bridged and something that you just you know own on a native issuance I think it'll be interesting to see what the ux is there correctly yeah I think there are interesting

implications for cctp as well which is as opposed you know that's a actual mint and burn model and mostly what people want to use um there's obviously a strong desire to use stable coins so I'm not sure what percentage of bridge assets are ultimately Stables but a mint and burn model like cctp could be huge for Circle frankly I I was gonna say you know there are a number of different cross-chain Communications protocols I know chain link has ccip obviously Circle cctp uh socket you know is is sort of the bridge uh connective tissue that powers a lot of the bridging so far um that that's bridging information and

bridging messaging but the mint and burn of a native asset um could be the best solution that we have so far so that would that would be in reference to cctp yeah yeah I think so too all right guys I mean those are basically all the the crypto takes we could we could end on a non-crypto one and uh there was there was something that was circulating on Twitter I think it was Saks uh David sacks that retweeted uh basically work from home policy with the gist of saying that work from home has failed failed experiment and uh you need to get bots back to the office what do you guys think about that it's funny he's ready to call it like a

year after we started the experiment didn't really get a lot of time to play it out but I I have like two minds about it first one is like when we started framework like we lived together we didn't have an office like we were either in Michael's parents basement or in like this small apartment in San Francisco but like we were like working at the kitchen table like you know things going right things going wrong like you're brushing your teeth and like your business partner comes up to you it's like yo we got to fix this it's like that type of lifestyle and uh I think that does help and like we did that we didn't just do that for like a year we did that for like probably three and we were roommates before that so like you know like I do think there is a lot to that

especially the activation energy of starting something new bigger companies I think the cat's out of the bag honestly like two or three days in the office something like that you know a day or two at home like it just feels like workers you know whether it be more or less productive for the business or gonna make that stand and sure some of them will get fired but like I think there's enough slack at these companies where they're get rehired um but yeah I think it's startups should probably be together I think um the reason this is so tough is because the the Twitter takes are always black and white and this isn't a black and white thing it's like there are a lot of different kinds of companies like sax being like this has failed it's like failed failed for who I I I completely agree with fans if your

blog Works never would have worked if Mike and I were remote at the beginning block works today is like most of the companies remote um but if we were five people we would 100 be in person because you can't I don't think you can like get a company off the ground anymore it's let me say that differently it's very hard to get a it's much harder to get a company off the ground when you're like sub 10 people if you're remote than being in person but as a company scales I think most companies will be like three days remote to in person or two remote three in person or yeah I also think there's a lot of companies who hired remote during covid and then the majority of their employees are now remote and so it's you ha so so it's like very

hard to walk that back you know you could either let everyone go and start over again but you're not going to do that so yeah so two two things I I think you know to your point it is incredibly if not completely dependent on what the type of company is like block works is very different from framework which is very different from like a technology startup and I think that as you're starting up it's really important to be in person as you need to access more levels of talent it's probably a lot easier to have some elements of the team be remote just because you can access people who are not in the same geographic location but there are going to be elements completely you know within framework for instance where like we have investment Community meetings on

Tuesdays and Thursdays if you're not in in the office like it's kind of hard to get your points across and it's kind of hard to have a real debate in conversation and I think there's a huge bias towards having those in person versus not just like you would have like major you know staff meetings or like major product decision discussions like there are elements that still require in person and so the hybrid model I think you know is going to be probably the model that most employ for the foreseeable future but to your latter point it's gonna be really interesting to see like what happens to the large corporations who started maybe in a in an in-person specific mode went to work remotely or work mostly remotely and have to make

the decision now that things are you know potentially shifting to decide how they're going to employ you know going forward and who's gonna be allowed to do what what days people are going to be allowed to do what like there's protests literally outside of I saw Seattle's headquarters yeah uh you know over work from home and forcing people to come back and I mean there was a bunch of things that were tied into that protest it seemed like but I think that you know it's just me really it's going to be a painful process for a lot of these companies who have like switched back and forth um I I I really wonder like if if we're talking about block words and not to put you guys completely on the spot but like block works you know 3x from now in terms of head count is

that all going to be remote is that going to be really really hard to manage all remote like I do think that there's an element of like what becomes the best process once you hit a certain you know breakthrough size um whether that's mostly mostly in person or not yeah I I will say I I don't know obviously is the is the answer right now but another big part of this and I think frankly one of the reasons why management has been so resistant to this is it requires managers to actually Flex new muscles and say how could we make this work in a remote environment and weaved to call out we brought on a director of people recently uh who's been frankly kind of a game changer for us and I think you sort of go through

these stages right which was all right everyone went remote in the pandemic and everyone said oh my gosh this is totally fine there's no change in productivity whatsoever then the market conditions kind of changed and it was like wait a second hold on maybe we're actually not being that productive whatsoever we need to get everyone back in the office then everyone realized workers really really cared about not getting into the office and now we're sort of going through stage four where people are trying to figure out what actually makes sense and I will say there are some really small things things that you can do that make a world of difference for making people feel bought in be that you know small team on sites that happen on a somewhat

regular basis or more structured you know sort of Team calls that happen on a weekly basis there are really little things that you can do to get maybe eighty percent of what you had before um and yeah but but managers have to to learn and adapt on how to do that I'm pretty sure the correct take is not that work from home is doesn't work yeah that comes I feel like David Sachs probably struggles with like he's just at like such a high off place and you know politics and all that stuff that like unless someone's right in front of them probably struggles with like information flow um you know like it also comes to from this like perspective or at least what I

hear is like you know these gen Z's Millennials need to work harder it's like yeah that's that may be one problem that's like one of many um especially in the country actually economy I actually think it's the opposite and and I I think back to I think most people who are under the age of like 27 28 want to be in an office setting at least most of the time and and I think it's the people who are older than that who are you know occupied at home or have other obligations that are the ones who are you know pushing for the more work from home environment I remember when Marissa Mayer took over Google or Yahoo in like 2012 I think or maybe 20 30 I can't remember when she took it over but there was this article and she published an internal report uh of um on average

and this is way before work from home was a normal thing on average people were working from home three out of five days a week and on the days when they were working from home they were getting to it 2.2 hours of work done per day uh and that was that was the this Catalyst for her to say okay now everybody is coming back to the office and we're gonna and a ton of people left and I think that's just because you know Yahoo in the mid 2010s was like a bunch of you know middle managers that didn't really have a product strategy and probably weren't really incentivized to see you know whatever they were working on come through but you know there there is an element of like it really depends on the company and I agree I think David's ax you know his take is

not 100 correct but I do think that there's an element of you have to have some element of in-person contact for you to build a successful company I like the age thing I like that young people should be in the office I would have been just such a misgrant if I wasn't in the office all the time shut up I I think it it's you know what it is it's kind of like one of those things you know how so if you have unlimited vacation policy that gets billed is something that's very employee friendly but it's actually not employee friendly at all and on average people use those vacation days less and their accounting reasons for doing that I think also it's one of those things that comes across as very young employee friendly like from wherever you want like but there's so much formative stuff that you get being

in an office your first two years in the workforce you just learn how to be a a functioning adult somewhat you know or maybe not a fully functioning adult but from you know an absolute miscreant to uh you know somewhat respectable to you you learn what not yeah I think if you're not if you're someone who's yarn or early in their career and you're not in the same location in the office of wherever the CEO or the management team is there's a problem there's um Michael Bloomberg has Michael Bloomberg's biography is called Bloomberg um and he talks about how the like basically what set him apart from everyone else that he went to college with and I think he got an MBA like everyone else is that he stayed at the

office later than anyone else and he always got to ride home in the same car uh as like one as like the boss's boss's boss's boss and he got that face time so he would literally be the first into the office to say hello to that person and then because they were always there early and then he would stay later just to get a ride home with that person and that basically like set his career off and like I mean guys also like 80 years old so obviously he thinks that like no one should work uh from home but you know I think there's something to be said about like just that face time with people I literally just had this conversation with my cousin last night who is now going to be reporting directly to his company's VP of sales because he happened to be at the office while the

rest of the team was out and he started working on a special project that got rolled into a new role and now the new role is reporting to the head of sales yeah yeah there's no it's not black and white it's not black and white it's also very awesome show up and there's things that you can learn like public speaking not being shy like those are all things that I had to learn like you know it is valuable to be in person even if you just surprised about that what at one point I was I was definitely very shy and like didn't want to do public speak or anything like that but um yeah I mean you look at you on a podcast yeah show up you learn something yeah even if your boss is terrible then

you'll learn even more and that's the gift that keeps on giving my first year in New York I asked my boss if I could go home for Christmas break just like as a formality and he says depends do you want to work here in January oh my God we could do a whole podcast on yenna's first bosses in New York that was that was pretty great I learned the hard one all right guys good good up good to be back