Why Luca Netz Says Pump.fun’s $370M Burn Was a Mistake: Uneasy Money

Transcript

Hey everyone, I'm Cain Warwick and welcome to Unchained Money because what happens on chain never stays on chain. Before we start, nothing you hear on Unchained Money is financial advice. We're just three builders talking about what's happening on chain and we want you to always do your own research before APN. You can find all our disclosures at unchainedcrypto.com/uneasymoney. And before we begin, here's a word from the sponsors that make the show possible. Multichain Advisors is an emerging technology growth firm that has helped create 50 plus billion dollars in enterprise value for 80 plus clients over the past 4 years.

They're the partner to help navigate markets. Build real traction today at multichainadv.com. All right. Hey guys, I'm here with my co-host Taylor Monahan, security expert, and Luca Netz, CEO Pudgy Penguins, um who is an avatar today because he was disfigured in an Antarctic plane crash unfortunately last week while he was visiting Antarctica. So, um we'll just have to make do with a static image of him this week, which will be fine. Um welcome guys. How you doing?

I'm rocking and rolling a little disfigured, little chopped up but you guys can see my penguin. So happy to be here. Nice. Nice. Um so, uh speaking of people being chopped up and disfigured DeFi. How are we doing? Um so, so uh the the KelpDAO um hack we talked about last week, um all of the other hacks we talked about the other weeks, um there have been and continue to be almost daily DeFi hacks, but um this this KelpDAO hack in particular, given the fallout um and the impact on

Aave, the freezing of various markets and you know, all of the different people and protocols that this touched, um there was a movement, I guess you might call it, uh to try to close some of the gap basically. Um So, uh so the first that I saw of this and and correct me if I'm wrong, but the first that I saw of this was Danny coming out saying, "Hey, I'm going to donate 5,000 ETH um of my personal funds to cover the gap." It's now up to 137,000 ETH, about 307 million across uh 116,000 wallets and 126,000 transfers, um which is pretty

wild. Um and I know there's some big there's some big, you know, uh people in there like ConsenSys was was 30,000 ETH. Um Arbitrum Is this the 30,000 ETH that they got back from the hacker or a different 30,000 ETH? No, I think that's the 30,000. That's the the >> That's that's the the the frozen ETH. Got it. Mantle um uh who are insanely rich somehow, they also uh have donated 30,000 ETH.

Uh Aave DAO 25,000, LayerZero 5,000. Some people might say that's a little stingy, I don't know, given uh given the overall situation, but Luca, you probably have something to say about that. Uh how how do you feel about LayerZero being the lowest contributor on that list? Pellegrino mode, baby. That's my guy. >> [laughter] >> I love I love it. I love it. >> the ETH. It's it's it's cuz he thought it was the right thing to do. I support it. That's my stance. All right. Okay.

All right. >> They I think they're doing some other stuff though. It's not right. These are all weird. These are all a bit weird of deals, right? Cuz they're not they're not straight donations, are they? Or are they? Uh my understanding was that this is a charity drive and people are donating ETH. I don't know if there's like deals where they get anything back around or or you know, whatever, but uh but my my understanding was it's just like you give the ETH and plug the hole basically. Um Uh I thought Zeller had a pretty uh funny take. We don't have the tweet here, but um he was like, "I think this is the first time that I've donated money to someone who's richer than me even could have solved it themselves."

Um which uh yeah, I think that that that lands for sure. Um so, uh I mean There's a there's a bunch of interesting things about this cuz there have been many many hacks over the years, um and some hacks uh the holes have been plugged by people like, you know, the Wormhole uh uh bridge hack from God, I want to say 2021, I'm going to say. Um but that was circa 500,000 ETH and Jump stepped in and plugged that hole, um which also, you know, sometimes it takes like someone stepping in and and dropping whatever at the time 500 million dollars into a hole to like

plug a company that they're invested in for you to realize just like how profitable their business must be. Um so, so yeah, uh the the Like I think broadly this is this is bullish DeFi. Um it it still just feels a little bit weird to me that we weren't able to kind of solve the problem directly by kind of holding accountable the people that that, you know, should have been accountable. Like we don't see KelpDAO on there. I don't know what the plan is there. Um So, so yeah, I don't know. What do you what do you got Are you guys bullish on on this solution? This is not a This is no long-term solution, right?

You can't keep doing donation drives if we blow ourselves up, right? So, I think it's a com- it's a bit more complex than we're used to just because you have Okay, so you have like LayerZero who built this thing that KelpDAO was using. Uh and then KelpDAO was the one that was actually using it though for their assets and had set the configurations and on and on and on. But then the old ultimately like I guess like where the biggest impact was to end users were Aave end users, right? We're Aave people.

Um and so it creates a bit of an interesting situation because like for example, when people were talking about the uh are we going to socialize the losses across the L1 and the L2? The arguments were a bit silly because as a user of this thing, like as an as an impacted user, you didn't necessarily have to even know what KelpDAO was. Like you had just put your money in Aave to then conceptually [clears throat] have someone make an arbitrary decision about whether or not your losses were going to be socialized based on like what uh what layer you were on.

Just felt so detached from like reality and from the end users who were impacted. So, I think that's why we sort of ended up in this situation, right? >> like donation drive situation. So, so this raises a uh fairly important question, I guess you might say. Um which, you know, Tom Dunleavy uh wrote an article about um about this on X, basically asking the question, "Is DeFi yield actually compensating users for tail risk, right?"

Um so, you know, credit risk, there's like very clear uh kind of, you know, risk uh algorithms that you can that you can apply, you know, using the risk-free rate and expected loss and etc. etc. etc., right? Um and uh there is even more stuff that can happen in DeFi um that is not really present in traditional finance, right? Um Now, there's like an inefficient markets version of this take, which is like yes, DeFi does price it in because in in, you know, practice, usually DeFi has higher yields.

Um you know, the whole point of KelpDAO was to juice up yields, right? Like these leveraged things and, you know, when those people are juicing up yields, that does to have this flow on effect to other venues where they have higher yields and etc. etc. etc., right? Um the the, you know, to like Taleb 100 1,001 days of a turkey, you know, picking up pennies in front of a steamroller question here is like especially lately, right? If you are getting even 2x the yield, right? The risk-free rate is 4% and you're getting 8%, right? So, you're getting you're getting twice the yield in DeFi that you

would have been getting in in TradFi, but every week you blow up, then the answer is no. You're not being compensated. You need 104% to or like like 704%. Like something insane. You need like some insane uh yield to compensate you for the fact that like once a week you blow up, right? You need to you need to make back all of your principal plus the proportion of the 4% you would have made in TradFi uh in order to to justify it. And, you know, I think a lot of people uh were kind of caught out by this, right?

In in Aave because they're like, "No, no, Aave is safe. Yeah. Aave is the risk-free rate. You know, I'm getting paid 3.2% or whatever to loan out my ETH on Aave. Um and the risk-free rate is, you know, ETH staking or whatever, which is 1.8%. So, like, yeah, I'm getting compensated. And then they're like, "Oh, I didn't know some random L2 nonsense looping thing could blow up Aave. Like, I didn't sign up for that, right? So, um so, you know, like, I think this this whole thread from Tom is like a little bit of intellectualizing what is realistically like pretty clear answer no. Yeah,

exactly. Exactly. And like, we can I don't know. We can dive into it all we want. We can rationalize. We can do the numbers around and stuff, but at the end of the day, once again, we're seeing that um all these sort of like loose DAO affiliations and relationships that are not super clearly defined. Uh like, we don't have waterfall structure defined for how how to do this, right? We're like deciding post hoc. Like, is it the L1s or L2s? And meanwhile, the end users are sitting there like, "Wait, what? Like, I just thought this was an asset. And I also don't eat I didn't even know that I was exposed to this asset." Um and I think it's just like it's a bit of an absurd predicament

that we found ourselves in. And therefore like this whatever you want to call it, donation drive, whatever you want to call it, like, it's good because that's what has to be done to not just like completely wreck everyone. But ultimately, like, everyone like, really needs to step up their game. And I think that perhaps in like the blame game, we lost sight of like who's actually to blame here. But like, literally everyone is to blame. And the incentives are also to blame. Right? Like, everyone failed here. Everyone dropped the ball here.

Um and I think the choice moving forward is like, okay, it's not just It's not as simple as just saying like, okay, LayerZero needs to improve their security. Like, that's not going to be the solution. Right? It'll just It'll happen in a different way next time. Yeah. >> So. >> And and, you know, like, fundamentally, I think this is the challenge, right? Is in TradFi, you have counterparty risk, right? Like, you are in some structured product that's lending money to like Venezuela, right? And Venezuela's like, "Actually no.

Sorry, we're not going to we're not doing this anymore, right? Um like, there are places where you have blow-up risk in in, you know, uh TradFi. It's not like it only happens in DeFi that you get zeroed on something, right? Um what you don't really have in TradFi, I would say, is like you have a counterparty of Goldman Sachs and North Korea infiltrates them and steals all the money. Like, that's not like a thing that typically happens. You don't hear about North Korea like raiding an office and like taking all their gold or something.

>> literally all of it. Yeah, like, all of it. Like, there's not even a speck of gold left in the whole building. They just like gone. All of it. So, yeah, that's I think like when we talk about how do we eliminate this or like dramatically decrease the tail risk, it's like we've got to get away from like this oh, LayerZero needs to be more secure or oh, KELP DAO should have done their configs. No, no, no, no. Aave cannot allow their their entire market to get in this position.

>> Exactly. Exactly. >> Period. And in part, they can do that by having uh things in place to ensure that, say, KELP DAO can't get wrecked for 100% of their money or to ensure that the LayerZero OFT thing can't get hacked, right? They can do that. But that's not like, at the end of the day, there You can only go so far because ultimately, these are third parties, right? You don't You're not literally sitting there running this stuff yourself. And even if you were, like, then okay, so then Aave can get hacked, right? So, how do you evaluate the risk?

How do you um uh like, actually properly price that? But most importantly, how do you make sure that your thing does not get completely underwater because one of your third parties was relying on another third party that wasn't perfectly secure. >> Composability. Composability, baby. That's what we're here for, right? Like, and this is, you know, the the fact that anyone can just turn up and connect their stuff to other stuff, right? The only protection you have is having really clear risk gates, right? Like, don't add that random L2 wrapped thing with one of one, you know, multi-sig control, etc., etc., etc. to

your collateral with infinite borrow ability. Like, don't do that, right? Which, you know, this is the the interesting thing I think about this is that like, for a long time, you know, there's been this like Morpho Aave war of like who's right. And Morpho's like, "Oh, we have curators who are responsible for the vault and therefore, like, you know, you don't have this like principal agent problem where um you know, the the the people who are managing the risk have no exposure to it. And which is interesting, not necessarily true, as we've seen with Morpho all the time, right? But like, in theory, it's a different approach to it as opposed like a centralized risk management system, you know, where

something like this can slip through the cracks. And it's like, "Oh, yeah, we knew that this was a bad idea and we did it for like this reason and then we forgot about it and now it's Right? So, I think Dan Robinson also had an interesting take and and, you know, I always like his takes because they're they're pretty rational. Where he was like, "I agree that DeFi lenders seem to be underpricing risk, right? Like, if you look at it on paper, you go, this doesn't seem rational, right?

But, you know, he's a market structure guy, right? And he's like, you know, basically, that doesn't mean that rates should be higher than they are. You have to take into account demand. And I think I think the the point of that take is that as much as DeFi is connected to the rest of finance, it is still somewhat siloed. And there are market structural reasons why someone may be stuck and not have access to the like global finance risk-free rate for, again, like, weird market structural reasons. It's a global market, etc.

Um and and so that, you know, creates more supply than than, you know, there is demand for borrow. And so there is no arb here. And you end up in a weird situation where like, maybe it should pay like [clears throat] 25%, but it pays four. And everyone's like, "Ah, this is fine. Like, the market's telling me this is what it is, right?" And so like, the whole market is getting this like mispriced signal of how risky Aave is. And it's actually not a four. It's a 20. And, you know, uh and especially when the when when things change quickly, right? Like, if if the market starts changing quickly, i.e., things get hacked every day, um you know, then yeah, it's it's it's

hard to kind of keep track of that. As like, my Aave position was I want to say 18 months old. Was I doing like a weekly re-sanity check of like, no, I was not. I just was not. Like, I was like, "Ah, this is a thing that I'm doing and it's fine." And it just kind of, you know, hangs around there. Um Luca, um uh you guys have been working on building up your DeFi ops, right? On uh Abstract. Um how do you guys think about this stuff?

Like, cuz my assumption is that yield like, higher yields are something that, you know, drives TVL, drives demand, like, gets supply wheel going. Um Yeah, how how do you guys think about this this uh like, yield um problem? We were we were we were thinking about it a lot. And then now, as of recently, it's like reassessing the risks. I mean, the problem is is like it's kind of you made an interesting point, which is like I always underwrote Aave as like I didn't I didn't really It's probably a little naive, but I didn't really like underwrite necessarily risk. And hindsight,

obviously, like, that was stupid to not underwrite it as such. Yeah. >> Um I think I think we, over the last 6 months, we've been working in this direction. And I can tell you internally, over the last couple of weeks, it's like, is the risk even worth the reward? And I can probably tell you that the answer is no. It's not. Because I think like one of the things one of the things here that's unequivocally clear to me is you can come back from a lot.

A hack with sustained realized losses is not something that I think is a a It's just the one place where I'm like, scares me to death. Yeah. >> It's just like it's not worth the game. >> Sorry, let me let me double click on that for a second, right? Because I think I I like, broadly agree with you, but it also depends on how much traction or like PMF or or whatever you have. Like if you're trying to bootstrap something and it gets hacked, then yes, it's probably dead. But like is your take that layer zero or Ave is going to like have some long-lasting

kind of headwinds from this whole event or or you think it blows over? >> I think if they can't if they couldn't make users whole, yes. And so am I in a position you know, am I a part of the D5 cabal, right? That like has the relationships to go and make a hack like that whole? No. Right? Like that is just not the place that I built relationships over the last couple of years. Though I'm sure obviously the space would unite and rally and like kind of how they done. So the answer is as long as users can maintain and stay whole, then you're in the game. And obviously organizations like layer zero and Ave, it's as deep into the crypto nucleus and the cipher

[ __ ] nucleus as you can probably get. Like they have resources, investors, and relationships to go and capture that capital. And the protocols are too integral to like the foundation of crypto itself. Like not nothing necessarily that I'm working on. Like I think has that like structural dependency within crypto where like you know, if if something were to happen to Pudgy Penguin NFTs, God forbid some AI, you know, whatever. Like it's I I would show up. Don't worry.

>> I appreciate that. I know I would bail I would bail you guys out. Like I'm I'm here for it. I'd be I'd be rounding it up. I I think Pudgy Penguins are too big to fail. I I I I I appreciate that. But like if I'm underwriting new initiatives, it's just not a risk I'm willing to take, right? Or a position I want to put myself in. And like dude, in this world with AI, like it's impossible for you to convince me that that risk just doesn't get higher with time until we get like a real breakthrough on the tech stack that like makes me feel otherwise.

Got it. So so Ave layer zero too big to fail. And they made users whole and so they're ready to rock and roll, right? Users are whole and outcome is users are whole. If I'm a net new builder trying to get PMF and I'm using yield to leverage that PMF and I'm doing some sort of scheme to do it, like the risk is not worth the reward to me in that function. Yeah, fair. Fair. Yeah, I think that I mean that's like part of the conversation right now with the um uh the you know, is this a moral hazard? Is should we not bail everyone out? Like there's a lot of moral hazard talk right now.

Not after all. The whole thing is a moral hazard. Like no matter it's like this thing about framing and positioning. I was talking to somebody about this the other day, but it's like you can like take Warren Buffett for example. It's like on one side of the world like Warren Buffett's the greatest investor of all time. And like anyone who's in finance or on the street has so much respect. Some like super woke like just different side of the spectrum type of person would be like, yeah, well he invested in Coca-Cola and contributed to like more >> [laughter] >> and more deaths than like any single human on the planet. Like it's all so subjective and like it's just really comes down from the lane the lens in which you frame it. Like I just don't think it's productive. I think like you have to have, you know, it's a deeper

conversation that we won't have here. But you know what I think we've lost track of is like some like 20 years ago and I was very young or even 10 years ago when I was more conscious, like there were some baseline moral barometer, right? Like hurt people bad, right? Stealing bad, right? And and just the world over the last couple of years even to like this point. Like how it's like what we went over last week. Like how can't you say that making users whole and like preventing huge financial losses is bad? Yet somehow, someway, somebody has conjured up a perspective and a framing of the

situation that is making that bad. And it's like where has the moral baseline like how has it dissipated so insanely over the last couple of years? I couldn't tell you. But like that's just like it's not even an argument to me. Like people like that's that's step number one. But but besides decentralization and integrity and anything, like losing people's hard-earned money bad. Solve that first. It's insane that anyone would think otherwise. Yeah. >> I think you know, this is also part of the like code is law wing of like insanity, right? Like you know, your you have a very user customer centric view of the world. And I feel like if you

nuke your customers, you don't have a business. And like there are people in D5 that are like, those are bad customers. It's good that this happened to them. Like like genuinely, right? Like they're they're like they didn't price their risk uh adjusted yield correctly and this is a good lesson for them all. And so here we are. That was the real argument by the way. It was like is it layer zero that helped out or was it Ave? And there was people who were like, well it's the users for putting their money in Ave in the first place, those idiots. No. Yeah.

I'm sorry. Like shut up. Um I think that I don't know. My biggest takeaway is like look, you have to fix this mostly because we are in no position to talk about moral hazards at this point. Like we can talk about that once we I don't know, once there's a blow-up with a waterfall structure like agreed generally agreed upon, right? But like we're literally flying by the seat of our pants post hoc. Make people whole, do what we can, come together, try to get the best outcome.

And in my opinion like nothing about However this lands, I don't see it dramatically impacting like what people do in terms of the future like security measures and risk measures. Like if you don't bail Ave out, uh I think that like what they're going to do next is basically generally the same as if you do. The only difference is who's harmed and like whether or not they can come back and like how much is lost and that kind of stuff. But I just don't see any position where any of the involved parties are like well that was fine.

Like no, this was not freaking fine. Nobody thinks that. Um You know what? Like maybe down the line we can have like more structured conversations where we're like actually adults. At this point we're not adults. Like yeah, like we Yeah, I I think you know, the the argument of like, oh if we make these people whole or donate or whatever, then it won't change the behavior. Like the behavior needs to change in the protocols, right? Like they are the ones that have the responsibility to to deal with this. And I think irrespective of whether users are made whole, they like are still feeling pain, right? Like you know, nobody wants to have to donate 5,000 ETH to bail out their users, right? Like

that still hurts no matter no matter how much ETH you have. So um all right, let's let's move on to the next segment cuz I'm I'm pretty excited about this for uh reason. So um a few hours ago um it it looks like Meta announced Meta, i.e. Facebook, right? Um announced that they are going to pay creators in USDC. Um so like for a bit of background here, um this is a thing that I think has been around for a long time, but like definitely from my perspective, X was was the first time where I saw this like become a kind of tactical highly talked about thing where like you get

paid based on views on the social media site that you are on. Uh and then, you know uh I know that like TikTok has this and and Instagram. And probably Luka, you have a better sense of this from your from your uh handle marketplace days um of of what the like backstory of all of these creator payouts are. But like my first experience with it was was X. Mhm. Yeah, I mean it's it's pretty cool. I mean it makes tons of sense. Like those payouts in the past had fees associated to it. Like if I'm Meta, like there's no way I don't come to this conclusion. So it's nice that they're acting on it. I

mean fundamentally like these businesses live and die by how many people are creating on their platform cuz the creators are the custodians of the communities and the audiences. And social networks are quite literally hubs of people's individual personality and community. And you know, issuing, you know, stablecoin payments just is going to add less friction to people getting their dollars. I think people are underestimating just how big USDC and USDT and this whole initiative is just for the strength of America and the and the dollar system. I mean like the fact that we just keep putting these dollars in people's hands, like it's just

creating such an amazing moat for the country. And um you know, I think it's just one of those situations where, you know, Meta's Meta's leading the charge and it's all going this way. It's just it's just unequivocally better payment rails. It's been obvious for a long time. Probably my great >> But this is like one of the largest It must be, you know, like the Instagram industrial complex must be one of the largest creator payout systems, right? Like for sure. So, top >> I'm not sure about Facebook directly.

Like I don't know if they pay people for for stuff. I'm not I'm not sure. >> do. They all do in some capacity. YouTube is the highest paying per 1,000 impressions, but they all do now. So, you know, I mean, the beauty of But like understand the network effect. I'm a creator. I get paid in US dollars. Obviously, we get to see the UX UI, but if I get paid US dollars on chain, then I see NFT on timeline or meme coin, and then I just can buy it easily like the network effect of what this does the seeds that are being planted here for all of like my delusional bulls in the room is like >> [laughter] >> continues, right? Like this is setting up for like the alt run that we've been

like waiting for for like that crypto super cycle. Like it's going to be off the backs of the seeds that are being planted like this. Right, where everyone everyone has USDC easily. They don't need to buy it. They're being paid in it, right? So, the The interesting thing about this is when when X first released their payments, I was like, "Oh, cool." And me being an idiot, I literally assumed that it would be in stablecoin. Like it did not occur to me that it would not be in stablecoins cuz how are you supposed to pay people all over the world?

It was not. And so, I signed up for it just to like see what is this flow. It took me, I think, like a day and a half to get it completely hooked up because you needed like give a bank account, and there was like KYC and all of these things. And it was just like so painful. And I get paid, I think, like I want to say it's like 50 bucks a month or 100 bucks a month or something like that. Um I'm not even sure if I would know how to turn it off at this point. I don't even know where it goes. It goes in some random bank account that I gave. >> I have no idea where mine goes. None. And it was >> Like if it went into my like wallet, I would see it, but like it just goes somewhere, and and that's

kind of it, right? So, um yeah, this this feels uh this feels super bullish. Um So, there's more to this story. >> to get paid. I would love to get paid in in like crypto. I have a joke cuz I literally don't know where mine go at all right now. [laughter] Yeah, I I'll send it to your account. I'll make sure it shows up somewhere. Just let me sign in. Well, so and I came You're like, "It took me a day and a half." It took me freaking like 6 months because my Stripe account was on my like I hadn't used it in like a decade, but it would still existed.

But it had out-of-date KYC under my maiden name. So, it was like, "Oh, you need to give your real docs now." And I was like, "Okay, cool." And so, I give the real docs, and then they're like, "What?" And I was like, "Oh, shit." Like it was so long It was so long ago. Um and so, yeah, then I had to go through like a whole manual. It was just a pain in the butt. And then when I finally when it finally like worked or whatever, I guess it just goes into that account now. But I don't know where it comes out. Like It's completely insane. So, the thing that the reason like this is amazing, and I agree with with Luka that like having millions, tens of millions, hundreds of I don't know how many people they pay,

like 100 million people getting paid in USDC every year to the tune of like maybe, you know, billions of dollars is insane and amazing. Um But there is another element to this story, right? Which is Facebook stablecoin coming full circle story right? So, we've got We've got a tweet here, and it's an old tweet. Let's see if we can put it up from Maxine Waters.

Um So, this is And it's funny cuz it's referring to Trump, right? Um basically saying uh that this is like again, I guess 6 years ago. ancient ancient history 6 years ago, right? So, she says Facebook let Russia manipulate voters and put Trump in the White House. So, this is not this version of Trump. Like she would be horrified to know that like we did round two, right? Now, they want to create their own currency with no regulations and run it out of Switzerland. We need to stop this now.

So, this week and this moment in time, right? And Facebook's sheer idiocy back in 2016 or whatever it was that they were they were doing this, right? Um is for a lot of people, I think, the moment where the Democrats said, "Actually, crypto is the devil." Like this was the first thing where they were like, "This is not just a weird toy money thing we can ignore or whatever. Like uh this is actually super dangerous, is like a risk to civilization basically because particularly at that time, and I

think this is this is maybe um kind of uh declined a little bit of over the years, but there was a period of time where uh the like, you know, what became the Mag 7 was like hugely problematic for Democrats, right? Like they had this real like uh kind of antipathy towards the the large, you know, tech conglomerates, right? Google and and Microsoft and and, you know, there there was like, you know, antitrust things that you know, that had been going on for a long time, but like there was there was a real kind of sense within

um you know, a wing of the Democrat Party that like these companies were really bad, really too big at all. Really evil. Like really really really. Like it was like a mashup. And like once they got involved once the election stuff happened, it was like I mean, she says it, right? She's like, They let Facebook >> Social media who let Russia elect Trump in aren't you, right? That was the narrative. But it was like, yeah, it's this perfect storm of like these powerful people who are like running around Silicon Valley being rich.

Uh it's like capitalism in a nutshell. >> Being rich. And then you have freaking the Russia and the politicians on top of it. Um and they just yeah, it was like a perfect storm, and they really decided that like really all social media was like true evil. Um and that like there was no way in hell that that Facebook meta was ever going to play a role in in the economy. That was just like not not a thing that They just were not going to allow that happen, right? So, so they killed it. They killed this this stablecoin. But here is the And you know, the the fact that like Facebook was so early to this well, right? Like this is like this was a thing when like stablecoin, you know, there was only

Tether, right? And they were like, "Hey, we're going to do our own stablecoin." That timeline where this doesn't get shut down and like Diem becomes a thing. But the thing that was the dumbest part of this from Facebook, and I do not know how they did not sense check this with like someone was the the this was not going to be a US dollar stablecoin. It was going to be a weird bag of currencies, right? Um that that was going to like it some cypherpunk in Facebook somehow like did some weird like anti-USD pilling of Zuck somehow and like got

this over the line, but like it was such a crazy scheme. I mean, it does speak to the fact that it was early crypto that you could actually it with a straight face be like, "We're going to make a our own weird denomination of currency and and do a stablecoin." But like this set off what eventually became like the whole, you know, the Gensler era of crypto of like crypto's dangerous and destabilizing to US interests, and we must stop it, and everything about it is bad, etc. etc.

There there like this is pretty clearly that. So, the fact that 10 years later, brazenly enough, where we've come full circle, and they're like, "Actually, USD US dollars are good, bro. Let's let's just give it to people." Um is is pretty wild um because yeah, that that alternative >> do it, right? Like They're just They're not asking permission anymore, which I think is the way to go. I don't know why they ever asked Congress for permission in the first place. That was weird. Um Cuz they hadn't shipped it. That was why Congress got their hands around them in the first place. It was like they had not they had not shipped it. Yeah, it was They announced it. It took like 2

years. It was, you know, And like every every step of the way Congress was like, "Get up here and explain why this is fine." And like you can't. Like it's a gotcha environment. Um Okay, this was right. This was 2019 that this this happened. Um So 2019 >> that's still like we're still talking pre-NFTs, pre-DeFi. Yeah. >> basically just ICOs. Like that's all we had. >> just ICOs, right? It's weird though. Like the the I'm I'm a bit confused on this timeline.

We'll we'll have to dig into this because like the the election was the big thing, right? This like, you know, Facebook let Trump I guess they were still banging on about it like 3 years into >> Yeah, they were I mean it was the whole They hadn't they hadn't given up on on the whole thing. So, all right, let's go to an ad break and we'll be back with some Pump Fun action. Multichain Advisors is an emerging technology growth firm that has helped create over $50 billion in enterprise value for more than 80 clients like Piff, MoonPay Commerce, and Wormhole.

They've worked with some of the largest and most impactful companies in the space. They're the partner you want when you're navigating markets and trying to break out from the noise. They help navigate TGEs, go-to-market, BD, and partnerships, capital markets advisory, PR, media placements, KOL activations, and more, driving execution from launch to scale. Their results are measurable. To learn more and start building real traction today, visit multichainadv.com. Okay, so we are back. Pump Fun yesterday announced that they have burned 370 million dollars worth of Pump tokens that they ostensibly bought on market. I think

that was the the um explanation of of where those tokens came from. Although there is a lot of skepticism from a lot of people. I saw a lot of takes on the timeline of like did they even burn them? Are tokens real? Is Pump Fun real? Like people are very weirdly skeptical of almost anything that the Pump Fun team says. Like the conspiracy theories are wild every time they they say something. And I think a big part of it is that they have an expectation that there would be an airdrop.

And I'm not sure that I've ever seen like an explicit thing where the Pump Fun people said there would be an airdrop. I think it's always just been this assumption of there must be an airdrop. They keep not airdropping. Maybe they did say they were going to do an airdrop and change their mind. I I'm not really sure. >> they did they did. They did? Okay. So, some people have an expectation of an airdrop and they were like, "Hey guys, 370 million dollars worth of tokens that we have accumulated over here." And then they were like, "Let's light it on fire." I saw some good memes of of Aylon burning the tokens instead of distributing them to people.

I mean we've talked about this before. As a founder, you have 370 million dollars worth of tokens and you have a choice of sending it to I don't know. Let's call it 370 million people and giving them a dollar right? Um or you can burn them. Just from like a very pragmatic standpoint Luca like sending those tokens out to people, we know what they're going to do with them. Mhm.

Oh, yeah, we do. >> [clears throat] >> Okay, what's the argument for what's the argument for burning? >> you the argument. I got I can argue this all day. >> All right. All right. The argument as I said very anecdotally with Pengu is and and I burned tokens, too. Remember remember Can you gave me some [ __ ] for that? I I I did. Yeah, I I >> I'm glad you still remember that. I'm glad you're still upset about it. Of course, of course. Now, I remember. Uh but but but it was frankly not because I burned it. It was because I kind of moved the needle on how I burned it, but that's a different story that we won't we won't bring back to life.

>> For what it's worth, I think like in in the light of day 2 years later or whatever it is, I think like it was definitely the right call. Seeing the >> Wait, wait, what's the but why do we burn things? What's the value here? Okay, so the burn the the and they thought the same thing. My logic around the burn was you know, supply crunching, aligning with community, right? Like we burned 13% of the supply at two was some a similar number. It was like 280 million dollars. And it's supposed to be a signal that like, "Look, like these tokens still exist in the world and rather than doing something else with them, like we're going to align with you guys the best of our ability."

And and that is principally what it is. Now, the difference though between us and them is we had already given 50% of the supply to people, right? So, we were already like this people's coin. This idea that, you know, the the airdrop if done right and I thought we did it right at Pudgy at least for the time cuz everyone and their mom was like, "Dude, 50% liquid float, you were mad." Right? In a world where floats were, yeah, three, four, five percent of the fully diluted value, it was actually a very contrarian bet. Uh and and I would and if you look at it, right? Post that announcement when we talked about the distribution, we went from getting a couple million views a post to like 10, 15. I mean I don't know if anybody

remembers, but like for 2 weeks I was clocking like 15, 20 million views a post. It was madness. And that actually was able to kind of wash out the sell pressure on the size of the airdrop cuz there was so much volume, so much buying and selling. Their issue is that they never airdrop. They had, you know, I think he deleted the tweets, but I'm like 99.9% certain he had mentioned that he was going to airdrop. They never did it. And rather than, you know, fulfilling on that promise and that expectation, you kind of create like this new idea that you're like aligning, but you still haven't fulfilled the first promise. So, that's where it fell short.

How I would like I'm actually a component that like airdrops done right can be like hugely beneficial and that's why I took, you know, put the money where my mouth is in terms of that statement and like actually being on huge distribution and that being beneficial. Their whole strategy though, Kate, and I know you appreciate this as somebody who's like stared at tokens and tokenomics, it actually functionally makes no sense how they got here. And I have no reason to believe that these guys aren't incredibly bright. I mean they invented the bonding curve. They are not like stupid operators, but like the emotional quotient is not in that room. Because if you actually just think about it logically, they're in a position that pretty much almost nobody

else is where the flywheel and the moneys that they make are so insane that if I was them, I would literally give the biggest airdrop the world has ever seen and I would pray it drew down 95% because in the case that it because in the case where they are not capital constrained, they can then basically buy the entire token. And if they would have done this from day one, they would have drawn down 95% they would then own the entire float. This thing would be vertical up only and and you would be the biggest champion the space has ever seen. Instead, somehow, some way, they decided to redact the airdrop somehow, some way and

not give it to the community. Half of them like get anytime they get a chance to grave dance on the guy, they try to do it. And then he's like perpetually fighting not only the market sentiment, but the internal community sentiment. >> His own users, right? And he has a perpetual float problem that like he could have addressed, you know, at that moment. And like, "Dude, we drew down 95%. It hurt. It was the worst time of my life, but like we brought it back, you know?" And like he is way more prone and capable to bring it back because of the resource of capital that they have to basically control their token. It actually makes zero sense how they've gotten to this point on this side of the spectrum in regards to how their token

kind of functions within their ecosystem. Because Yeah. So, so I think that's that's a very good take and and I like broadly agree with you. The the fear, right? If, you know, to to kind of like frame it from their perspective, has to be that like we do have this flywheel and if we give people the tokens and the token goes down by 95% what happens if that somehow kills our momentum or whatever. And like for what it's worth, I think this is unfounded, right? Like they have product market fit. The token

They're doing the worst thing that they could do with the token and it doesn't seem to be impacting their their PMF. So, I think they could absolutely bear this as as you say, you know, even if it was to draw down 95%. Then put your buybacks. Like the buyback revenue is not tied to the token price at all. They're completely decoupled. It's not like this is like some token price flywheel where if the token price goes down, the thing stops. But I can see how there was a period of time where everyone was like, "Never airdrop." Even I would say it. Like never airdrop. It's like the worst idea possible.

You know, you just end up getting a bunch of people who dump on you and doesn't actually drive awareness or growth or any of the things that you're you're hoping to get. Um Of course there are counterexamples and I think, you know, Pengu's is one of them. Um but I can see how you could get yourself to the point where you're like, "Actually, airdrops are dumb. We're not doing it." I would agree, but you have, you know, there there's two points to that. Their they have they their claim is that they are their moat is way more defensible than people think. And I actually don't think that's a fugazi claim. I think that's actually true.

From the branding to the DNA to the behavioral pattern. I mean, everyone's tried to [ __ ] take market share from them and they've lost. >> Yep. Right? >> Yep. And so, like, in a world where you have a real defensible moat, right? Like, the thing that's going to stand the test of time for them to keep the gravy train going is the sentiment of their community. And there's such a decorrelation between price of their token and success of their business that the only thing you can come to is just a complete mismanagement of the community sentiment and the emotional quotient of their users. Like, and and the thing is is like, dude, like, I would argue if he gave a ridiculous airdrop, like, let's just do the math, right? Let's say it came out

at 4 billion. He did the biggest airdrop of all time or like one of. He could have been a top 10 easy. He drew it down 95% took, you know, that same $370 million, bought it back at a call it a Let's say it drew down 90%. The thing has a fully diluted value of 400 million bucks. Within a month, he controlled the entire float. Everyone would have them. He would promise another airdrop a year or 2 years from now, right? They would then use the platform 10 times more because they knew he blessed them. He could then, you know, say, "I'm going to bless you even more." He'd have the facts and the and the credibility to say that. And then he would get like 20 times more users. Just like, no matter how many ways you skin

this cat with this specific protocol, with this specific build, the right decision was just to give it all, let it draw down, buy it all back up. I mean, not only is their revenue, I mean, they raised 400 million on the sale. Like, they have so much cash. And then this could have just been an infinite money printer for them until infinity. How you fix this? I mean, look, Alan, if you're listening to this, you can you can give me a call. I'm more than happy to give you a free hour. It's actually the same thing for everyone. >> be free. It's the same thing for everyone. It's the same thing for everyone.

Luca, do you think that there's maybe some element, right? And and you know, uh I'll call out that like I was an investor in the fund two, AllianceDAO Vintage that these guys like came out of. It was It was not much money. Um and and I think we then uh went into or or tried to go into the billion-dollar round. Do you think that there's some fear, pressure, whatever coming from those investors that invested at that billion-dollar round, right? To be like, "Do not give out free tokens. We just bought tokens at a billion-dollar val.

If you do that, you're [ __ ] us." And they're more worried about their like reputational risk when it comes to institutional investors than like the the actual users of the platform. Well, and they also might The thing is that that billion-dollar deal was not that long ago, right? So, we don't know the terms of that deal. But if they if the investors have certain terms, whatever those may be, those might impact the way that you can do an airdrop, right? And it's not necessarily saying that I do know the terms and I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Um I don't think that there was any restriction on uh cuz I think at the time that they did

the deal, there was still this uh like assumption of an airdrop. So, I don't think they're prevented from doing an airdrop. >> I'm not saying that they're prevented. I'm just saying uh >> [laughter] >> uh like like I don't think they're going to give like 20% of the airdrop. Yeah, I don't think there's like a clause to like let people sell back them or anything like that. I'm I'm At least my reflection is that's not the case but um But yeah, so but assuming that they have nothing preventing them, like, where where do you sit, Luca, in the It doesn't make sense because it's assuming that they assume The assumption where where it makes sense, where that would

be a case if I was an institutional investor, would be the assumption that it wouldn't bring more liquidity and dollars to the flywheel that already exists. And I'm convinced that if you do this and do this right, they will only make more money. And the difference about crypto than traditional equities is it's more reflexive. Meaning like, okay, will those billion-dollar guys like will there be a moment of nervousness? Sure, but you guys are investors. You have balls on you. So, like, you know, that's part of the game.

The beauty about this and like the money that they make is they can crunch the supply so quickly at the right price that they did this right, there would be two days of 100% candles back to back and everyone and their mom would be jumping for joy, right? The variable here that makes them so unique and such in a position to just people please and literally be the man. Like, he's already the man. He's how however old he is, worth a billion bucks, and they're split amongst a couple guys. Like, those guys are already like the the guys, but like they're not the people's champ. They're actually probably the polar opposite.

Like, most people [ __ ] hate them, right? And then >> [laughter] >> I You know, I'm an entrepreneur. I'm I'm indifferent. Like, I'm not a pump fun user, right? But like, dude, pump fun a low like the function of just issuing tokens and and just like it just being so communal, like, oh my god, dude, if you were the people's champ, you'd be at a $5 billion-a-year run rate. It would just I just believe that. And if it's not five, it's two, but it's more than whatever they're making, right? >> Right.

>> And and We got to We got to clip this and send it to Elon and and be like, "All right." >> I'll just say this. I just pulled up the chart of their revenue. I'm shocked that their revenue has held. It's crazy. It's crazy. Now, And obviously it peaked up before, but like it This is not like your classic ICO OpenSea graph, right? Those go to the moon. That's not That they're still doing numbers, like, pretty decent numbers. So, that's actually a really interesting dynamic cuz it's you do have the business. You have the revenue from the business, and then you have the token on top. It seems like maybe they have

>> There is a I should call out There is a conspiracy theory as well that like the revenue is actually not real. They just took the money that they raised and they're like inflating the revenue numbers. >> [laughter] >> I mean, cuz crypto, right? So, no one believes anything. No one trusts anything. So, yeah. Yeah. I don't know I I'm I'm not suggesting that's the case, but I'm If you go and like to your point though, Luca, right? Um there aren't that many Pudgy Penguins conspiracy theories out there. Pudgy Penguin holders are pretty happy.

Even if the price is down, they they still love the brand, love the the ecosystem. They're not inventing crazy stories. Whereas if you go and look up Pump Fun, the conspiracy theories are wild. It's crazy. So, there's definitely a disconnect between like the users of the platform and and uh the team um in that regard. >> fix that so quick. He just have to have the willingness to fix it. A little bit of [ __ ] you know, he has to believe in the thoughts that I laid out or somebody else who lays out similar thoughts. And they just have to like it it's an easy Of all the problems you can fix when you're making that much money, even you know, whatever the conspiracy is. They're making money, right? It's

not all you know, cuz I know of enough people. And and the principal of that casino, it's it's the greatest new iteration of casino that we've seen in the last, you know, 5 years. Like, they're making real money, right? Like, there's a way to fix this. It's just like, is there is there a willingness to fix it? Now, I know the investors are going to pressure them to fix this because you got guys who were in it who, you know, thought, you know, they had made a billion dollars on some of their investments. And they're great people, but like, they're looking at the reality and they're like, this the winning here seems lopsided to like the team versus like the people who took a bet on this where nobody else would. And so like I know those guys are going to apply

pressure. It's going to come down to like willingness to like, you know, are you you know, are you willing to take that bet? But I promise you if they took that bet, they're going to win nine out of 10 times. Yeah, fair. Fair, fair. Um all right, let's move on to our next segment. Um We don't probably only have time for one more. So, uh let's let's talk about this Open AI phone. Um you guys If you guys are open to that. This is something that I've been I think we've even talked about it on the show, right? Like, um the culmination of uh vibe coding and this like new form factor of agents is going to force us to

get new operating systems, I would say. Like, operating systems will have to adapt. Like, the opportunity um to break the stranglehold of like Windows, Apple operating system, you know, Android iOS uh phone operating system um kind of duopoly is like finally here. And people have tried to do this before, you know, um Microsoft tried to do it. And and you know, people have tried to come out with their own phones. It feels like Open AI um I Like, to be honest, I'm surprised that they're doing this because they just had this whole thing about focusing on like coding agents and and getting back to

like first principles, but uh you know, um maybe that this is their fire phone moment, the Amazon uh the Amazon phone that uh is like Everyone convinces everyone to do a phone at some point, and 99% of the time they freaking fall on their face. Um is Ma'am, you're saying that the Seeker smartphone uh is um not a roaring success? How dare you? I heard that the uh >> I heard that the AirDrop was nice though. The AirDrop is good. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. The AirDrop The AirDrop The AirDrop is I can't

remember. I've literally never heard anyone talk about the phone itself though. They're just like I put the phone had money on it. The phone had money on it? It's a good feature. You buy a phone and it has more money on it than it cost you to buy it. That is a good feature. I mean >> Yeah. Yeah. It's honestly a great feature. It >> It's a great It's a great feature. In terms of like does it replace my iPhone? No. Sorry guys. So so Open AI is uh there was a hardware leak um that they are working on an AI native phone um with agents replacing traditional apps um targeting 2028 um and one of the large Chinese manufacturers, Luxshare, um as the

uh assembler of this phone. Um the the interesting question I guess, right, here is like, you know, do they build a fork of Android [clears throat] um like other people have tried to do before? Most people have tried to because it is open source um or do they actually say no, like this needs a rethinking of the operating system for uh for an agent-based system um you know, and also we have like all of the coding agents in the world and we can just get them to Um so it's going to be it's going to be very interesting question. I mean, the other thing that it brings up as well

though uh is the the first of all like Tim Cook um you're passing the the torch over to um John Ternus um you know, the same way that it happened when Tim Cook took over like priorities shifted a little bit. Um one of the priorities that I think if you if you look back at Tim Cook's entire tenure, the thing that Apple butchered the worst of all of the things is AI. Like it's just mind-blowing. Like the only the only thing that they have going for them is like the MLX uh you know, competitor to to the Nvidia platform where um you know, you can do

local inference and and uh things like that. Outside of that from like an actual user, which is their [ __ ] jobs, right? Like outside of the like weird hardware like low-level, you know, inference stuff, they have just completely bombed. I mean, Siri was never good. Like it was never it was never great. >> too early and then I like I I wonder if this like is a >> pivoted it. They never pivoted it. They also just never threw her in the trash and replaced her with better AI.

Yeah. I don't know I don't know what happened, but uh it's it was definitely rough. Because they should have been making Tinder and it should have been my phone better. Like I still can't yell at my phone to actually do things reliably. Yeah. Yeah, it's it's pretty crazy um that that they just didn't land that, right? Like one of one of the >> missed. They just completely missed. So um you know, the market opportunity though is that like people are frustrated, right? It's weird that my MacBook Pro has like all of these agents running, all of these like software agents and you know, you've got like Claude in in an iOS app and and Codex in an iOS app and Grok and uh you know,

uh Perplexity and all these amazing apps, but they're sandboxed to a tiny thing. They can't do anything in the operating system. The operating system is like functionally [ __ ] compared to the apps. Like the delta between how smart the operating system is and how smart some of the apps are is insane. Like it's insane like it's absolutely insane. You're like, "Oh hey Siri, like what how do I do this thing?" Like Siri has no idea. Has no idea how to do anything. Like has no awareness of the world, no knowledge. Like it's just it's wild. So um it will be very interesting to see how this plays out because there's absolutely no question that the agent form factor in terms of how

software works and the hardware form factor of like holding a rectangle with a piece of glass on it is probably not going to change like they're going to have to come together somehow and we haven't landed this yet. So like the opportunity is is massive for right? Like but they were not going to like be wearing [ __ ] glasses or having brain implants yet. Like people are still going to walk around with a glass rectangle and want the glass to be smart. Like so someone has to win this. Please guys. We we need to solve this.

Yeah. I know I'm super interested in seeing if they I hope they I hope they do a new OS. I hope they don't just fork Android cuz they're going to be so hamstrung by just how the operating system is already set up. I think if they get a few good people and let them go to town, give them basically like unlimited budget, you can do some really interesting things that sort of level up the world theoretically in the same way that we went from like BlackBerry to the first iPhone and then like the App Store happened and it just it was just an insane time. You can imagine the same thing could happen here, but it takes someone who's actually going to build the operating system, not just fork Android. And I'm not sure based on what I've read, I'm not sure that that that's

happening. Um but it's not easy. Like you have to actually sit down and from first principles of this new thing like do it better. Actually different better in the same way that again the first iPhone was not BlackBerry. Was not Nokia, was not every other phone on the market. It was It was a side step around all of that stuff, right? Not more buttons, but one button slash infinite buttons. I I think um the the interesting question for me and I've thought about this a lot uh over the last few months when it comes to the kind of um you know, these duopolies tend to form,

right? Like you've got this Open AI Anthropic duopoly right now, at least in in cloud inference where like they are out trying to out-release each other and out-feature each other and it's like it's amazing for users, right? Like they just keep pushing things as hard as possible. Um what's interesting though is because they are both so good and there is like not really a uh like strong differentiation um that you could just go um never going to use that one and just use this one and like lean into it. Um you know, the way that that you kind of have to with like Apple uh and and the Google ecosystem, right? Like you either lean into like having Android and all

the Android peripherals and all of that stuff. It's really hard to mix the two. I know people do it with like Windows and and um and like iPhone, but that's honestly frankly [ __ ] I can't believe people manage to do that. I don't know how they live like that. Um but this is a weird situation where like if you want the best coding software for example, right? Um it's hard to see how either Open AI or Anthropic can build it because they are locked into their own ecosystem and it's shifting so quickly that like you also probably want Deep Seek or like local inference or you want to be able to use Claude sometimes for like design stuff. And so you end up in this weird

situation where you can't just use one platform's tools. You need to have both of them. And so this is where Cursor was like so well positioned cuz they're like, "Ah, we'll you can use anyone you can use Gemini, you can use anyone's uh anyone's cloud inference and we'll just give you the kind of framework to to operate that in." Um so that's the open question for me I guess in terms of like can one of the large labs build hardware that locks you into their ecosystem and have it not be super frustrating that like actually I want Claude because Claude just released a new version and

it's smarter than your guy. They have the money to figure it out, but hardware is not software. I'll tell you that much. Exactly. Yeah. And that's that's the I think that's the issue that's going to be at hand is like what what is their goal with the phone? If they go hard on it though, it's going to be um it's it's you have to rethink it from again from first principles in terms of like AI interactions and like what these agents are doing and what these are experiences actually like.

But conceptually, it's actually not that different from how the iPhone works, right? Like in the same way that the iPhone can give applications and certain pieces of the phone and the operating system and the firmware and the software access to like the camera and to these things, right? But the way that it's set up right now is application focused. So you have applications like the Nest is like the operating system, the applications, then the applications can access core part of the firmware or the hardware or the software. Um and it's all this sort of like permissioning system.

I It's really hard to imagine the AI being the same because again you want additional contacts and you want cross contacts. And that's currently like one of the biggest issues with a lot of the iPhone apps is like you don't have you don't necessarily have that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, you're in a sandbox. And so how do you how do you the biggest question is like how do you get uh How yeah, how do you allow the AI to access the contacts it needs without doing so like horrendously dangerously?

Because we're past the point where you can launch an operating system that's like basically like how Windows or Mac OS is today. Like it's too like you can't there's no going back to how it used to be. Everything's going to be more sandboxed over time. So the question is like yeah, how do you do sandboxing secure truly secure sandboxing with potentially interoperable agents who need context? >> [laughter] >> Like that is not an easy one. So yeah, I don't know. We'll see. Like if they do it then >> but like it's really hard so hard and do it, it's like going to be a life like a world changer in the same way the iPhone is. I don't know if they're if they're in a position to like actually That's the question is like is the is

the lab the right, you know, someone will do this and it does require a lot of resources. Um it's pretty crazy. I was I I looked this up the other day. Um >> [clears throat] >> Open AI and Anthropic are like their market caps are 20X larger than Apple was when it launched the iPhone. The resources that these guys have even factoring in inflation or whatever, right? Like it's still like they're five times bigger than Apple was when they managed to launch the iPhone. So like they have the resources. There there is absolutely no and they also have like magical aliens that they have made that are like really good at coding as well, right? So like the the the

ability for someone to launch something like this like a new phone operating system etc. Um >> [clears throat] >> is is you know, has never been greater. Um because they just have so much capital available to them. So um someone's going to have to try this. It's just an open question about whether or not one of the frontier labs can pull this off or if it needs to be a third party. Like I just don't know if I'll use a phone that was locked into Open AI. As much as I love Codex like Yeah.

if I could if I couldn't use Claude or if there was some restriction or it just wasn't as good I I feel like I wouldn't use it as much. >> is no. The iPhone people forget this. The first iPhone didn't have an App Store. That the what made what took the iPhone from being like a better Blackberry to a complete like life changing product changing everything changing was the App Store. Was third party developers and the >> even more interestingly, Jobs was like [ __ ] you and your like shitty slop code. Yeah. You're never touching this phone.

Yeah. We are the ones that are going to write software for it. You will never, you know, it was almost like a rejection of like the whole uh Mac OS ecosystem of like people keep writing this shitty shareware stuff that's running on my beautiful machines and I will not let that happen to the phone and he capitulated after like you know, less than a year. Less than a year, yeah. Less than a year. He was like all right, like yeah, you win. We can't we can't >> settled. They settled, right? Like the internal people. That's why that's why App Store like it's still like they dictate a lot of stuff and people take issue with this but like the branding, the buttons, the way that things are, the right? That's that's how the apps happened. And you know what? Say what you will

I have always used an iPhone. I like [laughter and clears throat] it better now and like it's a better experience than Android. So Yeah. All right. Um let's wrap it up there. Thank you for joining us for this episode of Unseasy Money. Remember what happens on chain never stays on chain. We'll be back next week. Until then, do your own research before aping in. See you guys. Bye. Bye guys. Nothing you hear on Unseasy Money is financial advice. We're just three builders talking about what's happening on chain and we want you to always do your own research before aping in. You can find all our disclosures at unchainedcrypto.com/unsezymoney.