Wormhole Co-Founder: My Side of The Stargate Acquisition Saga

Transcript

The way in which they decided to do that was what I would kind of call this kind of like DAO attack, right? And so now I'll kind of get into why we decided to do this, which uh Crypto Twitter recently destroyed you on saying that you should be using your 100 million to buy back the token, but frankly, I don't know if you could have came in with a proposal high enough based on the intertwined interest that you're you're describing. >> Welcome back to the Rowup. We are your hosts. I'm Andy. I'm Robbie. And this is your home to learn from the biggest guests, the brightest minds at the tip of innovation.

>> Our goal is to help spread the collective knowledge of everyone in our community. >> We are breaking crypto out of its echo chamber and taking it to the real world. >> Robinson, welcome to the show, man. Appreciate you joining us today. I I think you may have a different story than the one that Rob just laid out. So, uh, what you know, no better place to start than let's hear it. Like, how are you doing? how's the uh how's the last couple days been and would love to hear your side of the story, man. >> What's up, guys? Thanks for having me. Um I'm excited to talk about the Stargate Saga. So, for I guess for context for the listeners, I think this is definitely the first time I've spoken about things publicly uh since kind of the the outcome of the DAO. So my my my intentions here I think

it's important to to kind of outline those is I guess my number one goal or what one one of my goals is I don't want to like I'm not here to like slander uh the competition or anything like that. I quite the contrary. Also I think like a little bit of slander is kind of uh played out within the cryptosphere a little bit. But um I I think my goals here are to educate uh specifically on the details of the DAO process that we went through that I think are being combed over and you know Rob I heard some of your commentary and I think the devils are in the details there and I can go over that.

>> Um and yeah, I think that that's my main goal is just to educate. Uh I think there's um you know this was a kind of an exciting moment within uh within crypto acquisitions and I'm sure we'll see more of it and I want to make sure we learn from from some of these experiences. Yeah, man. I appreciate that perspective. And I think that I think that um the the really really cool part about this before we get into how it all went down is that, you know, I think traditionally in any sort of merger acquisition deals, it's a very very long process. It's a very drawn out legal process. You know, this just happens onchain and this could continue to happen onchain in in in this fashion.

And so, you know, I think that is uh that is a very unique uh part of basically blockchain technology that I think that uh we we can appreciate. So, without further ado, Robinson, appreciate your preamble and your preemptive remarks. There's going to be some spicy ones that that I throw at you. I'm sure you're ready, but let's give you the floor for just just to hear your side of the story. Why did you guys decide to start uh to and make this bid knowing that the quorum had already uh you know that there had already been voting on snapshot that there was already significant uh um reason to believe that layer zero was going to win this outright? Why did you guys do this?

What is your side of the story? How did this play out from your perspective? >> Yeah, and I was I was listening to you kind of give kind of the tea up to this discussion today which I think is important to harp on and I'll do that and then I'll definitely address a question specifically about why we wanted to go in, you know, given that almost quorum was reached even though quorum is like 1% of circulating supply which is just absolutely absurd. So quick comment there. Um but I think it's important to understand interop protocols in general and where the value is. Um and so for instance James Presich actually had a really good tweet about this. So wormhole layer zero like any interop protocol they're messaging protocols right but all the value in like you know future revenues etc if we're being honest is at the asset layer

every every message one of these interop protocols does is in service of something asset related and so when we think when we boil it down to that simple concept and and of course I'm making some blanket statements for brevity the the actual asset components or distribution or frontends become so so critical to your business and so So what you mentioned Andy was you know so and I guess maybe just taking a further step back Stargate is to layer zero what portal is to wormhole right so it's like there you know back when we launched these protocols you we were worried about running an unregulated kind of exchange if you will there there was kind of you know a lot of people chose different made different decisions on spinning out uh you know the actual bridge versus the messaging

protocol we did that we didn't launch a token layers of euro did that with Stargate they did right so if you're an investor and you're looking at here and you're saying okay I'm getting the majority of the volume here is coming from Stargate which token are you going to buy right you're going to buy the likely I mean the the logical thing is like STG right you're going to say well if all if if layer zero is literally in service of Stargate why am I buying zero when I you know I should invest in STG and so this is like a fundamental problem wormhole actually is ahead in this regard we already kind of have portal it's owned and you and worked on by our core teams and it's already going to be in everything app we're already doing same chain swaps etc But has had to kind of make and plan this

move for some times because they have this bifurcation with their tokens. And so the way in which they decided to do that was what I would kind of call this kind of like DAO attack, right? And so now I'll kind of get into why we decided to do this. So first and foremost, um I always look at these little things because they they they make a big picture, right? When was this tweeted? This was tweeted from main account on a Sunday. I looked at I I did a quick I did a quick ask how many times has this account layer zero account tweeted on Sunday and it's like a handful maybe right so the first thing first thing you notice there is like they don't want a lot of people to know this this is going out on a Sunday and so I said okay like

this is interesting $110 million bid hits the the the Dow let's do a little bit of digging here it's actually a $10 million bid you actually don't need to do a lot of digging for that right the stargate treasury is like give it goes up and You know, the markets are a little bit crazy right now. Around $100 million, you know, give or take. It's actually a $10 million bid for Stargate. That's crazy. $10 million for this protocol that so many people use that has all these integrations. So, when I looked at that and looked kind of how misleading this was, you know, we were like this like STG holders deserve like a a fair bidding process here. Um, not to mention and and I'll shut up here in a second and and kind of wrap up, but not to mention we had like anon accounts

emailing us saying, "Hey, we we're being vocal in the discord. We're being vocal anywhere we can. Uh, and we don't feel like this is right." And so I think to your guys question, you say, "Why did we feel like we should vote when quorum wasn't hit or was or, you know, it was close, what not?" For us, the quorum was so low, it didn't even matter. Even the passing vote, I think, was 1% of the circulating supply. So there's a fundamental this is layer zero separate like fundamental problem that that can be what decides the acquisition of a multi-million dollar protocol that much of a decision-making power and so just I thought it's helpful maybe I'll just summarize giving some background to like why this is important from a strategic perspective and then like what what actually was

here it was a $10 million offer and there was like just under a percent of the actual vote like saying hey we're for this and a lot of people coming to us saying this is bad Please help. >> Introducing Extended exclusively on Stark, a nextgen perspective on chain today. Deposit in the community vault for attractive returns, XMV compatible, and engage in unified margin spot trading, lending, and per trading exclusively live at extended.app on Starknet today. Okay, so that sets the scene and it also unpacks some of the details here. You also start to highlight some of the problems that are

abundant across snapshot votes and across Dow votes when I think people saw this on the on the face of it and they saw okay Stargate was kind of born out of layer zero. It was incubated and then it sort of rolled out and spun out on its own and they came when it when it came to wormhole placing this bid and it almost seemed like some sort of vampire attack like you were trying to steal it away from layer zero. What you're saying is that your bid was actually more fair. What what would you say to the criticism of oh you know wormhole's just trying to steal away Stargate and and you know kind of overtake this uh from layer zero.

>> I guess first I would say like of course we're going to want to buy Stargate. There was It was kind of funny at first. Everyone thought it was a marketing play. Like there was actually probably a 24 48 hour period before we actually put in kind of like a It was actually a response to their proposal. We never put in a formal like Dow proposal. But when we put in that response that had that $120 million, we had the money on chain. It's actually about 48 hour period where people actually just thought it was a marketing stunt, which is interesting to me. And it's like very much so like how misinformation spreads. Like why wouldn't I remember like remember the mental model I say, right? portal wormhole Stargate layer zero. If we can get another distribution front end for wormhole, that is insanely valuable. Like why wouldn't we want to

do that? We actually had investors calling us like this is a great opportunity blah blah blah. And so like yes, you could say we were stealing it away, but stealing it away to make it successful like from our perspective, right? So like I guess I the one thing I would dispel is that this was at all a marketing stunt and and for us beyond that we also wanted just a fair process for the Star for SG holders, right? there there was like a small small window to have this go through. Stargate honestly if it was two if it was anonymous voters and I can get into why anonymous voters would have mattered and there was more time I I think Stargate could have gone for you know the numbers we're talking about here was with the Treasury like closer to $200 million. um we just put in an offer to try and stop

the vote. But I think my biggest regret is we should have came in with just a little bit more of a a higher offer to really really shock you know the 10 million over just didn't give enough shock for some of these voters that were on the fence to say hey you know what I have these agreements and stuff with layer zero I'm okay you know foregoing those potentially in order to vote for a better outcome for Stargate. M. So, so you when you went to put the offer in, you legitimately thought that you had a chance to win. It wasn't just like a let's try to, you know, stir the pot. That's what >> Absolutely. I we we thought we had number one a chance to win. And the reasons I'll back it up again, remember quorum is such a small really like the

vote came down to like two voters. Like that's that's that's really what it came down to. Like that is such a small amount to overcome for something so big. So, of course, we felt like we had an opportunity to win. And I think Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Finish. I >> I was just going to say the thing I want like the other thing I want people to know is like this was a proposal for layer zero to buy Stargate and with a clock ticking, right? All we were trying to do is say, "Hey, here's here's money on chain. We're putting our money where our mouth is. We want this to go to a no. So then we can go to a real process where multiple biders can come in, bid up the price and have it what's best for the actual DAO and protocol. For

instance, Axelar came in at the last minute. You know, Hart from across came in at the last minute. Like all these when you actually look at the number, you know, 120 million is maybe like, oh, only a layer zero wormhole could afford that. But when you look at the net value, 10 20 30 40 50 what it actually could have gone up to, it's not that expensive for the protocol. And so we really just wanted to get that to a no vote so we could go to a fair bidding process. And would you say that you had reason to believe that um or or any speculative belief that the voters who voted to essentially accept this proposal from layer zero are also key stakeholders of layer zero itself.

I think this is where things get a little bit like I'll go back to my first goal at the beginning which is like I I really don't want to necessarily slander the competition. Space is big and I think we've got plenty of opportunity. Look, what I will say, and this is probably just DAO governance as a whole, maybe I can frame it like that. There are a lot of co-mingled interests, right? Like if you think about the the stakeholders that are holding a lot of these tokens and you think about the history of layer zero and Stargate since the beginning, right? Like there are going to be tied interests together, especially the big token holders, the ones that are holding millions, etc. Like they're probably building stuff. They're probably big traders. And so what we found, and I actually respect a lot of the STG

voters, so I'm not going to name any names, but what we found going through that process was like a lot of these voters really didn't either didn't want to vote or didn't want to vote no. Uh because they were worried about repercussions with relationships. And you know, that that that could be like just a standard voting thing we have to get over. But I I I found that that was just a little bit disappointing because it was almost like this unethical process where we have what's best for Stargate and STG holders is a bidding process where the highest number wins. But at the same time, these individuals have these really like intertwined interest, whether it's businesses they run on the side, etc. that like, you know, make it so that it it's it's kind of nerve-wracking to actually vote because you don't want to ruffle any

feathers. And so that's kind of what we were bumping up into at the at kind of the final hour here and ultimately which which is what led to kind of the outcome that we see now. >> Yeah. So so if you were to be able to go back and do it again seeing as the result kind of uh it feels like maybe the the the punch wasn't strong enough to really shake up the Stargate voters for the reasons that you just described, right? Conflict of interest and just kind of fear, etc. or just basically what they think is best. you know, is that is that the only thing that you would change? like either the situ you know what's in your control and what's not in your control perhaps with the quorum and the Dow voting on snapshot and your actions like I is there certain

things that you would like to see changed about the mechanism in the future like for example is the 1% for sure too low and that you know there's a different percent that you believe is approximately more fair or is there a process that maybe you would have done differently on the wormhole side uh you know should this should something like this happen again just things that are in your control and also just more broadly systemic uh you know mechanics let's call them you know curious what you'd want to see change in the future. Yeah, maybe I'll start with us and then I'll go to Dowo governance, right? Like so a lot of people see CCT, but what they don't realize with any of these like these these like uh battles always come up in all protocol categories every now and then, right? Like it's like 96

hours of straight sprinting. And so like the the unfortunate pro thing was and I'll give you some context like and this isn't Stargate's fault. We didn't even get an NDA signed on the Stargate side, right? How how am I going to convince my team or my board to spend any 10 to$50 million if I have no due diligence docs on Stargate, right? And so I have to work with a team maybe that's not super willing work with all these voters in a like a 96 whatever hour period. It's like it's untenable. Like it acquisitions should not be done in this time period. So I think baseline that should change and and what I'm I'm serious and this wasn't Stargate's fault, right? There's red lines when it comes to something like this. Like most most mergers, most acquisitions take six months, can take 12 months, right? And

of course, we want things to go faster because we're in crypto. We want things to go faster, but we have to be reasonable, right? We can't do these things that fast. And so, um, you know, what I will say is like number one, it just can't it can't really happen in this quick time period. We didn't even get diligent docs. Well, I think we got them at like the final hour if I'm being like, you know, fully critically honest here. and it's just like wasn't enough to then turn around and putting a meaningful offer. But I think for us, if I the other thing I would say I would tactically do different and where I think we went wrong a little bit, I would have came in with the higher offer. I think from our perspective, we said all we need to do is beat or

layers offer to show that, hey, you have some serious biders here. And that's also why we put the money on chain. We said this is USDC. This isn't zero token. This is there's no conversion risk here. This is USDC. We will straight up we we will do this if you vote no. so we can open up our own proposal. And so I would have just gone higher. I think what I learned after from the voters is that given all their intertwined ties with layer zero, like they didn't feel like the 10 was enough to say like, okay, this is just so such a good deal. I can't I can't leave this on the table, right? So like I'll take that feedback. We should have gone in higher. We should have kind of, you know, hit heavier there. Um and then yeah, I mean in terms of quorum, look, I

I've been just like you guys, you travel a lot and I've talked to a lot of people. The one one thing in this the industry right now and and may I I'll avoid going on a tangent, but I think crypto is going through its practical era, right? We're seeing smaller validator sets. I think Andy, you and I have talked about this hyperlquid, FOGO, circles of 20 validator uh chain, but also like the practicality around Dowo governance in general. I've been asking a lot of people I respect, what do you think about Dowo governance? What is the future? I haven't heard any bullish sentiments on governance at all. And so, so I just think running any sort of acquisition like this through a DAO is it it's kind of predatory if I'm being honest because you you have such a short window. You you can know the

voters, you can corner the voters, you can do things in the background and like make your will happen. And yes, I know there was some four proposals in the actual forum, but if you go to the Discord, if you actually you go to the forum as well and the forum there's not a lot. And if it and if you go to our emails, like it's crazy how many people were against this but nervous to make their voice known because if it did go through, you know, this entity that's acquiring them, it's going to know they're going to remember who wasn't for them at that time. >> Some people did voice their dis displeasure with the proposal. I'm going I'm on the layer zero uh discourse, the Stargate discourse, and this this thread is insane.

>> Read some stuff. >> Yeah. So, so just before I do to push back, Robinson, I think you're right. If you hadn't come in with a higher proposal, maybe it would have worked, but frankly, I don't know if you could have came in with a proposal high enough based on the intertwined interest that you're des you're describing. So the guy who posted the proposal um in his proposal says well well for one he's uh part of the layer zero foundation and in his retort to the wormhole proposal on this thread he says as someone with a significant amount of STG Stargate as the found the the foundation of layer zero also with a significant amount of STG he fully supports this deal of course right because he's he's in the

foundation someone calls him out as as so I guess he had $44,000 worth of STG. Someone says, "Oh, you mean as someone with 44,000 STG?" Pretty reasonable question. This guy responds, "Oh no, do you have more? Did I fail your purity test for STG ownership? Allow me to get on a knee and bow to you, oh grandmaster of STG tokens." This is the guy who made the proposal on behalf of the Layer Zero Foundation. And so I think what what this indicates is that I mean look, if someone's going to have that kind of language to me or my community and make a bid to buy my company, I'm giving him the middle. I'm like, dude, you. Like you're going to talk to me and then try to buy my

company like that. Get out of here. And so there was no way that layer zero was going to lose this bit. >> Yeah. No, there was no there was I after going through the whole process like maybe that's another thing is even if we came in let's say at 150 all in including a treasury so call it net 50 I I I don't know that we you know I if you actually look as soon as we placed a bid so you can only vote if you have staked STG as soon as we placed the bid a bunch more tokens staked so like there were they were prepping for the outcome where we could potentially get to a no there was really only two or three voters that needed flip. They actually didn't even vote.

They just had such big holdings and were staking. They they were they only needed a flip, but they they were prepping for a no vote. If it went no vote, then they're like, "Okay, like we're going to load up and and stake a lot more STG and figure out like, you know, what back channel we could do that." So, it was absolutely a massive uphill battle for us, but that doesn't mean that our intentions were pure, but I do agree that it would have been it would have been hard no matter what. And, you know, again, layer zero doesn't really want these details to come up that come out that much. to give you an example. You know, boy, I was supposed to go on the boys club stream this morning and you know, I actually love the boys club team. This is this is no no no flack to them

whatsoever. I think they were in a difficult spot. Um, but you know, I there was like Brian was on there and I was going to go after him and it was kind of like, hey, we can't have you anymore. It was announced on Twitter and has pulled me off. So, it's like, you know, if someone doesn't want these details out there, it should be again like kind of the alarm signal should go off a little bit. And again, I'm not saying anything malicious was necessarily done, but like I think we should just be honest about this process and it, you know, it's seemingly a little bit unethical is from our perspect from our perspective. >> Robinson, I I do have to ask um from the thought process of both layer zero and wormhole acquiring Stargate would have also meant acquiring the STG token, the ticker, the handle, the contract

address, the ownership of that. Um and thus you would have ended up having a wormhole token which uh crypto Twitter recently destroyed you on saying that you should be using your 100 million to buy back the token rather than trying to go and fight layer zero. Um you would have had this STG token, this W token. You would have had to figure out a way to maybe merge these things. I'm not sure what layer zero is planning to do there. Uh how they plan to merge these together. You would have had a sticky process of like transferring the value somehow. like had you won this um you know and speaking to your token holders here what would you have actually done to make this a win for wormhole token holders? Yeah, absolutely. So, I think that one of the best things for a token

is uh obviously revenue buybacks. A lot of people agree with that at this point, but what if you go further down the stack then what do you need in order to get that? Frontends, stickiness, users, right? And so frontends are actually and at the asset level and this is why I'm talking about and this is why I started with the general idea that interop is messaging. Messaging is largely commoditized where the value occurs as asset and frontends. And so for us, frontends are really important. Portal is extremely important because that's ultimately where we're going to collect fees. It's no no like, you know, uh, silver bullet here. It's very similar to a DEX, if you will, right? Collect fees and then ideally, if your front end's really sticky and you get a lot of revenue, that goes back to the token, right? And so when we think

about the acquisition of Stargate from our perspective, that's just another fee generation for when we turn on the revenue buybacks. And so that it's like as simple as that in terms of how we would convert zero to W. Uh you know we would have done whatever the one conversion is there and you know once we got to our proposal we would have put that out there but I think the bigger point here is that frontends are good for revenue. Um and so you know when you think about interop in general a lot of us are realizing we realized this a long time ago again messaging commoditized assets are everything front ends you know are an extension of that and that's where you're going to charge fees and that's what's going to drive value back to the token. Um, so that's I guess that'd be the context I'd give there.

>> And and would you would you then have had to like deprecate the Stargate token and then like let like like there'd be some sort of destruction of value is what I'm trying to get at. Like I I don't see how how it would be a win for any like like there would be a destruction of of the Stargate token's value that it currently has, which I'm not really sure where it's trading now, but like there have Yeah, I I just think that would be a that'd be a bit of a headache. I don't know. I mean even even in the even in the like zero um even in the zero Stargate deal, right? Like one of the things why we proposed the USDC is because there's no conversion risk.

So like you're absolutely right like converting from the one token to another since Star Layer Zero's offer was going to be in zero. Like you have a bunch of conversion risk risk and slippage that you have to take into consideration. We thought by putting up like a flatout USDC here's the money for it deal that that would have been you know perceived better as better, right? So like of course there's going to be issues when you actually convert over and there's going to be dilution but those are things that we could have you know figured out if we had time to go through a governance process collect feedback from the SG holders >> there there's always taps and and ways to try to average that out Robinson I'm curious um this kind of begs the question about uh the balance of power uh between foundations and and lab

companies and so I you know obviously the layer zero foundation made this proposal to Stargate. You know, you're kind of I'm actually not sure if you're on the foundation side or the lab side. So, maybe you can clarify like where should these proposals come from? What is the division of responsibilities when it comes to these foundations and these labs companies? And just generally, if if if you were to see, you know, this this M&A process play out again, what what should h how should this shake out in terms of the foundations, the labs? Is this just a song and dance? because America had, you know, some pretty significant regulations or generally what is what is the purpose of this division?

>> I think it's a song and dance. I think uh split entities is one of the worst things to happen to crypto since inception. When is it better or more optimal to have a company with a single goal split into multiple different entities? Like I I it's hard for me to see an argument where that makes sense, right? You have split decision-m you have people that are in different areas, maybe run on different missions. they have all the way down to the systems they're on, right? You could have different EO systems, like different payroll systems, right? It's it's just like multiples of more overhead to have these different entities.

So, you know, I I mean I I this would actually probably be a fun debate to have, but like I I think that just it's one of the worst things to happen. And so, one thing that I'm actually looking at closely is what does it look like for all these entities to consolidate? So beyond like the kind of the layer zero situation here, like one thing that I think is interesting is people talk about like digital asset treasuries, and I know that's not the the point of this conversation, but one of the ways I I think that that you can sustain a trade above the the NAV is actually what does it look like for these companies to say, hey, had to split out, but now that there's kind of more regulatory clarity, what does it look like for us to consolidate potentially? And I know some some are

talking about that. So, you know, I I think it just is a song and dance. it's always trading back and forth between the entities. It makes things much more confusing, you know, obuscated. And so I like I I generally am pretty against it, right? And I I don't blame anyone, including us. We we we were, you know, played the the hand we were dealt, if you will. But it definitely makes Dow processes like this much more hard, acquisition like this much harder, and uh you know, I'm looking forward to potentially a world where a lot of the consolidation happens around these entities. >> Yeah. Robinson, one last one before we let you get get off on the and a final word for you. Um, so I put that tweet out this morning and uh your your favorite person in the world, Chainlink God, responded again uh asking about

exclusivity agreements, paying security ties coincidental history. I mean, do do you have a word for this guy? Like do is there any thoughts on like just this chain link wormhole layer zero battle? It's like the three titans. I mean, I'm not I'm not trying to have you stir the pot too much here, but like someone's got to say a word to Chainlink God. He's just he's just firing in the in the comments right now. >> I'll address it. What But the first thing I'll say is like one thing that's exciting for all three parties is like the opportunity side like as consolidation happens, this is something I did predict like I think Interop like continues to consolidate. I don't think there's one winner, there's multiple.

But like all look at all these chains, Stripe, Google Cloud, uh you know, Circle, more and more chains, you know, JP Morgan just means like the opportunity size for Interop is bigger, but it's not going to be a lot of winners, right? So like the battle is just heating up because of that, right? It's like there's a lot of chains. So the hate is kind of spread across all these chains for Interop is just consolidating. So it's getting more and more fierce, which is I think, you know, personally, I'm competitive, so I think it's kind of fun. Um but look, here's here's what I'll say. Jingling God is just, you know, fishing for reactions. This this entire industry and I think any like person that really works in it.

It runs on BD deals, right? So, I'm not saying anything about securitiz. I'm saying in general there's I don't understand the the hill people are dying on. And I think there was actually a lot of people that were originally commenting on this thread being like, you know, how many chain foundations, how many DAPs, how many infrastructure protocols do a token swap, do a milestone based grant, except that's literally what foundations are for. Like, so I just don't even get the like flood attempt here because it's completely moot. Like, show me someone hasn't made some sort of grant with a token they have or milestone based agreement and then I'll like have a different answer. But like this just it's just a nothing burger. Like he's just farming and he you know the competition is fierce and I don't expect

anything less from CG. >> Yeah. Um Robinson, one last word for you on this saga here. Just any closing thoughts, reflections and then we'll let you go. Man, I know you're busy. >> No, no. I appreciate you guys having me on. I like one last thing I'll say is our intentions were pretty clear and I want to want to make them clear here is like this. We had fully intended for reasons I said to to acquire Stargate and do what's best for SG holders. Our firm belief that a fair b process and not jamming this through a DAO would have been the best outcome. Axelar across us just in that short period of time put in bids to acquire this thing.

I think we could have got it almost double what the value that was currently acquired for. Um, that being said, I think crypto is fun because there's always things to learn learn from and improve upon and Dow governance needs to be improved upon. I think acquisitions full stop via Dow governance shouldn't happen. Um, and you know, I will be more vocal about this going forward on my end and uh can hopefully contribute to the conversation on how we can make them better. >> That's Robinson from Wormhole. Quite the saga. Um, thank you for joining us, man. I appreciate you answering the pointed questions. I'm uh starting to take to take the role of asking the the tough questions and seems he's got the >> the uh skin to take it. So >> Andy Zilla over here, shout out. We got Andy taking coming for you.

>> Yeah. Thanks for having me, guys. All righty. >> Thank you, Robinson. We'll see you next time. Thanks.