Bankless - The Stablecoin Chain Wars: Codex’s Bet on On-Chain FX | Cofounder Haonan Li

Episode Date: November 6, 2025

Payment chains are heating up. Not every “stablecoin chain” is playing the same game. Codex cofounder and CEO Haonan Li joins David to map the real landscape: what neutrality looks like in practice, why the bottleneck isn’t TPS but fiat-to-stable friction, and how on-chain FX could pull global flows. We dig into the Bear-Chain incentive trap. Why Codex chose to build as an Ethereum L2. The case for app-specific rollups that return value to ETH. And the growing split between projects that bundle value toward Ethereum and those that pull it away. --- 📣SPOTIFY PREMIUM RSS FEED | USE CODE: SPOTIFY24 https://bankless.cc/spotify-premium --- BANKLESS SPONSOR TOOLS: 🪙FRAXNET | MINT, REDEEM, EARN https://bankless.cc/fraxnet 🦄UNISWAP | SWAP ON UNICHAIN https://bankless.cc/unichain 🛞MANTLE | MODULAR L2 NETWORK https://bankless.cc/Mantle 💤EIGHT SLEEP | IMPROVE YOUR SLEEP https://bankless.cc/eight-sleep 💠BIT DIGITAL ($BTBT) | ETH TREASURY https://bankless.cc/bit-digital We’re being compensated by Bit Digital (NASDAQ BTBT) for this segment promoting their company and BTBT. The compensation is paid in cash as a one time payment. You can find additional information about Bit Digital and BTBT on their Investor page at https://bit-digital.com/investors --- TIMESTAMPS 0:00 Intro 1:10 Codex’s Market Positioning 2:24 How Stablecoin Chains Differ 4:55 Neutrality For Chains And Customers 8:11 Codex’s Focus: Fiat Friction & Wholesale FX 14:16 The Golden Goose: On-Chain Transfers Vs On-Ramps 17:49 Liquidity, Demand, Exotics: The Case For On-Chain FX 24:55 Why An Ethereum L2: Technical & Economic Rationale 32:50 Founding Codex, Contrarian Thesis & Focused L2s 40:23 Community Dynamics, Tempo, Bundlers Vs Unbundlers 1:00:16 Closing Thoughts --- RESOURCES Haonan Li https://x.com/haonan Codex https://www.codex.xyz/ --- Not financial or tax advice. See our investment disclosures here: https://www.bankless.com/disclosures

Most cross-border transactions involve an FX component. And so if you are the cheapest place for FX to happen, that chain will be a natural magnet for all these stablecoin flows. We want to be the cheapest place for T to C swaps. You want to be the cheapest place, fastest place, to do this Fiat stable swaps as well. This is not what typically happens at a chain company. A chain company classically doesn't want to think about Fiat. Why would you think about Fiat?

I'm at a crypto company. Why would I think about Fiat? If you think about the reality of these systems, like, how do you make it so that stable coins aren't just useful to, like, people in crazy countries and, like, crazy situations? Well, you need to make the friction go down to zero. You need to make it so that moving between a unit of fiat and stables is frictionless on a cost and speed basis. You need to delete the border between fiat and crypto. So that's what we are focused on. We're staffed against that.

We wake up every morning when we think about this. How do we delete this border? Make it go to zero. Bankless Nation, I'm with Hounan, the co-founder and CEO of Kodex. Kodex is a stable coin focused layer two on top of Ethereum. Howan, welcome to Bankless. Hey, David, good to see you. So you are working in a pretty competitive part of the market.

There's Stripes tempo, there's circles arc, there's plasma, there's stable, not to mention the deep incumbent to Tron. Competitive. Are you intimidated? You know, I think there's a ton of competition. if you think about it from the perspective of a VC PowerPoint slide, right? If you had a category that said staple coin chain, you would have all these logos. I think what that abstracts away is actually most of the reality and the detail underneath. And the reality is that these different chains are pursuing totally different directions.

And I can just say for us, I can't speak for others, when we are going to market against our customers, we don't really hear about any of these other chains. We don't hear about plasma and stable because they've taken this sort of maybe more bear chain type approach. We don't hear about arc or tempo. Perhaps it's perhaps not quite clear exactly what it is they want to do yet. And so we just see all these charts going up and to the right and we're growing a lot. And customers seem to like what we are doing. And we just want to focus on the customer.

Maybe you can teach me and the listeners a little bit about what makes these chains so different from each other. Because, like, if you, I think you talk to the average person in crypto, they're like, oh, yes, there's just this whole payment chain sector where we're all trying to disrupt Visa. And we're going to put stable coins on the very fast blockchain and that's going to become the payments chain. And that's what all of these, all the chains that I just named, that's what they're all going after. Again, Tempo Arc, plasma stable tron has been the payments chain, the stable coin payments chain. Is that, is there more nuance there? Or like, what are the construction, the construction differences between all these chains and how. they point to different outcomes. Maybe you could educate us a little bit there. Yeah, I think there's

multiple layers to it, and there are a lot of differences across multiple layers. I think, let me start with saying that it's such a new category that nobody really knows what they are doing quite yet, right? They're all exploring this idea maze, this giant design space, and people have chosen different parts of the maze to start with. So, you know, what is the approach of, say, a plasma or perhaps a stable, right? The approach is the barot chain playbook. So what is the barrowchain playbook? right, you do a token event and you attract a bunch of flows that come onto your chain. Of course, AbleCub, right? You're giving away free money. Then you try to make it stay because if it leaves, you know, you're screwed.

So how do you make it stay? Well, you fork over a bunch of defy stuff that exists elsewhere, the same, you know, 10 apps that exist everywhere, and you sprinkle token incentives on top and you hope to God it stays. The problem with this approach historically is that, you know, that nothing of differentiated or substantial results from this, right? And of the day, you've got the same defy apps. And so what ends up happening is people dump the tokens. These are mercenary farmers, right?

This is, we are far, far away from the days of, like, the uniair drop. Right. This is like industrial scale farming type dynamics. People will dump the token. The price will go down. But you still need to keep the money there as much as possible. So you give away more tokens to hit the same APY. people dump the tokens more, the price goes down,

and then eventually it all goes to zero, right? Or near zero. So we've seen this movie play out before with a bearer chain or a blast. Will it play out this way at this time around? It's not clear. Perhaps it won't. It's just a very different approach from maybe our way of processing the problem. When it comes to a tempo or an arc,

I think both these guys run into a ton of problems when it comes to neutrality. So imagine that you are, and here I like to say, like, neutrality is not just like an Ethereum prayer, right? It's not this like religious word that we say to each other at these Ethereum parties, but like actually means something. Although it might come off like that, yeah. It comes off like that, right? It's almost like the word deluxe. It just means good to a lot of people. Like deluxe cheeseburger is just a good cheeseburger, right?

But neutrality means something. What does it mean here? It means if you are competing fintech from Stripe, do you really want to bet the future, of your business on Stripe chain. If you are a competing issuer to circle, do you really want to bet the future of your business on Circle chain? It's hard for me to imagine. Imagine the sort of CEO of a large FinTech going to his board and saying,

hey, guys, we really fucked up, like, stripes way ahead of us. Like, we're just going to go use their thing. I don't know. It's not very sort of credible to me. So that would be maybe my first cut at distinguishing all these different approaches. isn't that the neutrality aspect isn't that just true for all of these chains all brand new chains in my mind have on day one have the most compromised neutrality that they'll ever have and then ideally they become more decentralized more equitable more spread out over time but ultimately any brand new chain is always just not neutral it's just by the by the truth of the fact that it's like brand new like there's all all of these have vCs all of these have early insiders, like ultimately is the neutrality thing. Neutrality is not really something that you can engineer. There's neutrality and then there's neutrality, right? There's sort of like compared to,

say, a Bitcoin, you know, some would argue Ethereum is not a neutral, right? But I think that's somewhat of a pedantic point. I think the neutrality that really matters in the market today, instead of like this kind of pseudo-religious thing that people might have on Twitter, the neutrality that really matters in the market today is, are you really going to bet the future of your company on a competitor's infrastructure? Are you really going to see a, that control to them. And does that really sell at the executive level? And I think what we are discovering, what we're seeing is that it doesn't really sell. Nobody wants to use a competitor's substrate. I think another way of saying this is like, let's take us, for example, Codex,

we don't run an issuer. And we're certainly to run in FinTech. We are not going to be competing against our customers. So isn't that, so that same aspect is probably also true of plasma and stable and you're just saying it's not true of arc and stripe because stripe is tempo or tempo, because tempo has stripe and then arc has circle. They're the issuer. But then what your critique is of plasma and stable is like, well, they're kind of doing the bearer chain thing as well, which is a separate critique, separate critique, but at least

they have the neutrality going for them is kind of like a summary. I think that's fair. I think like if you dig in, like they're mostly focused on tether, right? So is there a really issue of neutrality there? it's somewhat debatable, but I think, you know, the main thrust is correct. Well, you're highlighting, the differences that you're highlighting is kind of like to go to market. But ultimately, are these all the same things at their endgame? Like, do they all converge on the payments chain like landscape?

And that part is actually the common denominator that there aren't any nuances there. They are actually the same kind of outcome that everyone's going for it. Is that true? It's not clear to me what the end state here will be necessarily. I think certainly in this first sort of leg of the race, people are taking, totally different approaches. And they're building different products, really, right? Because if you think about it, you're like, okay, I'm going to make a change for stable coins. Great. What does that mean? What matters? What does it? Like, here's one thing that could matter, right? You could say,

well, I think it's really important that people can pay for their gas and all kinds of stable coins. So I'm going to enshrine a dex. And, you know, this way, I think this is super, super important. And obviously, if I enshrine a decks, then I've got to really make sure it's robust. And how do I figure out this like the effects mechanics of that and how do I make sure that doesn't break? You could do that. You could say that, you know what? I think the most important thing is to build a neobank.

So I don't keep too close with what Stable and others are doing, but last I heard they were doing something like this, right? What is the neobank? It's like a payment app with stable coins in the back. And you say that's the most important thing to build. And so you're going to pick up these like little flows one by one and you put it on your chain. Do that.

Or you could do what we are doing. which we think is much, much smarter. What's that thing? Yeah. So I think what we want to focus on is wholesale FX flows. Okay. Why is that? Well, because most cross-border transactions involve an FX component.

And so if you are the cheapest place for FX to happen, that chain will be a natural magnet for all these stable coin flows. And so that's what we're focused on, right? we want to be the cheapest place for T to C swaps. We want to be the cheapest place. What's that? USDT to USC. The stable coin people don't want to keep repeating USD. Yeah, I understood.

Okay. Those cheap swaps, you want to be the cheapest place, fastest place to do this Fiat stable swaps as well. And so this is like, this is not what typically happens at a chain company, right? A chain company classically doesn't want to think about Fiat. Why would you think about Fiat? I'm at a crypto. company. Why would I think about Fiat? I want to think about shared sequencing schemes and, you know, like, I'm going to rotate the sequencer and all these... Ivory power off.

Yeah, like much more interesting from an enduring perspective, certainly, right? But if you think about the reality of these systems, like, how do you make it to that stable coins aren't just useful to the, like, people in crazy countries and like crazy situations? Well, you need to make the friction go down to zero. You need to make it so that moving between a unit of Fiat and stables is frictionless on a cost and speed basis, need to delete the border between fiat and crypto. And that means like understanding the fiat infrastructure, right? Which, again, is very contrarian. So that that's what we are focused on. We're staffed against that. We wake up every morning we think about this. How do we delete this border? Make it go to zero. Introducing FRAXUSD, the genius

aligned digital dollar from FRAX. It's secure, stable, and fully backed by institutional grade real world assets, custody by BlackRock, super state, and fidelity. It's It's always redeemable one-to-one, transparently audited, and built for payments, defy, and banking. The best of all worlds. At the core is FraxNet, an on-chain fintech platform built to align with emerging U.S. regulatory frameworks, where you can mint, redeem, and use FRAXUSD with just a few clicks. Deposit U.S.ECC, send a bank wire, or tokenized treasuries, and receive programmable digital dollars straight to your wallet. FRAXN users benefits from the underlying return of U.S. treasuries and earn just by using the system.

whether you're bridging, minting, or holding, your Frax USD works for you. Prax isn't just a protocol, it's a digital nation, powered by the Frax token and governed by its global communities. Join that community and help shape Frax Nation's future by going to frax.com slash R slash bankless. Frax, design for the future of compliant digital finance. Imagine a world where traditional finance meets the power of blockchain seamlessly. That's what Mantle is pioneering with blockchain for banking, a revolutionary new category

at the intersection of TradFi and Web3. At the heart is you are. First Money app built fully on chain. It gives you a Swiss iBan account, blending fiattec like the Euro, the Swiss franc, the United States dollar, or the Rimini, with crypto, all in one place. Enjoy real world usability and blockchain's trust and programmability. Transactions post directly to the blockchain,

compatible with Tradfai Rails, and packed with integrated DFI futures. U.R transforms Mantle Network into the ultimate platform for on-chain financial services, unifying payments, trading, and assets like the MI4, the M-Eath protocol, and functions FBTC, backed by developer grants, ecosystem incentives and top distribution through the UR app, reward stations, and by bit launch pool.

For M&T holders, every economic activity in UR drives value back to you, embodying the entire stack and future growth of this super app ecosystem. Follow Mantle on X at Mantle underscore official for the latest updates on blockchain for banking. That's X.com slash mantle underscore official. Ethereum's layer two universe is exploding with choices. But if you're looking for the best place to park and move your tokens, make your next stop unichane. First, liquidity.

Unichane hosts the most liquid uniswap V4 deployment on any layer 2, giving you deeper pools for flagship pairs like ETHUSDC. More liquidity means better prices, less slippage and smoother swaps, exactly what traders crave. The numbers back it up. Unichane leads all layer 2s in total value locked for Uniswap V4. And it's not just deep. It's fast and fully transparent. Purpose built to be the home base for defy and cross-chain liquidity. When it comes to costs, Unichane is a no-brainer.

Transaction fees come in about 95% cheaper than Ethereum made net, slashing the price of creating. or accessing liquidity. Want to stay in the loop on Unichain? Visit unichain.org or follow at Unichain on X for all the updates. I think the conversation we're drifting into is the Golden Goose conversation. That's what I'll call it. And each one of these chains kind of has what their perceived value is. And I think the most basic way to articulate this value is like kind of similar to like

the Salana idea of just like a ton of volume at very low fees. And Stablecoins clearly is the killer app after Bitcoin, right? after like non-sovereign store of value and then we get stable coins. Maybe defy is like our second killer app than stable coins. And so like stable coin transfers, payments, you know,

remittances, the same like words that we have used in crypto for like a decade now. It's like now we have, now the time is actually here. Let's put all the flows on chain. And then what does tempo and arc and plasma and stable and codex want to do?

They just want to transfer a ton of stable coins and charge half of, BIP on a trillion dollars of flows. And I think that's like the level one like bull case articulation. Getting a little bit more nuanced than that, it sounds like what you're saying is like, yes, and there's a whole FX market that is extremely large that we are also, we want to go for. Maybe you could just like color in the FX golden goose.

It's like, why is that so big? Why is that the logical conclusion for you guys? just like help me imagine that a little bit better. The ERC 20 cent of this is the simplest thing. Like you could throw R&D at it and make it faster or better, whatever, sure. But that's not really the problem, right? The problem is the friction going from Fiat to Stables. So what you'll hear a lot, VCs, observers, like Twitter thread people, right,

is this concept of stablecoin sandwich. Right? It's like you start off in Fiat and Country A, you turn into Stablecoins, you send, you know, it's an on-chain send, then it comes out and fiat to the other side and this is great, right? This is the story. The reality is across most countries today, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Because they're too expensive. The fiat to crypto conversions are too expensive. The on-ramp costs, right? That's right. Because the only people that have truly figured out the on-ramp to solve the on-ramp problem are exchanges, because A, they have the ability to lock up your money and B, like, if you do like a chargeback, right,

if you like do a transfer and then you like yoink it from Coinbase, it's kind of like a loss leader. So they just kind of like lock up the money and they have some sort of assurances. But then they also have like other money generating valid products on the actual exchange to like, it's kind of a customer acquisition tool. The pure on ramp startups that have just been an on ramp

have been a terrible business because they have to deal with chargebacks they can't charge ancillary fees, they can't upsell their customers. And so the only people to really solve the on-ramp problem are exchanges because of their unique positioning. And I think that's kind of what you're saying is just like this fiat to stablecoin pathway is a hard problem to solve. Are we talking the same language?

That's right. I think it's an incredibly hard problem to solve and it's thorny, right? It's not just like pure research task. This is like you've got to go figure out the fiat infrastructure. You're going to have open bank accounts. You have to get licensing. I have a deal of all this gunk that nobody wants to deal with. We deal with that gunk.

And for us, it seems to me that instead of optimizing the Sends, which already work quite great, what you really need to do is deal the actual problem. So we talked about the chain fees, and you said, okay, yes, all chains collect the chain fees. That's the normal business model. It's what you're saying is dealing with a gunk the actual way that you guys are trying to, like, is that your golden goose? That's right. That's right, because, you know, people get to charge fees for solving customers' problems, right?

And so if you are in the business of saying, look, guys, like, I'm going to make your U.R.C. 20 cent, not 10 cents, but now, like, nine cents. And the dude cents on average a million dollars per transaction, he's going to look at you and go like, okay, cool. Like, all right, that doesn't do anything for me, right? This is, I think what not enough people do, which is like, go speak to the actual customer. What does the customer want? What the customer wants is for us to deal with this gunk, and so we're going to focus on this gunk. Isn't that what Circle does?

Circle has banking partners, right? And so I would imagine transferring my money to Circle and then receiving sable coins would be trivially easy compared to any other payment chain. How is this different? There are all sorts of problems with Circle's banking infrastructure. I think to begin with, like there are sort of volume limitations, certainly much imposed by Circle themselves.

even then, even if you strip out the volume limitations, much of these transactions happening on a T plus two basis because the banking infrastructure is not adjacent. It's very ironic, right? Like the sort of 10,000 foot level view of stable coins, the, I don't know, Jason Calcanus's view of how stable coins works, is that everything is instant and everything is fantastic and everything just works. But you dig into the actual details and none of it works like that.

a lot of this stuff is still happening on T plus two basis, even to emit a stable coin, which is crazy. Yeah, but doesn't that also apply to whatever you're doing? No, so I think what we are focused on is eliminating all these frictions, right? We want to make it so that folks can access stable coins on a wholesale basis on an instant basis, sub 10 minutes, and on an extremely, extremely cheap basis. That's kind of what we're focused on.

And we want to also have the FX infrastructure so that we can ship FX from being off-chain to being on-chain. On-chain FX is this kind of holy grail that people have been trying to pursue for a while. And our diagnosis is that we have the pieces today to actually make it happen. What are those pieces? I would imagine what you're saying is like,

okay, so you have the banking infrastructure in the United States, but if you want on-chain FX, don't you need to get the banking infrastructure like fucking everywhere across the whole world? Seems hard. Yeah. I think there's some secret sauce there.

David, so maybe I won't dive into all the details. Okay. That means I'm pressing on, that means I'm going in the right direction. You're a good interviewer, David. I think, you know, the high level intuition is that the classic problem in Antoinfx historically has been that non-US dollar stables have no liquidity. So you can't move, you can't really move volumes for them, right? And that's problem one.

Problem two is that you have no demand for it. like who the hell wants to move money through this on-chain mechanism if the spreads are wider, if it's costlier, if there's technical risk, like, why the hell would you want to do it? And so for us, we have solutions on both sides. Yeah. Okay. And I suppose this is where we wrap back around to the neutrality conversation because not only do you want to be neutral for all of the reasons that you talked about earlier,

but you also need to be neutral because there's going to be a ton of issuers of not just dollar-sable coins, but I would imagine if you're going to do on-chain FX, you need all of the Fiat currencies that have volumes in the FX market. I don't know what those are, but I would imagine there's at least six of them. Yeah, there's a number of them. I think there's a couple of defining characteristics they have. Some are run by great people, high-quality people, some of their infrastructure tax are not bad.

None of them in product markets. The euro, Japanese yen. And what are the other obvious currencies that you need to get on to Codex? We're really interested in exotics. the more exotic, the more interested we're in it. Oh, interesting. Okay. So like long-tail developing country currencies?

That's right. That's right. We're really interesting. Those are the ones that want to get out the most, is that right? As in like if I have Argentine peso, like, please connect to me to some other fiat currencies on the blockchain. Is that kind of the idea? Well, we're seeing a couple things. I think to give away some alpha here, I think one thing that we're seeing is that you're seeing this shift in

how commerce works globally. So in trad rails, almost all FX transactions go through to dollar. So, you know, you might be going from, I don't know, Malaysian ring it to Singapore dollar and actually you go first through the US dollar, right? What you're starting to see on chain is that that is not, that is breaking down. And folks are swapping directly between currencies, which is a radical restructuring of how markets work and how commerce works globally. So if the United States dollar is currency A, then people are swapping from currency B to currency C without going through currency A.

That's right. That's right. And that actually is all sorts of interesting national security as well as like government. It's the opposite of what Scott Bessent wants. That's right. That's right. And if you zoom out here, like what's happening. What's happening is that you have this stable coin so far have been a dollar phenomenon, right? They've created this wonderful structural buyer of U.S. treasuries. It's sort of this kind of modern Euro dollar, right? And it's been really great for U.S. government. And I think the Genius Act was pretty smart, right? The whole point is, let's try to move more of these offshore flows onto Sablecoins, because, again, there are structural buyer of U.S. Treasuries. I think other countries see that, and, well, they're like, interesting.

I'm not sure if it's necessarily in my interest that Sablecoins be only a dollar phenomenon. And I think you're seeing various pieces move around on the chess board now. Hmm. Hmm. Mm-hmm. My imagination is going, okay, so you said exotic currencies and you didn't really give me too much clay to go on. But I think if we're also understanding the concept of neutrality and large FX flows

and maybe an alternative interpretation of the word exotic is, if we're truly thinking of cyphur punk neutrality here, it's like dollar to Chinese yuan and Russian ruble. Like the three economic superpowers on the same chain, which offends all three of them equally. And then the Ethereum Cypherpunk is like, oh, yeah, that's what neutrality is. You don't have to comment on that. But I do want to actually talk about neutrality and like the Ethereum context. So Codex is the only payment chain, stable coin chain that is an Ethereum layer too. And like right now, the broad crypto audience might actually say like, oh, that actually makes you guys less neutral.

That makes you guys more opinionated, actually, because you're an Ethereum layer two, not a layer one. And between the pendulum of valuations that seems to swing back and forth between layer ones and layer twos, the premium, the layer two premium has given way to the layer one premium. And so we are currently in the stance of like,

oh, there's a layer one premium out there and the layer two premium is not really here. And so talk to me about like, why build as an Ethereum layer two? what does that give you guys and why make that trade? Why make that trade off? I think there's a logical case

and there's an emotional case if I'm candid about it. I'll start with the logical case. First of all, this L1, L2 premium thing is kind of dumb because it swings and really what drives it

is like product market fit. Right? Who has product market fit? That's what matters. If it's in a form of L1 and L2 is very much a secondary consideration. Not so long ago,

you had chains swapping from being L1 to being L2s. That can swing. wing any day. So we don't think like that, right? We're not going to make choices that don't make sense, just try to pump up a violation. Satisfy Twitter, yeah. Yeah. I think then the second observation to make is that most of the stable coins are on Ethereum. This is kind of like a, maybe an underappreciated fact, right? Somewhere around 60% of all stable coins are on Ethereum. Now, they don't move quite as much on Ethereum, but we can help there. They're like, they're like

store of value slow defy stable coins, whereas like the Tron stable. coins or like payment high churned stable coins. That's right. I think there's also higher value transactions on Ethereum. You know, if you're trying to move $10 million, you probably are using something that's not drawn. But I think the observation is that Ethereum is actually the default choice today amongst stable coin users is one way of saying it, right? It's 60% of all the flow, six percent of all the outstanding, rather. And Ethereum, in other words, is the dominant where stablecoins are. And I think our mission at Kodak's is to make sure that I think that Ethereum continues to be the dominant place for stable coins. I think what Ethereum needs to do here is

it needs to keep up. It needs to run a tight feedback loop between go-to-market and product and research, ruthlessly focused just on stable coins. This is very hard to execute at the L1 level. That's where we come in. We wake up every day. We think about stable coins. We go to bed. We're thinking about stable coins. We're in the bathroom. We're thinking about stable coins. We just do this one thing. And so maybe the broader point here is that I think we need to rethink how L1's, how Ethereum L1 works with L2s. And we have a model in mind that I think is a win-win. Okay, so I'm hearing three different arguments as to like why Ethereum. There's like the technical argument. I don't think you really touched on that, but I'm sure it's there.

There's the economic argument, which is all the stable coins are on Ethereum, all the high value transfers are on our Ethereum. That's the place to be. And then there's like the ideological argument, which I think you call the emotional argument of just like, yeah, we kind of believe in Ethereum. Maybe we can kind of like actually run through all three of those again. The technical argument. So like technically, why is a layer two construction? What does that benefit you guys as a stable coin focus chain? I think the main tradeoff there that people need to make is are you are you more interested in stability and speed to market, i.e. B and L2, right? Or are you more interested in, you know, incremental, experimental, experimental, technical properties

at the chain level. I think that is the fundamental trade-off. So our view of speed to market matters to most. When our views, our view is that stability matters to most. You know, I think when they find bugs and geth nowadays, they are bugs at the go level. That's how robust that's how robust that's how robust this is one of the most hard. I don't know what that means. It's just like, you know, the, deep in the basement. Yeah, the Ethereum stack is just so robust, right? Everybody's tried to attack it so many times that when they find bugs nowadays, it's like at the programming language level, right? So it's debug at a programming language,

not sort of the, at the sort of theorem software level. Long story short, like, what that means is you're working off this incredibly hardened and robust stack. Your other choice, of course, is to not work on, not work off that stack and to do something experimental that's probably going to take a long time for R&D and might have all sorts of issues. So I think that perhaps is the technical argument there.

I think there's also strong sort of guarantees that an Ethereum L2 can offer that no L2 can offer. For instance, for L2's, users always have to write to exit back to L1 in a way where if you're stuck on stripe chain or circle chain, there's nowhere to go. Yeah. I suppose users, it's like when I talk about the exit hatch in L2's, I'm talking to my listeners, right? So like, yeah, users, like you can use a layer two because you have the exit hatch. for you, and I think for broadly, like we might also want to talk about countries as well. Because like if we're putting global effects on chain

and like Russia wants to put their bonds on codex, I don't know if you want me to even say these words, but like if Russia wants to put their bonds on codex, be like, hey, country of Russia, if we do something bad, you guys have an exit hatch. The whole entire country has an exit hatch. And then that's actually part of the consideration there.

Yeah, I think, I think, Just on the sanction stuff. Like, we have a great legal and compliance team here. My mandate to them is that I want no orange jumpsuit risk, please. Uh-huh. Yes. Not interested in orange jumpsuit risk. Right.

Yeah. Okay. So, okay, with Tempo. Tempo announced itself as a layer one. When they did that, were you like, nice, that's good for me. That's good for Codex. What was your reaction to that? I think, like, the Tempo saga is really interesting because it's just,

a small world. You know, my friend Liam is pretty involved there. And one of our reasons I think that Liam is interested in stable coins in the first place is because of a conversation I had with him three years ago. And so it's really interesting that, you know, that three years later, you know, he's, I probably convinced Stripe to do this. It's very interesting. What was it? What was the nature of that conversation? Well, you know, I, early on, like, stable coins was quite a contrarian view, right? Because at the time, like, it's payments. Dude, like, why are you doing payments?

That fucking sucks, right? Like, if you think about these chain foundations, and I was at one, right? Like, you think about who has the most cloud, it's the defy guy. That's the bulk of the product market fit. If there's a payments guy around, this is not an interesting guy, right? This is not something. You're talking about, like, back in 2021, 2022 back then? That's right.

Payments was sort of like the graveyard of, you know, graveyard of crypto companies. But, you know, I think at the time, I was just looking at this information from first principles. And I'm like, actually, I think stable coins might be the realest product market fit in crypto. Right? And Tron, in a weird way, may have actually some of the realest product market fit in crypto. And this was not a popular view in, you know, Ethereum circles at the time. But I think those are some of these early conversations that gave rise to, you know,

a lot of the folks working on the system today. Yeah, yeah. So, like, Codex as a name has, like, arisen alongside of the rise of the, like, the mind share of payment stable coin chains. But you guys got started forever ago. Talk about maybe we can just interlude. We're still in the technical argument, economic argument, ideological argument. But let's put a pin in that conversation.

When did Codex just come around? When did you guys found it? I started Codex when I left optimism to start Codex. I just had this observation that it seemed like nobody was really working on the realest part of crypto in a way. And so I went off in search of something that hits three boxes for me. The first box is that it genuinely moves space forward in a way that my grandmother can understand. Second, that it is a massive economic opportunity. And third, that I had some sort of unique edge to work on.

And so codex is what came out of that. At the time, when we were working, when we first started thinking about this, this was a deeply contrarian view, right? Yeah. Nobody wanted to work on my mind as well. Yeah. Nobody wanted to work on this. And I think, but if you just stare at the data, it was pretty obvious.

And now, you know, sort of that idea has gone from contrarian and sort of maybe fringe to like mainstream. But that's been good for us. I think, you know, we have maybe more time in the idea maze than others. And I think we can see the map perhaps clearer than others. Interesting. Talk about why it was so contrarian. What about codex are the contrarian elements? Again, we might have to teleport ourselves back to 2021, 2022.

But like, why the C word? I think the first piece of consensus at the time was that, well, roll-ups ought to be general, right? We can go into the history of this more. I think there's all sorts of interesting counterfactual histories that could have happened. But the consensus at the time was, well, rubbs should be general. And there's no need to focus on any particular use case. And let's run these foundations.

No, I launched optimism token, right? So I clapped my hands together one day and $15 billion appear from thin air. And then the next day we're like, well, how do we, how do we give it away? We don't know how to give it away. And so, you know, you spend up all these foundations and all these people are into these foundations and you're trying to figure out, well, how do I, how do I allocate this? And it's very clear that you don't really know how to give it away, right? Because you're so, you're spread so thin across all these different use cases. How are you going to be opinionated in smart ways across all these use cases? And so, you know, I was there sitting and observing all this. And, you know, it's just, seemed to me that really there was room to focus, right? Focus down on one thing. And then the question becomes which thing? And based off my reading of the data, it seemed like stable coins was the way to go. Wasn't that kind of the thesis of the super chain though? Or is still the thesis of the super chain, which is like the cluster itself is very generalized, but the optimism organization project doesn't really know where to be opinionated. So they kind of leave that up to the market. And

what the market is is all of the individual chains of the super chain. How is how is how is, how is what you believed, what you saw, different from what that thesis is? I think even for the super chain thesis, I think the super chain thesis sort of maybe revolves centers around this idea of interop, right? So maybe I'll give my take on this. Carl will probably have a sharper and more correct take than me

and Carl and Jeng, but my understanding of this was that, look, you have this problem because you first launched, you first launched, we roll-ups at a time were experimental technology, right? And for a time, it was just one or two teams who could do it. And the moment kind of passed where not all the activity migrated to a single L2. And in fact, the tech got more and more commoditized,

and it actually became productized into RAS, meaning that anybody could go launch a roll up. At which point you have this problem, which is, well, if anybody can launch a roll up, like, what exactly is the value cruel for a company like optimism? And so then the thinking is, well, look, let's stitch them together, right? We're going to stitch them together. It's going to have these wonderful properties. It's going to be great.

That's kind of maybe, from my view, the kind of heart of the super chain thesis. Like for us today, how much does interop matter? It's not clear to me how much interop really matters to me individually at Codex. And so maybe that's where those thesees diverge a little bit. So maybe to articulate why Codex was contrary. at the time that it got started was, A, stable coin payments focused, B, app chain, narrow, narrow chain construction rather than a generalized chain, just a just narrow, narrow focus chain.

Do you think that's where Ethereum rollups are just going, generally speaking? Because one of the coolest new, like, rollups that the Ethereum community is talking about is lighter. And lighter is like just as narrow, if not more narrow than what you are doing, which is just like, it is a perp-dex. and it's enshrined in the actual like ZK circuits that they've built. And it's grown immensely in at least TVL. I mean, there's incentives there.

But nonetheless, like, I don't think anyone's arguing with the product market to put up perplex these days. So, like, is there a broad comment to make about the trajectory of Ethereum layer two designs? Yeah. I think we need to wake up as a community. And I think we need to recognize some uncomfortable truths. The first truth that we need to recognize is that general purpose, L2s are parasitic to L1.

What I mean by this is if you just spin up an L2 and it does everything, you know, it's DFI, it's NFTs, it's something, something, payments, it's something, something, AI, what really is the difference between that L2 and L1? You are most definitely splitting the user base, no? And what is this L2 adding to L1 exactly? Now, pre-EIP-444, you might say, okay, well, no, it's, it's batched admitting onto L1, it's paying all these wonderful gas fees. Sure, okay, but post EIP 48444, like, that set of economics is de minimis. So then where is the value cruel? It just doesn't work, right? The system

doesn't work. And so, like, what is the future? The future is you need, roll-ups need to be able work in a way with L-1 where it's a win-win. So what is that win-win? The win-win is the roll-ups should focus on things that L1 cannot do well. What are things that L1 can't do well? Well, it's very, very difficult at the L1 level to run a really tight product, research, and engineering loo because it's very hard to focus, right? It's very hard to focus on specific problems. And so the role of L2s is to get deep on one thing. And so in our case, we get deep on stable coins. And in this way, we can sustain Ethereum's dominance in stable coins. And in this way, we, we, can also eventually return economics back to Ethereum.

That I think is the win-win. That is the future. Isn't there kind of just like a migrating Overton window of what parasitiveness is as it relates to the capacity of the Ethereum layer one? And so I think now in 2025, people look back on the generalized roll-ups of 2021, arbitram optimism, polygon. And they're like, yeah, those are actually parasitic to Ethereum. But at the time, there was no choice.

like Ethereum was doing 15 transactions per second. At least we're doing 45 now. And we just needed something like that to keep people at least one click away from Ethereum while also having like, you know, 100 transactions per second plus. And now we retroactively judge, you know, generalized roll-ups in 2025 of the roll-ups of 2021. It's like, oh, yeah, those are parasitic to Ethereum. And also Ethereum in the meantime has kind of like increasing capacity. Gassis have gone down.

And now we're saying like, okay, you. the actual right construction of an Ethereum world is actually an app chain where we can like zoom in, go focus, be focused, do the product development cycle loops that Ethereum will never do. But in 2030, in five years, Ethereum is supposedly going to do

a 3X layer of one capacity increase over the next three years. We're going to ZK the chain. We're going to get to a million transactions per second, according to Justin Drake. And then maybe in 2025, we look back on the app chains and be like, you know what? Well, how on said that the reason why he's building a layer two

is because of all of these stablecoin TVL on the Ethereum layer one. How is that not parasitic? And actually, just in the grand scheme of things, Ethereum is just going to become just as monolithic as all this, a lot of people said that it was. And we're just going to retroactively judge the options of layer twos as being parasitic to Ethereum, which is doing the same thing that Tempo is doing,

which is just beating Ethereum to the punch on scalability and product. What say you? I think that's an interesting way of cutting at it. I think there's sort of a premise. mess embedded in there, which is all that matters is throughput. Do you see how easily people can slip into that? Whereas most of the conversation so far, David, has been kind of me talking about all these other things that matter, right, that nobody's actually working on because they aren't

just some throughput number that people can sort of wave around on Twitter. So in a world where Ethereum is doing gazillion transactions a second, fantastic, that's great. The set of products and the set of features that Codex is building is entirely compatible with that and entirely differentiated from that. If we are unable to do that, we deserve to die. And so when it comes to sort of the Overton window shifting over time, I think that's right, right? I think for a while, I think it was possible that optimism would actually be the only all to. I think for a moment it was possible. The token launched, right, mass evaluation. You know, my own view here would be that we should have done a migration air drop where you selectively target the top defy apps on L1, you move it all over.

You know, the pejorative here would be to say vampire attack, right? You're kind of vampire attacking a L1. And I was an advocate of this, you know, perhaps like controversial approach. But at the time, the consensus was, look, like execution should happen on L2, right? So let's do it. Let's have execution happen on L2. Let's move it all over. But of course, you know, first of all hindsight is 2020 and it's much harder to be in the decision-maker's seat than to be an early employee like myself, kind of, you know, just throwing ideas around. And, you know, that moment passed, right? And so then when it emerged is that there were multiple roll-ups with some fragment of the Ethereum ecosystem on it, at which point then we're headed down this Rass path that has happened since. And so, yes,

the Overton window has shifted over. I think there are all sorts of these kind of interesting counterfactual histories that are interesting to think through as well. So we've already touched on the economic argument. I think we've covered the technical argument. Let's finish up talking about the ideological argument, which we've kind of like been dancing around. But like, why Ethereum? Ideologically speaking. Why a layer two on a theorem? Yeah, I think I used to word emotional because I think there are ideological reasons as well. Let me start emotional. I think emotionally, like I grew up in the Ethereum community, right? I quit my job. I was very lucky to join optimism pretty early. I lived in a house of like six, seven other people in Vital.

like, you know, I'd come downstairs and Vitalik is on the phone of Elon Musk or something. And one day and the next day, Ashton Kutcher is in the kitchen and, you know, all sorts of crazy shows happening. That's right. That's right. And so, like, that's how I grew up in this ecosystem. And so I think if I'm intellectually honest about it, I'm probably a bit biased that way. I think, you know, ideologically, I think, first of all, you don't have to reach radiology

quite yet. I think the empirics back it up, right? Like most of the stable coins are on Ethereum. We just have to sustain that dominance into the future. And if you think about which ecosystems are truly kind of tru-zero values or neutral that are likely to really be a settlement layer globally for the world, I think Ethereum is obviously that I think anybody who's arguing otherwise is, you know, maybe raising money for an L-1. Crypto is risky.

Your sleep shouldn't be. Eight Sleep's mission is simple. Better sleep through cutting edge technology. Their new Pod 5 is a smart mattress cover that fits on the top of your bed. It automatically adjust the temperature on each side so you and your partner can both sleep the way that you like. It's clinically proven to give you up to one extra hour of quality sleep per night. Eight Sleeps Pod 5 uses AI to learn your sleep patterns, regulate temperature, reduce snoring, and track key health metrics like HRV and breathing. With a new full-body temperature-regulating blanket and built-in speaker, it is the most complete sleep upgrade yet. upgrade your sleep and recovery with Aesleep.

Use code bankless at 8Sleep.com slash banklist to get up to $350 off the Pod5 Ultra. That's 8Sleep.com slash bankless. You also get 30 days to try at risk free. Link in the show notes for more information. Bit Digital, ticker BTBT, is a publicly traded ETH treasury company that combines the two biggest metas of our time, Ethereum and AI compute. Bit Digital believes that ETH will power finance and AI compute will power everything. Bit Digital gives you direct exposure to both.

Bit Digital holds more than 150,000 ETH with institutional grade staking and validator operations. On top of that, the company owns roughly 73% of white fiber, an AI infrastructure business that runs high-performance GPU data centers that adds a meaningful exposure to the growth of AI compute with over 27 million shares. This is an ETH treasury backed by real operations designed to capture staking yield today while positioning for the future of intelligent computing tomorrow. The ticker is BTBT. This ad is not financial advice.

Do your own research. about Bit Digital and try their MNAV calculator at bit-digital.com. That's bit-hyphen digital.com. Bankless is being compensated by BitDigital for this ad. You can find out more information by clicking the link in the show notes. There was, there's a while I was hosting an episode, like a roundup episode with like a handful of different people on it. And one of them was bred from MegaEath.

And this one very strong Ethereum community Discord I was in was giving me shit for hosting bread from MegaEath. And I'm like, what the hell do you guys want? Like, it's mega eth is an Ethereum layer too. They're doing the logical conclusion of like the Ethereum roll up design. And all of a sudden, like, hosting bread from MegaEath is antagonistic to Ethereum. So some parts of the Ethereum community have their antibodies, very sensitive, very turned up. And so what would you say, how would you address those people who are just like very tuned to be like, no, you're actually extractive to Ethereum?

What is Codex? What is Konex giving to Ethereum? What values is Kodak's giving to the Ethereum project? Yeah, I think you see this happen quite a bit with communities that become sort of more and more mature, right? I think you see some, these are sometimes, in 21 or 22, it would be like these are kind of Bitcoin-e traits, right? Yeah. Or like any attempt at changing something about the Bitcoin ecosystem is an attack on Bitcoin

and let's get the pitchforks out and let's string them up, let's hang the guy, you know, which, which. So I think it's a natural human tendency. I understand it. I think what we need to do as a community is discern between true threats and progress. So like what are true threats? True threats are Alt-L-1's attempting to supplant Ethereum, right? Tempo is a real threat.

And we should not engage in motivated reasoning about it. Right. So like one version I've heard about this is, well, it uses the EVM, so therefore it is Ethereum. I mean, come on, right? Like, that's, that's BS. Like, sit down and really think about that for a second, right? That's, that's BS.

So we need to be able to discern between, like, true threats and progress. What does progress look like? Progress looks like, well, what is the future here, right? We have this problem where, you know, perhaps general purpose L2s are not all that additive to the Ethereum ecosystem. Well, then, how do we proceed? Because we have RAS, right? You can spin up bro-ups. We have a thriving Ethereum community.

And there are all these threats on the horizon. So what should we do? Let's sit down and think about what we should do. Well, we need to move quickly. We need to run a tight product iteration loop. And we need to preserve Ethereum's dominance. And probably the best form of doing that is in a stable coin focused L2. And so, I mean, obviously I'm talking my book here.

But, you know, we are very much not a threat to Ethereum or very much a aligned with Ethereum, and we hope to preserve the future of stable coins on Ethereum. What about the whole topic of conversation of like based and native roll-ups? What do you think about those? In terms of like technical, even stronger technical alignments to the Ethereum layer one, what do you think about that conversation? Yeah, I think those are interesting. I think we're happy to explore those things.

I think, again, this falls in a bucket of like interesting technical conversations that customers do not care about. Sure. Yeah. So like if you go on one of these chain websites and all they talk about, talk about is stuff that sounds good to like R&D team. Right. I would,

I would look out, right? Yeah. One theory I have, one thesis I have about tempo. You know, tempo is like, you know, what is good for tempo is good for Ethereum. We're EVM, we're going to, our software contributions will flow back to Ethereum. We're going to increase the pie for everyone. And also we're just like stable coins, you know, so like don't mind. So we're not coming for defy.

We're just stable coins. And I think anyone who says that on the tempo side of the aisle is like probably being true and authentic. Like, yeah, they're just focused on stable coins and payments. And I don't think anyone in the tempo complex is being dishonest if they just say, yeah, we're just thinking about stable coins. I think as tempo grows, in the future where tempo does get adopted as a payments chain, as a stable coin chain. And like the weight of stripe actually gets expressed in the dominance of tempo. tempo evolves from just a payments chain just because of the fact of

that's how layer ones work. It's like, why would you not put AVE on tempo? There's going to be an AVE on tempo. Why would you not put any sort of defy app on tempo? And why would, there's no difference between a stable coin payments focus chain and just like a very high capacity, high capability,

generalized EVM chain. And so yes, everyone in the tempo orbit is like, yeah, we're focused on stable coins. But tempo as a construct, tempo, the actual, if you give agency to tempo the blockchain, tempo's like, yeah, no, I want to become the dominant layer one, the generalized layer one. What do you think about that thesis? That rings true to me. I think the play here, it's a very smart team over there, right? There's a lot of great people. I think if I were them, what I would be thinking is less salami to slice, salami slice the shit out of this. What I mean by?

of this is you just progressively and slowly inch through everything. So you make no moves immediately that are threatening to others. You just slowly and progressively get there under cover of maybe some smart rhetoric. My general attitude towards almost everyone in this space is like everyone in crypto is in one of two camps. You are either unbundable, like, and this is the perspective from Ethereum. So again, Ethereum is the agent here. Ethereum is the organism. Anyone in crypto is either unbundling Ethereum, and this is like the archetype of multi-coin capital. What does multi-coin capital want to do? They just want to unbundle Ethereum, like one by one, take all of the different values of Ethereum, different value that Ethereum

produces and make a faster alternative version of it somewhere else that they invested in. It's like the archetype of Ethereum unbundler. So tempo, big Ethereum unbundler. And then there's the Ethereum bundler, which is like, Ethereum is the endllers. It's the Ethereum bundler's, like, Ethereum is the chosen open source ecosystem. It is this gravity center of open source contributions, and that is like naturally accruing of mind shares, credibly neutral. Things just gravitate towards Ethereum.

Even tempo, even though it's like an alternative layer one with no material technical alignment with Ethereum, it's still the EVM. And that EVM grows in the gravitational center and actually is Ethereum at the center of the orbit. And so I'm interested in growing the Ethereum project. So I'm an Ethereum bundler. I will say that you are an Ethereum bundler

because you're building an Ethereum layer two that's focused on bundling up payments and Sablecoins into Ethereum. And so I actually don't really have a question here, but that's how I view the world. It's like you're either an unbundler of Ethereum or you're a bundler of Ethereum from the perspective of Ethereum.

What do you think about that? Yeah, I think there's like Ethereum's kind of like Craigslist, right? It's kind of what you're talking about here. Yeah. I think that's interesting. Yeah. I think the thing is that the Ethereum bundle. Like, what is the reason why you might unbundle Ethereum?

You might unbundle Ethereum to focus, right? So somebody might focus, you know, Craigslist has rentals, and you take out rentals and you just do that, and it's Airbnb, right? I think in the case of Ethereum, we have this wonderful thing called L2s that allow you to do that. You can go focus on one thing, and yet the whole thing still coerers. So it would be like if Craigslist had an incentive for people to spin off little sections of it while still being economically aligned with Craigslist, that's what's powerful here, right? This is the model we have to get to. And I know there's all sorts of factions inside the Ethereum community that have different theses on it.

I've heard one version of this, which is look like, sorry, F the L2s, right? F the L2s, and let's just focus on L1 and let's do that. there's obviously another camp which is like, don't do that, like focus on the L2s. And I think the truth here is somewhere in the middle. Like, we need to be pragmatic about this. Right? We got to make sure that it makes sense.

Like L2s need to interact with L1 in a way that's additive. And obviously L1 needs to, like, there needs me a reason why you want to be in a theorem L2, right? So I think, again, I'm biased, but I think the model that we are pursuing is the future. Yeah. Yeah, I think I agree with you there. So it's like, let's split the difference between F the L2s and focus on the L2s.

But I'll give a slight bias or like tie goes to the Ethereum layer one. So I'm not perfectly splitting it down the middle. I think like in 2021, the Ethereum community over index on layer twos and they were like, all layer twos are valid by default. 10,000 generalized roll-ups. They're all valid. They're all great. That's right.

And I want to actually, my perspective is like actually by default a layer two, is not valid. It's not legitimate. You can't just spin up a layer two. You have to earn your keep. You have to do something net additive. And being a generalized roll-up is not net additive to the Ethereum space. You have to, like, earn your place as a valid contribution to, like, the Ethereum

landscape. And if you're not valid, then, like, you're actually parasitic, right? And so, like, the way that you are valid is you have tight product development research loops. You do grow the podcast. and you grow the pie in a way that is additive to the Ethereum side, not in the tempo way where it's like, yeah, we're growing the pie, but we're also doing it too.

So that's my kind of fault. It's like don't discard the layer two's, but also they're not valid by default. They have to earn their Ethereum logo branding, not get a pie default. I think that's right. I think that's right. I think another way of thinking about it is,

if a roll-up is adding nothing other than existing, it is fragmenting the user base. That's the truth of it. Right? So it better either address some use case better than L1. It better be attracting new users, better be attracting new flows, creating new functionality, or it really ought not exist. Yeah, there was a previous year, a couple of years ago where that was like blasphemy.

But I hope that this becomes like the status quo, like, thought in the Ethereum community. When Tempo announced itself and they're derbelling from the Ethereum, community got really, really loud, and Matt Huang had to, like, answer to the fact as to why it was an Ethereum, why it was a layer one rather than Ethereum layer two, he said something to the effect of, like, not wanting to be tied to Ethereum's development roadmap. And, like, a bunch of other things. Like, the general answer was, like, if we were at Ethereum layer two, we would be constrained by Ethereum, by, like, Ethereum throughput, the 4844, like, blob space, growth targets. When you read that analysis from Matt Huang of, like, Ethereum throughput, the 4844, like,

like we wanted to be just technically independent from Ethereum. What was your reaction to that? I think Matt's in a tough spot, right? I think Matt has to balance a ton of different things. I think, you know, well, there's paradigm LPs to balance, right? Why is the GP of this fund starting a port co? And how is his time split between paradigm and this new portco? He is invested in much of the Ethereum community as well, right?

So is he now adversarial towards those investments? I think he's got a tough balancing. and, you know, obviously a very smart guy, so I think he's doing a good job of it. I think, again, it has, it's this R&D fetish that we were talking about, right? I think it's very easy to slip into like, oh, well, we just, what we really need is just more throughput.

That's what we really need. We need a gazillion transactions a second, and often that's really not what is actually the bottleneck. And so, again, I'm biased, but I think if you analyze the situation correctly and you spot the true bottlenecks, you would conclude that an Ethereum L2 is the faster way to win. Hmm.

Hmm. I'm into it. I hope they're best for you guys from my Ethereum side. Are there any other parts of this conversation that I haven't asked about? Any stone I've left unturned? I think it's just a really exciting time for the space. I think we're seeing all these sort of geopolitical forces play out on chain as well. And I think all this will get decided in the course of the next half decade.

So, you know, it's excited to be on the frontier. Cool. Well, I hope the best for you guys. Routen for you. Not an investor. Spankless Nixon. No, I just like the Ethereum roadmap. I like the Ethereum project.

To what degree Codex has a firm foot planted inside of the Ethereum ecosystem. I'm a supporter. So Halen and thanks for coming on the show and just educating me about this space. Thanks, David. Great to chat. Talk to you soon. Bankless station. You guys know the deal.

Cryptos risky. You can lose what you put in. But nonetheless, we are headed west. This is the frontier. It's not for everyone. But we are glad you're with us. on the bankless journey. Thanks a lot.