Epicenter - Learn about Crypto, Blockchain, Ethereum, Bitcoin and Distributed Technologies - Ido Sadeh Man: Sögur – The Digital Coin Changing Global Currency for the Better (sponsored)

Episode Date: October 8, 2020

Sögur, formerly known as Saga, aims to provide a global digital currency that acts as a store of value, a unit of account, and a medium of exchange. It is not impacted by any single nation state agenda and complements national currencies. And it is governed by its holders.The SGR is Sögur's digital coin. It's built to provide a self-sustaining, democratic and global currency. It uses a bonding curve market maker, which is modelled to control and mitigate volatility exposure and value loss when market conditions are fast-changing and unpredictable. All whilst creating an opportunity for sustainable intrinsic value growth. SGR holders are the currency decision makers, and enjoy democratic voting rights over how SGR operates now and as it continues to evolve.Sögur is interesting as it starts off looking like a stablecoin, but as the market grows it departs from its peg to become a free floating currency. It is currently pegged to the SDR (Special Drawing Rights). Deposits are held in FIAT reserves and as demand for SGR increases, the reserve ratio decreases. This causes the relative price to go up.Ido Sadeh Man is chairman of the board and founder of Sögur. He joins us on the show to discuss the background of the project and what it is hoping to achieve, and an in depth look into the monetary policy of the SGR. He also talks about the impressive team and advisory board that is behind the project.Topics covered in this episode:Ido's background and how he got into cryptoWhy the time is right for Sögur to have a positive impactCentres of stability on a global scaleWhat Sögur is and what problem it solvesHow it works as a stablecoinThe economics of the Sögur (SGR) currencyThe connection to the SDR (Special Drawings Right)Redeemability of reservesWhy Sögur was built on Ethereum and not its own blockchainThe effects of limitations and gas feesWill SGR bridge to all networks?The bonding curve modelThe governance structure of Sögur and the smart contract itselfStake-based voting vs participant-based votingWhere reserves are heldThe team of investors backing SögurThe effects of changing regulations on SögurThe long term vision for SögurEpisode links:Sögur WebsiteSögur MonetaryThe Voting MechanismSögur on MediumSögur on TwitterIdo on TwitterThis episode is hosted by Sebastien Couture.  This podcast episode was sponsored by Sögur.

Hi, I'm Sebes Sincuicchio and you're listening to Epicenter Aftershock. These Aftershock podcasts are wholly sponsored, which means that everyone you hear on this edition of the show paid to be here. But that's okay because we have some amazing sponsors. If you're looking for the regular weekly edition of Epicenter, just look for the number of episodes in your podcast player. And of course, none of what we discuss here should be considered as investment advice. Today our guest is Ido Sademan. He's the chairman of the board and founder of Sager, which until recently was known as Saga. Sagar is a very ambitious project to create a global currency that acts as a store of value, a unit of account, and a medium of exchange. And the goal is to

create a currency that is a source of stability in an increasingly unstable world economy, especially in the context of the global pandemic. The project is live on Ethereum Mainnet, and it's attracted an impressive team and an advisory board that includes Nobel laureate economists. Sogar is interesting because it starts off looking like a stable coin, but as the market grows, it departs from its peg to become a free-floating currency. So in the beginning, and right now, it's pegged to the IMF's special drawing rights, or SDR, which is a basket of the five most widely used fiat currencies in the world, so US dollar, euro, Chinese yuan, Japanese yen, and the pound. To buy the Soger token, which is called the SGR, a user deposits ETH in a smart contract, that ETH is converted into those currencies representative of the basket, and it's held in Fiat reserves.

So it's backed by Fiat. And as the demand for the Sager token increases, the SGR, that is, the reserve ratio decreases. And what that does is it causes the price relative to the ETH USD value to go up. What you get is a currency that's deterministic in price relative to the size of the market. So the smart contract deterministically determines the issuance curve for the token and the price of the token at any point on that curve. In our conversation, we discussed Edo's background as a jazz musician in Paris and how he transitioned into tech startups. We talked about Sager, what it is, who it's for, and what problem it solves. We compared it to other attempts at creating asset reference tokens or stable coins in the ecosystem.

We discussed some of the philosophies and thinking that went into designing Sagar. We talked about the current political context and how relevant this currency is within it. We discussed at length the token economics and how they work. We talked about the interesting mechanism that governs the Sagar token and also the organization that houses the Sagar token. houses the Sagar team. We discussed the technical aspects of the Sagar token and the smart contract. And finally, the regulatory context and long-term vision for the project. I hope you'll enjoy this conversation. I really think this is an interesting project because it attempts to create a much more populist version of Libra, which for all intents and purposes,

if it ever sees the light of day, will be governed by a small group of a little. And more generally, I think the cryptocurrency space benefits from experimentation in the space of stable currencies that act as a store of value, unit of account, and unit of exchange. So with that, here's my conversation with Ido Sadeeman. So I'm here with Ido Sademan. He is a chairman of the board and founder of Sogore. And we're going to talk all about Sogore and how it aims to become a world currency. We've heard this a lot in the crypto space over the years, but Sogore, I think, has a pretty good base to do just that. So thanks for joining me today.

Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure. So before the show, we were talking a little bit about your background and how you used to live here in Paris and used to be a jazz musician. Yeah, tell us a bit about where you came from and how you got involved in crypto. Yeah. So it seems like, you know, a prior life. up until 15 years ago, I studied music in Paris and was playing jazz happily and then got back to Israel, where I'm from, and where I am now in quarantine, and realized that there is not much of a jazz scene here, and I crossed to the dark side of the startup industry, where the scene is very developed here in Israel. mostly managed product organizations and later on methods startups, whether B2B or consumer startups, sold the company. And three years ago, I was ready to leave the space,

feeling that I'm doing more of the same. And I was a part of an early stage VC. And as a farewell to the VC, I suggested to take an analyst with me and write a thesis, explore a bit and write the thesis about investing in blockchain. It was early 2017 before the craze started. And I think it took me less than two weeks to realize that I'm not going anywhere. My plan was to go and study political science because I felt that what really interests me

is the where societies are functioning or rather dysfunctioning as of late. And I think that what I found in blockchain is the realization, the technology and politics, not in the partisan way, but in the societal way, are getting as close as close as there have ever been, and that possibly the solutions are not within the campuses, but rather within new technologies that can reshape our social contracts. And this is really how Sogher began, saga back then.

We should mention that this project used to be called Saga, and it's now called Soger, so we'll try to. to keep the, because the brand change just happens, so we'll try to keep it straight on Soger throughout the interview. What is it about the current social and political climate that makes you think that Soger is, that the time is sort of ripe for Soger to emerge? So when it comes to Soger, the premise of Soger is that we need a complementary global currency. One that is not necessarily competing with fiat currencies, but right. rather complementing them.

So fiat currencies were designed for a reality where our economies are mostly national, where prices are determined within a nation state, where trading mostly take effect in a nation state, and where it is enough to set fiscal agenda by governments and monetary agenda by a central bank in order to maintain a monetary stability and for the fiat currency to perform its role. go tell that to a British citizen who after Brexit saw the pound value decrease by 25%

over the last few years and actually when they're purchasing within Britain they're fine. The British economy is reacting to the same Brexit but when they go on Amazon or when they go abroad which happens a lot

especially before COVID then the prices there are remaining unaffected by Her Majesty's Parliament there remained exposed to a market that they are purchasing and trading with, but their store of value is not reacting to. And this is exactly what Saga wants to solution. Now, obviously with the instabilities that COVID demonstrated,

because I don't think that the inherent instabilities is due to COVID. I think that COVID is just, you know, the small illness that is coming to an already sclerotic system and demonstrating just how fragile it is, with all that COVID brings, along with the fluctuations of the dollar, for example, I think that the need to find centers of stability that are not only dependent of national governments is becoming ever so evident. And if it was, you know, one of the struggles we had three years ago was to explain this

to my mother, for whom all is well and functioning fine, one had to really be in deep in the rabbit told to understand where our financial and monetary systems are non-functioning. Now I think that it is quite common knowledge and quite common sentiment that our traditional organizations are not able to react on their own with the challenges of the global data era. This concept of centers of stability is one that I've been thinking a lot about, especially since COVID, as we've seen sort of local communities solidify. And I've seen it here in my own local community, you know, just the sort of solidarity between people and sort of like local bond solidifying. And I see that as sort of a center of stability in my own personal life,

you know, knowing that I have like neighbors that I can rely on if I need something or that there are like some local businesses around where I can buy things that I need from, you know, essential goods to non-essential goods. What are the sort of centers of stability, as you call them, that people rely on that are able to scale at a global scale? Is this something that's achievable in your view? I think so. So this is going down a very deep rabbit hole, but I like to call it super global and super

local. Eventually, we need to remember that the premise of the state, if we go back to Uso and Montesquieu and the rest of them, was to provide security and is still to provide security. We are willing to surrender some of our liberties and some of our money in order to gain back security, whether it's physical, traditional, educational, or medical security. And I think that we're realizing more and more that nation states are struggling to provide this security. Now, I don't think that it is because we have lesser leaders.

This might be the case, but I don't think that this is the root cause. The root cause is that when communication changes, identities changes along with it. For a very long time, a French citizen created his or her identity by watching France in the evening and American by watching Walter Cronkite, British by watching the BBC. It allowed a sort of unity, a national unity, that allows for a national community to really exist. This is no longer the case. I think that what we're experiencing is not very new, right? Probably about three or four hundred years ago in Toulouse, someone got the first newspaper

and was no longer because of the cheap printing revolution and was no longer restrained to forging their identity, to trading, to exchanging ideas, with the teacher in the village or with his parents. And this is what really gave birth to the nation state, to this new community that can agree on things together and create a social infrastructure and an economic infrastructure. I think that we've had our share of our cheap printing revolution with our data era that is no longer restrained only to the nation state.

We're no longer consuming our news from one, main source of information. And it might be that you and I have more in common than myself and my geographical neighbor. And therefore, we need the ability to exchange views, but also to create those solidarity circles. And what I believe would happen is that we would see those solidarity circles go in both ways. As you've mentioned, the community, the size of the community, is one that allows to create more understanding, more common ground.

than the national size. On the other side, we have technology enabling us to create common ground with people that are remote geographically and to create those networks of support as well. So I don't think this is dichotomic. I think this is going hand by hand.

Yeah, this is such a profound topic. And it is a rabbit holder. We could spend a lot of time on. I mean, I think that in the last recent years, I've realized that I have more in common, say, with someone in a different country that lives also in a big city than, say, someone from, like, my, you know, my hometown where it's like a very small city, right? And, like, I think that this is the kind of dichotomy that is more prevalent today in terms of people's ability to identify with those around them is, like, whether or not you're like a cosmopolitan or not. And I mean, some would probably call that a little bit. a bit controversial, but I think that that this is the

sort of an issue, the stakes that are at stake here is like being able to consolidate, you know, the interests of like everyone, whether you live in a very sort of affluent society

or city or not, you know. And between secular approaches and religious approaches, there are so many, many fragments and I think that there comes a time where a society is no longer sustainable if it doesn't share a critical mass of common ground, a critical mass of narrative and ethos. I'm pretty pessimistic when it comes to this, to be honest.

So when I want to go back to optimism, I look at Switzerland. That's a good point. Yeah, Switzerland is a good model, I think, for this, but it's also very small and quite rural. Right, but you know, we're used to look at Switzerland and to say, well, they have great chocolates and everything is green. Of course, everything is so peaceful there. But it is rather the contrary, Switzerland is a small country divided into three languages, three different ethnicities or nationalities at least, and surrounded by countries that up until 50 years ago wanted to devour it and devour everything else. And yet it is managing to be a sort of token of stability

and a lot of it has to do with the fractal nature of Switzerland, with the fact that the Federation is agreeing on really a very, very lean layer of solidarity, but then each commune and each canton is allowed to have their own views and their own common ground that is shaped differently than others. So I think that this is a model that we can definitely look into. A stark contract to France and how things are being run here in France. It's very topical at the moment. Okay, we're going to get away from all this philosophical, political stuff and start talking a little bit more about Soger, which is why you're here.

So like, can you describe Soger? I realize we haven't really got into detail about what Sogar is, but let's describe Soger. And what is it for? Like, what problem does it solve specifically? So as I mentioned, Sogur aims to provide a global currency that is not impacted by any single. single nation state agenda, and that is complementing national currencies. And obviously, our inspiration, our first inspiration is Bitcoin, the first non-governmental attempt to create a currency in the modern age.

But then we've identified several pitfalls that we think would prevent Bitcoin. So we believe that Bitcoin is definitely in any parameter, a better alternative to gold, in the sense of an uncorrelated asset. but when it comes to currency, we believe that volatility needs to be tamed, chaotic volatility does not allow anyone to use a currency as a medium of exchange, and that the deterministic features

that are so appealing in Bitcoin are problematic when it comes to running a medium of exchange. The fact that it takes so long to change the contract in the face of a new reality. And these are the two elements that Sogare is tackling. You can imagine Soger to be a bridge between a stable coin and Bitcoin. Because it starts as a stable coin. It is pegged by a basket of currencies.

And as it evolves and grows, the contract, the smart contract, it's an Ethereum contract. And the smart contract protocol is detaching from this peg gradually towards independence while using the reserve and the peg as kind of crutches, right, as a stabilization element to be able to tame volatility on the way to independence. So it starts as a stable coin, which means that it is, what is it backed by, or what stability is it attached to? And as it detaches from that, where does it go from there? So it starts as a stable coin.

It's a sort of a hybrid between a stable coin and a crypto volatile commodity. So it starts by being fully pegged and fully stable to the SDR. The SDR is a basket of the five most traded currencies, dollar, euro, pound, yen, and rem, and B. And it is being defined. The basket is defined by the IMF, the International Monetary Fund. And it is actually being used since 1969 by central banks. to hold their reserves. Obviously, just like we do in Soger,

no central bank want to hold their own reserve in one currency that is subject to fluctuation. And this is why the IMF invented the SDR. So we are using the same composition. We're holding to the composition of the SDR, and we're not allowed to change the basket unless the IMF changes the composition of the SDR, which happens every five years or so.

So let's talk a little bit more about this monetary policy. So you mentioned the SDR. Of course, that's the special drawing rights asset that, you know, I think a lot of people in the crypto space kind of discovered the SDR when Libra came out because it was kind of somewhat compared to the SDR in some circles. And so this is a basket of currencies and you've decided to peg it to this basket of currencies because of, you've decided to peg it to this basket of currencies because of, of the sort of inherent stability that it gets from being a basket of these national currencies. Because of two main reasons. One is that diversification gives stability, and we're witnessing it since March, where the dollar is depreciating, and the SDR went from $1.36 to $1.42.

And consequently, we did too, not because we did anything, but because the dollar depreciated. but also because it gives inherent protection from one single state taking monetary actions and impacting the value of our currency, actions such as quantitative easing or money printing, as one would call it, more simply. So let's talk about the mechanism that goes into defining what the reserves of SGR should be. So you mentioned that at the beginning it is pegged to this basket of assets that represents the SDR. Where does this money come from and where is this money? Like is there money sitting in a bank somewhere?

Sure. A great question. So first of all, when we started, when we launched Saga at the time and SGA at the time, what is now SGR, there was zero money in reserve. There were zero SGRs in the world. the only way to create an SGR is for someone to buy it with Ether from the smart contract. So the mechanism is a mechanism of an elastic supply of money. The market determines the supply of money. When one buys SGR from the contract with Ether, SGR is created.

When one sells SGR back to the contract, they would get back their ether, and this SGR would be burned. When we get the Ether, when the contract gets the ether, we are conversational. converting the ether into the SDR currencies and depositing them in regulated banks. The oracle in very recently, just a month ago, we have announced an integration already in place with ChainLink, so that the price of Ether SGR is based on a Chainlink Oracle. Those banks that are holding the funds for SGR, for the reserve, are providing a daily attestation signed by them that could be read on our website. as to how much money they're holding in reserve. This is one of the critical elements for any peg-based currency

is to know how many funds are there really in reserve. We don't want anyone to have to trust us. And therefore, one of our conditions for them working with the bank is for the bank to be able to provide such a daily attestation. Let's look at it from a user perspective. I want to buy some of this SGR. I go to your website. I go somewhere.

I send Ether to a smart contract address. I'll get some amount of SGR in return. We'll go into what amount that is and what determines the price of the SGR. In the back end, you're using that ether to purchase the basket of currencies that are in the SDR, the special drawing rights, in proportion to the amount of currency that I've purchased. And that goes into a bank account. So let's say I have $100 in ether. I don't know what the proportions are, but let's say they're just 20% for each currency. you're buying 20% of USD, 20% of euro, 20% of, etc.

for that $100 of ether. And that goes into a deposit into a bank. Right. That's almost true. Just to small changes to what you've just described. The first one is that obviously the SDR is heavily leaning on euro and dollar, 40 and some percent dollar and 30 and some percent euro. The second one is that 2% of it,

are being left in the smart contract as ether, as a liquidity buffer, so that if you want to come and resell your SGR to the contract, you can redeem your ether, and you will not have to wait for two days, for the money to be withdrew from the bank accounts. So there is an algorithm that calculates how much of a liquidity buffer to keep in the contract

for a zero time within one block redeemability, without at the same time being exposed to the price of ether. So it's constantly a sort of equilibrium that the contract determines. Okay. Let's now discuss maybe the price, because you use a token bonding curve to determine the price of the SGR and also the reserves that should be held based on the amount of reserve, sorry, on the market size, right? So can you describe the mechanism by which when I deposit, say, $100 worth of ether,

I get X amount of SGR in return? Of course. So the premise of a bonding curve is an implementation of a principle that I think that we want to see in every cryptocurrency, which is that a currency's value should be a function of the size of its economy and community. I think that this is true for any currency, not only cryptocurrencies. We know what happens when countries are deciding for themselves of the value of their currency. You can ask Carlos Menem in Argentina. In a natural way, for a currency to be inherently strong, its value should be a function of the size of its economy and community.

The way a bonding curve implements it is the following. because we're not pre-issuing and we have no right to print money, only the market can determine how many SGRs there are in the market, then the algorithm can consider that the number of SGRs is a quantifier of the size of the economy and of the trust that we enjoy. When this number is low, the contract liens on a 100% reserve ratio, meaning really that SGR is only worth what it has in reserve. This is the case now.

When the economy grows, meaning more people are buying SGR from the contract than selling, then the value of SGR grows with it because that's how currencies work. Their value is a derivative of the size of their economy. And the way the bonding curve implements it is that the reserve ratio, the percentage out of the value of SGR that needs to be deposited in reserve can lower in favor of an appreciation of the price of SGR, which means that if you come to the contract today and you want to buy an SGR, it will cost you, one SGR would cost you the price of one SDR,

which is currently $1.42, and it's determined by the IMF again, not by us. But when the supply grows, the contract will tell you how much would the SGR cost you, and it's fully deterministic. If you tell me how many SGRs there would be at that time in the market, or if you tell that to the contract, The contract today can tell you what would be the cost of an SGR. Now, obviously, this goes both ways because trust can not only be earned, it can be lost, and economies can not only expend, they can shrink.

So if more people sell their SGRs to the contract and the size of the SGR economy shrinks, the reserve ratio goes back up, the price of SGR goes back down to reflect the state of the community and the economy at the same time, as we believe any price of currency should. Okay. So this bonding curve is, this function is created in such a way that as the economy grows, the amount of reserves necessary to back the size of the economy, well,

will be decreasing proportionately to the size of the economy, which means that by consequence, the price of the SGR would go up. So as the economy is growing, when I'm sending $100 worth of ether, I'm getting less and less SGR for that $100 worth of ether. Right. At the same time, if you're holding as the economy is growing, if you're holding your SGR, they are worth more and more as the economy is growing. Okay. How do you ensure the redeemability of the reserves and the ability for someone to redeem the equivalent amount of ETH? that they put into the system. So again, the bonding curve does not ensure that you receive the same amount of if you have put into the system.

It ensures that the contract can always redeem at the prevailing price according to the number of SGRs at the time of redemption or of buying. So again, if you hold 100 SGR, I cannot tell you what they would be worth tomorrow. I can tell you that if there are a million SGRs in the market, they would be worth X. If there are 10 million SGRs, they would be worth 1.2 X. I don't take my numbers seriously. And that if the economy reduces back to 1 million SGRs, they would again be worth X. Okay.

So I think a good way to look at this is, or to describe this, is that SGR is deterministic in its price. as a function of the market size. Exactly. In the price and in the reserve ratio. Okay. And so if you're a speculator, you're speculating on the size of the SGR market to grow. And so therefore the price of your SGR to grow with it.

But it's solely based on that function and nothing else. Yeah. This is the base function on top of it so that it does not become too boring. we've added another layer which is the layer of a price bend because one of the fragilities you know when we started SGR and Soger

I didn't understand much of monetary theory I'm coming from the technology side of things and so very quickly we surrounded ourselves by by monetary experts we realized that the technology aspect while fascinating cannot account for all the knowledge

needed to build a currency eventually one has to know something about monetary theory. And one of the fragilities that they were indicating in the model that we just described is the lack of price discovery. Because really the contract sets the price of SGR according to the number of SGRs in the market. And in an ideal world, you would like the market to set the price, not only the quantity,

but the price. But how to do that without being exposed to too much volatility? So what we've developed on top of the contract is a price band, being that as the economy grows, again, based on as a function of the number of SGRs, there is a bid offer spread that is opened by the contract. Okay? So,

buying from the contract would be more expensive than selling to the contract. And the reasoning behind it is that we want to drive holders of SGR to buy it in the secondary market and to determine the price of SGR within the limits of the bonding curve.

This is very similar to the way that the Japanese Central Bank or the Israeli Central Bank liberated the exchange rate of their currencies while ensuring from volatility. So the contract is always here to buy from you or to sell to you if you cannot find within the curve the ability to buy in the market. But while in the curve,

you still have an increasingly growing range of price discovery in secondary market so that markets can discover the price and not only the smart contracts. When I was reading about this, I was just thinking of uniswap. And it seems to me like Soger is like, it sort of resembles uniswap, but rather than swapping your ether for another cryptocurrency, you're swapping your ether for something that is worth the value of an SDR, but with like some additional pricing mechanism that

we don't see in uniswap. It's sort of like an automated market maker for SDR, but with a bonding curve that sets the price for that token. I don't think that we ever considered Saga to be a market maker for SDR. Because for that to be the case, the reserve ratio would have always been 100%. This all mechanism is not required. We are using SDR again as crotches as a means of stabilizing, again, the base principle, is that the value of Saga should be a derivative of the size of its economy and its usage. But we've seen that currencies that are starting by issuing a certain amount of currency,

sending it to the market and letting the market estimate the value of the currency, are resulting in high volatility, if not to say chaotic, that are preventing the very essence of becoming a currency and a medium of exchange. No one will be willing to sell me their tomatoes if tomorrow the currency I pay with would be worth half or double. Yeah, that makes sense. So the SDR is really a means of supporting a volatility taming mechanism on the way of growing the Saga currency. And in this regard, I think it's very different than the uniswap target. So let's talk about the technical aspect here.

You built Sager on Ethereum as an Ethereum smart contract. Why did you choose to build it on Ethereum and why not its own chain? Because as such an ambitious project, it feels like it could warrant having its own blockchain. So I think that just because of the fact that it is such an ambitious project and tackling so many challenges of its own, I think that it is important for a project to ask, to ask itself, where does its special sauce or knowledge lies? And I think that ours is in the combination between monetary theory and technology. It is not in building scalable blockchains. There are teams, dedicated teams in Ethereum, in other projects, that are dealing with all the challenges of building a blockchain.

What are really the chances that we would do a better job at it when it is not our core profession? Our core profession and our core resources are all invested in solving the question of what would be the ideal global complement as a currency, not in solving scalability issues. Now, I'm not dispensing them. They exist. We are suffering from them like anyone else. but I think that the chances that projects that are infrastructure projects that are dedicated only to solving those problems

would have more chances of resolving those problems than we would as much as we would have more chances of resolving monetary project than they would. So I think that this is what led our choice to use an existing blockchain. How are you dealing with some of the limitations of Ethereum, for example, the number of transactions per second, or things like gas fees that have been quite high lately? So the short answer would be that we're suffering like anyone else, and we're finding our bypasses.

So most of the transactions in SGR currently are not taking place directly with the contract, but rather in exchanges such as Liquid and Bitum and Exmo, where SGR is listed. And a part of it is because of the high gas fees, in the past few weeks. I can tell you that just deploying our recent change to the contract following the first vote that took place in Soger, and I guess we'll get to that later on,

instead of costing $2,000, cost us $30,000, just to deploy the contracts, right? Those challenges exist. There are many endeavors that are working to resolve them. And quite frankly, I don't think that these are the main challenges of the industry. We have bigger fishes to fry. And challenges of scale are always escorting new technologies and they are always resolved eventually.

I think that part of it would be to compromise on complete decentralization, side chains, things of the nature of lightning in other ecosystems as well. I think that this would be a part of the solution. Do you think that it's necessary, like if SGR is to become a global currency, Do you think it's necessary for SGR to have all the bridges to other cryptocurrency networks so that it can be used interoperably between different networks? So at this stage, I'm not sure that this is the case. Eventually, yes, the architecture of SGR is built so that it can be supported on as many networks as they are,

serving by using the reserve as a sort of relay between the networks. So one would always be able to burn their SGR on one network only to find them reissued on another by their own desire to do so. But quite frankly, you know, SGR is facing the challenge that any currency is facing, which is the two-sided market challenge. Why would they hold a currency that no merchant accept

and why would any merchant accept a currency that no currency that no one old or that a few olds. I think that Bitcoin is still suffering from this. So SGR being as young as it is definitely suffers from it. And I think that therefore it is more reasonable to expect for people to hold SGR initially as a store of value. Because they want to hold an asset that is stabilized by a basket of currencies and not by one currency

as opposed to stable coins that we know on one end. And on the other end, not to be limited to an asset that is just a stable coin and is replacing holding the actual fiat it is backed by, but by partaking in this endeavor to create a currency that would eventually have its own independent value in a transparent and expectable way. That's an interesting point when you're talking about the, the two-sided market problem.

And Bitcoin has achieved some level of acceptability with merchants, but it's practically nothing compared to Visa and MasterCard and other forms of payment like cash. There are other stable coin projects, not to sort of put you in that category, but say something like Terra, for example, have a go-to-market strategy where they're partnering with e-commerce merchants in South Korea and trying to to establish themselves as a medium of exchange in that ecosystem. What do you see for Sauger as the go-to-market strategy, as one might say, in order to gain adoption? So for us, the most interesting element and the problem we're trying to solve is the base of money.

I really don't think that most of the problems that our day-to-day lives are facing are having to do anything with payment, at least not in a way that only blockchain can solve, right? To be able, Nexmo is probably solving payment issues better than blockchain projects or or pioneer or the rest of them. For us, the interesting thing is how can we create a monetary center of security that doesn't exist now? How can we solution it for this British citizen that wants to be exposed not only to their own prices, but to the merchandise they are going to be buying on Amazon.

How can we show a solution the problem for an Argentinian or a Turkish citizen or a Brazilian citizen for whom their local currency is no longer providing the security it needs to provide? The peso decreased by 70% in three years. The Turkish lira in more than 40%. The Brazilian real is following very quickly. these are hundreds of millions of people that are holding a currency

that fails to provide the main feature of a store of value which is to store value. I think that for us, the main goal is to solve this problem and to leverage existing payment networks. We're looking to partner with payment networks, but realistically, the feature of store of value is probably one that we're solving better now than the feature of medium of exchange.

And we're very content with it for the meanwhile. And store of value that if you fulfill your vision, that store of value could, in fact, appreciate in value if there's more adoption of Soger. And an interesting thing would be to associate it to the way you see the world evolving. If you think that everything that has been will continue to be, it makes sense for you to all the stable coin, right?

If you think that the dollar is the reserve currency of the world, we don't need any other solution for a global economy than old Teter or USDC forever. It's fine. If you think that the world is a shit show and that it's going to collapse tomorrow and that you want a fully uncorrelated asset, hold Bitcoin. It's fully not correlated just as much as you would hold gold, but Bitcoin is better. It's more scalable, easier to old, easier to transfer, et cetera. so why bother hold Bitcoin? If you think that the world is changing but that this change is taking time, that it won't happen at once, that earning the trust of people,

that creating an economy and a community takes time, then Sogur makes sense, because it goes all the way from being the stable coin that holding a stable coin on the dollar would be, all the way to becoming a Bitcoin, but for Soger to adopt the mechanisms of Bitcoin of deterministic supply, free float, price appreciation, etc., the size of the Soger economy needs to reach $5 trillion.

We believe that this endeavor needs to be slow, very similar to the debasement of gold done in Fiat central banks. I hope this analogy helps to clarify, to some extent, our approach at least. Let's talk about the governance a little bit because there's an entire mechanism behind Soger to manage the organization and the nonprofit that is creating this currency. So can you describe the governance structure that exists within Soger? Sure. So ideally, Sogur wouldn't have been a company. We don't believe that private companies are can legitimately issue currency because private companies by design

are catering to the needs and to the wills of their shareholders, not to their currency holders. Unfortunately for us, in the UK where we are incorporated, there isn't a structure that allows us not to be a company. So what we did instead is to incorporate a company, but to deny the members of the company, I'm the single member of the company, but I'm denied of any rights.

I cannot vote on my own. I cannot draw dividends. We took a company and we turned it into a foundation of sorts. And this is all in the premise of giving all surrendering the power and the sovereignty of Soger to the currency holder, which we believe is the only way to create legitimately a money issuer. Just to give you an example in November, less than two months from now, the holders of Soger would be able to vote to dismiss the entire board of the company, including myself, send me home, and I'll have nothing to do and nothing to say about the way Soger is managed.

I'm very happy with it. I wouldn't be happy living. This is definitely a baby that I'm nurturing, but I'm very happy with this possibility with the fact that the project is not mine. If this was my project, it was doomed to begin with, I believe. And this is how we build the entire governance of Soger. So when you say that you built this in the UK and in the UK, there isn't a structure that allows you to do this, so you built it as a company, are you saying that there's no like non-profit structure in the UK or that you couldn't find a nonprofit structure that's suitable for this? I mean, like there's Swiss foundations. There's Cayman foundations. The Swiss foundation is ideal in the sense that it is owned by its purpose.

So instead of having shareholders, it takes. it has a purpose to be owned to, and it is supervised so that management of the foundation or the council of the foundation is supervised to serve the purpose by Swiss supervisors. In the UK, the situation is different. There is a CIC, but this is a charity organization. So a foundation in the UK needs to be charitable, and it needs to have an interest that is broader than just itself. in our case, we would have had to serve the entirety of the UK population

instead of having to serve the holder of the currency, which is what determines. So we built a company and then we went back to principles drawn from blockchain but also from Montesquieu and the way a state is built and built our own governance framework. And when it comes to governing the token and the smart contract, You mentioned there's a governance vote coming up. Can you talk about the governance mechanism that exists within the smart contract itself

and how it can impact the governance of this company and also what types of things that governance vote can do within the smart contract? On the conceptual level, we are separating between two major occurrences. One is of executing a known protocol, and this is something that in Soger is always done by the smart contract. The second thing is changing the protocol. And we're not a fully decentralized entity, right? We all reserve in banks. We don't know yet of banks that are willing to open fiat accounts for smart contracts. So we are a semi-partial entity.

And so where we are centralized, we are delegating the power to take decisions. or we are aspiring this power from votes by our holders for changing the contract, for example. So to give a concrete example, just a bit short of a month ago, we came to the conclusion that the decay ratio of the reserve was way too conservative, preventing the project from allowing the opportunity

to early adopters to be incentivized to join. And we wanted to change this curve. So the process was that our monetary expert, our economy team suggested a change. The board of directors approved it, the stepping committee, which is two independent people that can hijack the company from us if we are not respecting our own constitution, to approve it. And only then was it published on our website and on the blockchain for the vote of all the holders of Saga. Happily, it was ratified along with the change of name from,

from Saga to Soger. So this is the way we're doing things. We have four main branches. The smart contract is one of them, but there is an assembly where anyone can vote and starting three weeks from now delegate their vote to others as well, as we've seen in other projects as well.

There is the executive council or the board that is going to be elected starting November by the members. But there is also the monetary committee, which is an expert body that can suggest changes to the smart contract but those changes are always subject to veto right by the entirety of the holders of.

So it's a system of checks and balances really to take all the good things from decentralization but to also decentralize in a Taoish way whatever is centralized by design. So the token holders have governance rights. What stops me from buying up like a million dollars worth of SGR right now or right before the vote and swinging that vote in my favor or, you know, in the favor of people I represent.

So thank you for this question. Democonomy. This is what's stopping you. So there are strong arguments for voting by stake. There are strong arguments for voting like in our general elections, one hand one vote. The arguments for voting by stake would be. that if I hold a million dollars in SGR and you hold only one dollar, then I'm one million times more impacted by decisions taking in SGR than you would be. On the other end, a currency

needs to be used, and it needs to be used not only by whales to store value, but by people to buy goods. And so one would not appreciate that the decision in regard to the currency would be taking only by the high stakeholders of it. So how to balance the two? We took the Genie Index, which is an index that measures imparity in economies, in national economies. And instead of measuring imparity is national economies, we are using the formula of the Genie Index to measure the imparity in SGR. If the holdings of SGR are at par, then it is a vote by stake. But as imparity grows, it becomes a vote by identity, depending on this genie coefficient.

So to give an example, if we have 1,000 people holding 1,000 SGR, then it would be a vote by stake. The genie coefficient would be zero. The distribution of holdings is completely par. But if now one would come and buy 1 million SGR, then we would have one person holding half of the economy. In a vote by stake, there should be, they should enjoy half of the voting power. what would happen in the democonomy algorithm is that the genie coefficient would jump immediately. And they would enjoy to some extent the fact that they have more than others because they've purchased this, but not to the extent of controlling the economy.

Okay. So, I mean, that works when you have real identities tied to, say, smart contract addresses or wallet addresses, but what would prevent someone from, you know, purchasing or acquiring a large amount of SGR and then splitting those up into smaller amounts in different addresses and then voting in that way. So because of KYC and AML compliance issues, Saga is performing KYC for whoever wants to buy or sell directly to the contract. So we don't know of as soon as the KYC is over, the address, the wallet address is

completely decoupled from the identity. We ourselves cannot access it. but we do have this white list on the blockchain, anyone can see it, of wallet addresses that have been whitelisted and associated to an identity. And only those addresses can participate in voting. So we enjoy the ability of asserting that one identity is one wallet to a certain extent, right? We're using the same severity as a US visa would use or a banking, e-banking KWAC would use, without really knowing the identity of the voter themselves.

Okay. Then why not just do identity-based voting then? Why do this kind of this weighted voting if you have the identity of the token holders? Because again, voting only by identity means that the stake that people have within the economy are not considered at all. We believe they should be considered. We want to prevent plutocracy. We want to prevent those who have more taking decisions that are resulting in having even more. But we don't want to annihilate the right that comes with the fact that they're holding a bigger stake in the economy.

You know, just as an exercise, imagine that voting in our states would be, to some extent, tied to how much taxes we pay. Eventually, when we're voting, we're voting on how will our shared resources be divided. When we're voting for a government that would set out a budget, it would be an agenda that determines how to distribute the national wealth. Now, this national wealth doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from our taxes. To have a notion of some linkage between the tax we're paying and the decisions that are taking, taking on RBI off, should be an interesting experiment not only in cryptocurrencies. Okay. So you're trying to strike some balance between identity-based voting and stake-based voting.

And the way that you've done this is with this genie coefficient that you've kind of commandeered for your own use. And that allows you to have a sort of coefficient that will adjust based on the amount of disparity in the system. So when disparities are high, the genie coefficient kicks in and tries to counteract that disparity. But when disparity is low, then the genie coefficient is not taken into account or less so. Right. So the geneal coefficient runs between zero and one. When it is zero, then the stake is being fully represented. when it is going up, the algorithm itself determines how to punish stake, if you want, in favor of identity.

And again, this is a part of the smart contract. It's an algorithm. And it's fully expectable. We don't have to have any interference with it in real time. Interesting. So I guess that kind of addresses one of the issues that I have with crypto in general is the representative nature or the lack of represent. I'd say in crypto of, you know, underrepresented populations, I'd say. Like, you know, if you take

something like Maker, I don't know what the proportion of, you know, affluent college-educated people in the sort of Maker governance pool are, but I'd say that's probably pretty high. With Soger, whoever you are as a token holder, you have some rights in governance, and those rights are weighted based on this genie coefficient that accounts for disproportional inequalities. Right, and this is why, unlike Maker, for example,

we have taken the decision of not issuing a governance token, but unifying the currency and the governance token. It's not two projects and it's not to currencies. It is your holdings in Saga and the criteria for being able to vote

is to hold 10 sagas, right? equal to $14 now. And this is to avoid spamming on one end, but we didn't want to put them higher because we don't want to create a sort of barrage from the access to power and the access to voting. So yes, this is definitely one of the premises. And one of the ways in which we are considering

that the sovereigns of Sogur are the holders of Sogur, whoever they would be, regardless of, their geography or their background, obviously. So just a little bit longer here on this governance. So you mentioned that there was this foundation at their air. There's the council and there as a panel of experts, what is their role in determining and what is the weight of their role, say, in determining future upgrades to the contract or the monetary policy

or something we haven't touched on, which is, what do you do with the reserves? Are they just sitting there in the bank? Or are they, you know, bearing interest somehow or being used for other investments and things like that? So I'll start with the end because it's the easier. Currently they're sitting in a bank. In two weeks' time, new functions would be released to vote. For example, 10% of the reserve would be able, upon voting by the community,

to be deposited in stable coins instead of in the base fiat. in DFI projects to the vote of the community. But still, the majority of the funds, 90% of the funds will sit in plain vanilla currencies in bank accounts. They are not geared towards yield. They're geared towards stability. They're here to support the currency from volatility

when it comes to the reserve. The role of monetary experts is to take monetary decisions and consider the long term. If you look at central banks or the way central banks should be, not the way they necessarily behave, the reason why central banks are usually, or monetary policy boards in central banks, are enjoying the so-called independence of the central bank, is that when a government is elected every four years, it tends to be populist. It wants to be re-elected, which is completely natural.

But monetary decisions have their way of, having a longer impact, we're still living the impact of several monetary decisions taking in the 1970s, like the abolishment of the Golden Standard, right? And you would like those decisions to be weighing expertise and longevity into the consideration. But at the same time, unlike a central bank, we don't want the experts not to be accountable to the public that is holding the currency. And so while the experts are the ones that are drafting proposals, although the public

and draft proposals as well. Their decisions are always subject to a veto right by the holders of Saga. So again, this is a sort of balance between the ability to use expertise in monetary decision making on the one end, but also being accountable to those who are really staking, to those whose stake you're taking decision for, which are the currency holder. Tell us a little bit about the team, the investors, that are backing this project. And I'm also curious to hear

how you managed to get Nobel laureates on your advisory board. What went into building the team and the project? Yeah. So it was three years ago. Starting with the funding, it was clear to us that we don't want to ICO. Because back then, I had a crazy idea in my head.

Nothing implemented yet. We wanted to start creating. create a team. And it didn't seem logical to us to turn to the public and ask them to speculate on whether a low speculation, tamed volatility project would succeed or not. It's a sort of a speculative tautology that we wanted to avoid. And so instead, we went to VCs.

And you'd fund amongst our investors, VCs such as Lightspeed or Vertex or Mangrove, large traditional VCs that are not the usual suspects for crypto investment. I believe that Vertex invested only in Binance and in Saga. To my knowledge, these are the only two, just as an example, blockchain investment. And we couldn't give them shares because we don't have any. So instead we created a token called SGN, Saga Genesis,

or Sager Genesis now, which can be converted to SGR. The conversion ratio, again, is dependent on the size of the economy. If our investors and myself, all the stakeholders, this is the only center of profit, if you want, in the Soger project. Soger is not for profit, but Vertex didn't invest as an impact investment. So holders of SGN can send their SGN to the contract, get SGR in return. If they send SGN now, they'll get zero SGRs in return, because the amount of SGR is, again, dependent on the size of the economy. economy. And it is capped at 15, being 1.5, yes, being that one SGM cannot be worth more than 15 SGR so that they can never control the economy by converting the SGM to SGR and then voting

with their SGR. So this is about the investors. When it comes to the advisors, and we're very, very blessed and lucky to have advisors such as Professor Myron Schultz and Professor Jacob Frankl, who was the governor of the Bank of Israel, and up until very recently, the chairman of J.P. Morgan Chase International. It all started with Barry Tuff, our chief economist. So I called Barry, who was the previous head of markets operation in the Bank of Israel, and he was the first advisor. And he later told me that he wanted to kick me off the line after one minute. central banker cryptocurrency 2017

it doesn't sound befitting but then when I told him of the concept it started to intrigue him and lucky for me was caught in a traffic jam so he gave me 15 more minutes

by the end of which we decided to agree only for Barry two months later to become our chief economist and not just an advisor but when Barry joined it was very worrisome he said well I I don't want to build pink elephants, and I don't have comparables. So at least we should gather around us a group that could serve as a sounding board,

that could challenge our concepts, that could have us defend the model and change it if necessary. The price band I just told you about before is a result of such a defense. And so it started with Professor Jacob Frankel and later with Professor Mayeron Schultz. But not only we have on the advisory board, also Professor Razchen Morris, who is the chair of the history faculty in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, because it really interested us to have the guidance of what led the evolution of money before. And it has been extremely helpful. And Dr. Avi Licht was the deputy attorney general of Israel to deal with all governance issues

and how to create these sets of balances, checks and balances for a governance system. It's not dull. It's interesting. And that's really impressive. And our listeners will also recognize Emin Gonsir and Matan Field on your advisory board for the crypto-cred. I think these will attest to that. I want to come back just on the investors just to kind of reiterate that point, because I think it's an interesting point.

And that is that, so the investors who invested in Soger received these SGN tokens, and at some point they will be able to redeem those SGN tokens for SGR. Right now, if they send those SGN tokens to the contract, they'll get nothing because the economy is too small. But whatever happens, no matter what the size of the economy in the future, they will only be able to resume 15 SGR tokens per SGM. and that is a mechanism that is in place to ensure that they never control

a too large portion of the economy. Right. You know, think of Bono. He invested in Facebook in the very early stage, right? It should be able to be remunerated for the risk he took back then, right? But if you consider that Facebook is providing a civic service, should it be also able, 20 years afterwards, to control this? And we're speaking about issuing currency, potentially a global currency.

It cannot be owned by people simply because they were there at the beginning. And this is true to me and this is true to our investors as well. They should be remunerated for the fact that they took a risk on a project, a high-risk project, as any startup is. Unlike SGR holders, they are not backed by any reserves. the fund we raised from them when to build the project, they should be remunerated,

but under two conditions. One is that they're remunerated only if the project really succeeds, and as much as the project succeeds. You have mentioned the 15 SGR per SGN, for SGN to be worth 15 SGR, the market cap of SGR needs to be

$5 trillion. So it's a very gradual and slow process that works in tandem with the growth of the economy. And the second one is that the fact that they need to be remunerated doesn't mean that they get to own or to control the economy. This is only led to the holders of the currency. So I'd like to briefly talk about the regulatory context for this.

Before we were talking, before the interview we were talking about the fact that you had tried to establish this as a Swiss foundation and you gotten a bit of a disagreement, I guess, with Finma and so had to move to the UK? So not a disagreement with Finna. We chose Switzerland to begin with for two main reasons. The first one was the Swiss Foundation, which as we discussed, provides from a governance perspective, a perfect solution.

And this is why so many projects are choosing Switzerland, such as Ethereum and Tesos and others as well. But the other one was that Finna invited projects to come and get rulings, to say, instead of begging for forgiveness, come and ask for permission. And we went and met Finma,

presented the project, and they said, well, file for a ruling, you'll get it between six and eight weeks. We've waited a year and a half until we decided that we were waiting no more. It's actually the first time as an entrepreneur. I've ever been with a product that is ready for a year and that I'm not launching because,

of regulation. So they got cold feet in to say at least? I think that they got more than they bargained for by offering rulings. A ruling is something that obliges the regulator to be explicit. And I think that many regulators are avoiding the need to be to explicitly say and set the boundaries, partially because they're still studying and learning the field just like we are. So what are some of the regulatory risks that you face? And I ask you this in the context of the digital finance package that was just published by the European Commission. And the early draft of this project, this regulatory project, would impose reserves on what they're calling asset reference currencies, so stable coins effectively. Do you fear that regulation could come down pretty hard?

on what they consider to be, you know, stable coins or asset reference currencies and that Soger might fall under that category? So at present, we don't believe that we fall under this category. The commission has issued, if I believe, if I'm correct, in November, the fundaments of what it is issuing now. And it was clearly oriented to global, stable currency. and the definition was fully stable being pegged to one single currency on one end, and the second condition was enjoying an already existing network of global users.

And this is understandable in the sense that a network with, let's say, 2 billion users, offering a new currency could really pose risks to financial stability. I don't think that this is the case with Soger. we are starting bottom up. We are considering that everything we're doing in the entire industry is still an experiment. We're still a very young industry and that it needs to be carefully conducted. Regulatory risks are always existing. Policies change and regulators change.

As for now, we're fully compliant with AMLD5 regulation, the new European AML regulation. We actually complied with it even before it was. was passed. And we're constantly studying the regulatory framework, right? We are, for example, blocked in the US. A US citizen cannot engage directly with the

contract because the US regulatory framework is still lacking clarity as to what could be compliant and what would not. So it's a constant study, but one has to remember that this is not a zero-sum game only for us

as projects, but for states as well. States that would issue non-clear regulation or regulation that is burdening innovation would find projects that are migrating to states that are more forthcoming of such innovation and there are those as well. I guess what I'm concerned about is what you're building is so ambitious and you're kind of some central banks, some states might interpret

what you're doing as a direct threat to their monetary sovereignty, maybe not the U.S., maybe not European countries. But let's say Soger gets massively adopted in some smaller economy just because it's so much more useful than the local currency because of inflation or things like that. That might be seen as a threat by those countries or central banks who may try to clamp down on your project. And I think in the current context of COVID, where fundamentals of monetary policy are just like turned on their heads, the likelihoodness of this happening in some places, I think, is quite high.

So do you think about, you know, what Soger represents to, say, you know, a second or third tier currency that, you know, might be toppling in the next couple of years or even months and where governments might start clamping down on the use of such crypto assets? So we did not create Soger to compete with anyone or to, or to, or to. to menace anyone and frankly we are still an experiment I believe an interesting experiment I believe a one

that is well thought with a lot of checks and balances but still an experiment and so I don't believe that anyone should be threatened I think that states that would find themselves in hardships in the management of their own monetary policy and in providing

the security that a currency needs to provide which is a stabilized store of value would have its own problems, regardless to whether Soger exists or doesn't exist, such a currency is already competing with the dollar, it is already competing with euro for their own. It is not in vain that we're seeing countries that are struggling, imposing immediately restrictions on capital flow

and on foreign capital holding in their own countries. It is always bound to fail because it is, instead of solving the real problem, which has an inherent monetary instability, it is trying to restrict the citizens of the country from doing what it is that they should be doing in order to maintain their security. But this has nothing to do with us.

This is, I believe that we will be seeing countries that are struggling to keep their monetary stability. I don't think that they will have a quarrel or a beef with us. They'll have to resolve their problems. One of the things that central banks do, of course, is that they invest through expansion of the monetary supply. And currently that expansion is pretty rampant and central banks are investing in, say, their own people by keeping their economies afloat. You might be broadcasting from France, but you're using British understatements. Okay. Do you see Soger in the future as, you know, perhaps through governance able to invest also in, say, social good projects or things that might be valuable to the community of people who use it?

So it's really for the community to decide. I don't think that the reserve is a fund for investment. the purpose of the reserve is to tie the reality of the Soger price into the global reality as it is currently. Let's say you have a friend that wants to record an album and he's doing some music and he thinks his music is cool. And then he goes in the close circle of friends and they're telling him his music is cool as well. I wouldn't rush into Motown being sure that they will sign him for a contract, right? this is what is happening so frequently in our crypto community. We're telling ourselves that we're cool, and the price is a derivative of us telling ourselves that we're cool.

And what we try to do with the reserve in SDR is to go to Motown, is to say, well, the price of Saga, of Sager, of SGR needs to be tied to the prices that the world is acknowledging, not to the one we want the world to acknowledge in 20 years, to the ones that the world is acknowledging now. And we will separate from those prices only when we're way, way bigger than we are now, when we are becoming the Motowns and the Disney's and the Barclays, if you want, of the world. So this is the way I see the function of the reserve.

But again, this is not my project. If the community will see it otherwise, it is very much free to do as it sees fit. So what's the roadmap here? I think you mentioned some governance votes that are coming up. So what's to expect in the short term, in the longer term for Sager, and where can people find you and get involved in the community? So many more partnerships. We've just listed on Exmo after having listed on Liquid, Bitump and Ethorex prior.

And there are several listings that are coming. as I mentioned, we just released the SDR ETH Oracle with Chainlink, which we're very happy with. We are planning a bug bounty next month and a hackathon for developers to be able to, along with Gitcoin, for accetons to be able to develop based on the SGR smart contract solutions. I believe that what we'll be seeing in the next two months is way more dexes that are adopting SGR, and way more involvement of SGR in the DFI community, as eventually in every DFI project,

decentralized as it will, at the base you have a stable coin that is sitting. And I think that at this stage of SGR, as it is fully pegged, not by one currency, but by many currencies, it makes sense to utilize SGR in the DFI environment as well as for those who believe, in the longer term vision of Soger and of the currency

and would be more of huddlers than DeFiist, if you want. I was thinking about that as well as the role of Soger and Defi, and one could also imagine, say, in a multi-collateral die world, that Soger could also serve as collateral for die loans, for example. but yeah I'm curious to see how that will unfold. Ido thank you very much for joining us today. It was really interesting to learn more about Soger and the vision that you guys are rolling out

and I'll be looking forward to learning more about the project as it continues to evolve. Thank you so much for having me. Enjoy the conversation very much. Merci. Thank you for joining us on this week's episode. We release new episodes every week. You can find and subscribe to the show on iTunes

Spotify, YouTube, SoundCloud, or wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you have a Google Home or Alexa device, you can tell it to listen to the latest episode of the Epicenter podcast. Go to epicenter.tv slash subscribe for a full list of places where you can watch and listen. And while you're there, be sure to sign up for the newsletter, so you get new episodes in your inbox as they're released. If you want to interact with us, guests or other podcast listeners, you can follow us on Twitter.

And please leave us a review on iTunes. It helps people find the show, and we're always happy to read them. So thanks so much and we look forward to being back next week.