Invest Like the Best with Patrick O'Shaughnessy - Ryan Selkis - The Crypto Barbell and Token Curated Registries - [Invest Like the Best, EP.98]

Episode Date: August 7, 2018

Ryan Selkis - The Crypto Barbell and Token Curated Registries - [Invest Like the Best, EP.98] This week’s conversation is for those interested in the nitty gritty of cryptocurrencies and for those who, like me, are fascinated by that world but more than a bit skeptical of the investing prospects for the many cryptocurrencies now in existence. My guest is Ryan Selkis, who I met at an event hosted by Union Square Ventures and Blocktower Capital. At that event, in a crowd of many brilliant people, Ryan was consistently asking hard questions and raising counterpoints. I love his perspective because he is both passionate, but realistic, excited about crypto, but worried about many aspects of the ecosystem. We discuss many new topics like his barbell analogy for thinking about different kinds of coins, token curated registries, and the need to better transparency around decentralized projects. Hash Power is presented by Fidelity Investments Please enjoy our conversation.   March for the Fallen Want to meet other curious investors, get in good shape, and support a fantastic cause? Consider joining a great group to hike 28 miles in honor of those who have fallen in defense of our nation.  Learn more and sign up at alphaarchitect.com/mftf.    For more episodes go to InvestorFieldGuide.com/podcast. Sign up for the book club, where you’ll get a full investor curriculum and then 3-4 suggestions every month at InvestorFieldGuide.com/bookclub. Follow Patrick on Twitter at @patrick_oshag   Show Notes 2:55 - (First Question) – how he best explains blockchain technology 4:12 – How does he categorize each cryptocurrency 9:11 – How Numeraii is valued 10:04 – Explaining token curated registries (TCR) 12:58 – How Token Curated Registries are being applied 15:05 – Innovations that will protect against nefarious actors in the crypto space 16:37 – How do you convince investors to commit to TCR’s 18:40 – Biggest headwinds to this industry 22:12 – What are the quality filters to root out the bad actors 25:42 – Thoughts on the ICO market as an alternative to capital raising 29:23 – Litmus test for who should use an ICO to raise capital 34:28 – What is unique about creation of a token vs the normal exchange of cash to determine if a company needs a token 36:21 – How many ICO projects are really necessary 38:28 – How should people form an investment opinion about this space 41:35 – Core mission of his company 44:28 – What are some of the reasons his goals won’t happen 49:30 – Lessons learned while working at Coindesk 49:58 – What is he most excited about for the future of this space 52:56 – Kindest thing anyone has done for Ryan   Learn More For more episodes go to InvestorFieldGuide.com/podcast.  Sign up for the book club, where you’ll get a full investor curriculum and then 3-4 suggestions every month at InvestorFieldGuide.com/bookclub Follow Patrick on twitter at @patrick_oshag

This episode of Invest Like the Best is brought to you by Paxos. I have personally interviewed Paxos's CEO, Chad Kaskarilla, on this podcast before, and I'm excited about how they're changing the crypto landscape. Whether you're a small fintech or a large financial institution, with Paxos crypto brokerage, you can offer your customers crypto buying, selling, transferring, and more, all with Paxos's easy to integrate APIs. Paxos takes care of everything in the back end from licensing and compliance to custody and exchange. You can start offering crypto to your customers within months. I've gotten a no Paxos over the years and have been personally impressed with their track record.

With clients that include PayPal, Venmo, Revolute, and Bank of America, they're the most trusted infrastructure provider for crypto and blockchain. I'm excited that more fintechs and banks are starting to offer crypto features, and Paxos crypto brokerage is the best way to get to market quickly and safely. To learn more, visit Paxos.com forward slash Patrick. That's Paxos.com forward slash. Patrick. Want to meet other curious investors, get in good shape, and support a fantastic cause? Consider joining a great group to hike 28 miles in honor of those who have fallen in defense of our nation.

Wes Gray, a past podcast guest and Marine, came up with the idea to bring people from finance together to March. He's posted all the information you need about the event and how to train at alpha architect.com slash MFTF, stands for March for the Fallen. West's arranged for food and lodging for our large group, and we have around 100 spots left. Both male and female barracks will be available for lodging. Come for a hard hike, amazing camaraderie, and most importantly, to share in thanks of the fallen men and women who served on our behalf. We hope to see you there. Hello and welcome, everyone.

I'm Patrick O'Shaughnessy and this is Invest Like the Best. This show is an open-ended exploration of markets, ideas, methods, stories, and of strategies that will help you better invest both your time and your money. You can learn more and stay up to date at investorfield guide.com. Patrick O'Shaughnessy is the CEO of O'Shaughnessy Asset Management. All opinions expressed by Patrick and podcast guests are solely their own opinions and do not reflect the opinion of O'Shaunicee asset management. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a basis for investment decisions. Clients of O'Shaunice asset management may maintain positions and the securities discussed in this podcast.

This week's conversation is for those interested in the nitty-gritty of cryptocurrencies, and for those who, like me, are fascinated by that world, but more than a bit skeptical of the investing prospects for many cryptocurrencies now in existence. My guest is Ryan Selkis, who I met at an event hosted by Union Square Ventures and Block Tower Capital. At that event, in a crowd of many brilliant people, Ryan was consistently asking hard questions and raising counterpoints. I love his perspective because he is both passionate but realistic, excited about crypto, but worried about many aspects of the ecosystem.

We discussed many new topics like his barbell analogy for thinking about different kinds of coins, token curated registries, a fascinating topic, and the need for better transparency around decentralized projects. Like the Hash Power documentary, this episode and other Hash Power singles are brought to you by Fidelity Investments, a company that is constantly researching and experimenting with emerging technologies like crypto assets and blockchain to improve the lives of their customers. Fidelity provides a comprehensive set of products and services to individual investors, employers, and financial advisory firms. For more information, please visit Fidelity.com. Please enjoy this conversation. I'm always curious how people that have a lot of experience in this world, actually especially non-engineers, describe the entire ecosystem to someone that's unfamiliar with it. It's been a while since I've done this

at a basic level. So how do you do that? Oh, man. And you know, this is always like a tough one. You know, you'd expect like the old guys to have like the perfect one-on-one. And we end up just getting like so far in the weeds that I'm going to completely botch a shit out of us. The way that I think about it at like a super high level is that we are just a wash in information and there's so much pollution on the internet. And the original information on the internet was to make information flow freely and kind of make it accessible to anybody. And what that's led to is just a glut of information. So, you know, I always think of blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies in general as the

thing that finally makes, you know, value flow as freely as information, scarce value flow is freely, is information. And that is, I think, the truly revolutionary thing that you'll hear about when you talk to anybody within the industry. So how do you kind of quantify the value of scarce digital assets, whether that's currency, whether that's digital resources like file storage or computing? It's a truly novel way to, without a central intermediary, have some degree of trust in the scarcity of some intrinsically valuable digital asset. How do you categorize, everyone has their own kind of interesting way of doing this of Bitcoin's one thing within a big ecosystem. How do you sort of plug different cryptocurrencies into categories?

What are the major things that you think about? So I've written about this a little bit, and I like to call it the crypto asset bar bill. And I was thinking about this quite a bit last summer. I'm sure we'll talk more about this, you know, ICOs and kind of that whole market in particular. But I was really trying to just think how the market was getting so insane. And what became pretty obvious was that pretty much every project that was raising money, every, every team, every new asset. They were all talking about these new assets as if they're truly currencies. And this is something I'd spent a lot of time thinking about just originally with Bitcoin. Like what is money, right? Like the classic like Bitcoin rabbit hole. And what I kind of came to think and realize was that there's really

two massive multi-trillion dollar opportunities with respect to this industry. There's cryptocurrencies, which are like true money currencies. That's Bitcoin, Manero, Zcash, some of the privacy focused ones. I'd even put Ethereum and Ether in that bucket because it's kind of become this reserve currency for the ICO boom. And we can talk about maybe that's starting to subside a little bit. But there's kind of those true money-like crypto assets. And the other end, there are these crypto securities, basically traditional securities that give people the ability to have a claim on an assets or claim on cash flow and residuals, whether it's a business or a new type of security-like instrument. And that is really, I think, overtaken the whole blockchain, not Bitcoin meme. Now it's all crypto securities, right?

You're basically talking about the same thing from different angles. It used to be like we're going to issue all these things using blockchain, not Bitcoin. Now it's, oh, all of these digital assets are now cryptocurrencies and they're part of the crypto assets bucket. So it's been like a very interesting, like reframing of that. But I kind of feel like it's the same movement. And it is interesting. But I don't know how much new value is unlocked there necessarily.

Maybe it's just a repackaging or a retracking. of existing value streams. Yeah, it is. And there's going to be marginal benefits, but you're not talking about introducing entirely new asset class generally. And there might be some exceptions to that. What might the exceptions be?

I like to think about cross-border, cross-jurisdiction, kind of mutualized risk pools, right? So could you create new securities around different kind of global risk pools where those kind of insurance products of securities might not necessarily fit under a very neat purview or jurisdiction? Yeah, exactly. jurisdiction in anyone region. Additional like securization of purely digital goods in some of these virtual reality, you know, like decentral land and and, you know, some other purely online platforms.

Like, you know, you could have purely digitally native securities. They don't fit in the U.S. or they don't fit in Asia or Europe because they exist only in ones and zeros online. So those are interesting. Those are maybe new models. But at the end of the day, you can still price them like securities. You can look at the book value of the assay, you know, the cash, associated. cash flow, exactly. So that's still a massively exciting opportunity, but obviously very different from currencies. And both of those you can value using traditional frameworks. It's in the middle where it gets kind of really hairy. And I've written about this quite a bit. But generally speaking, I still think most tokens that fall into the quote unquote utility token or consumer token bucket

are overvalued by orders of magnitude still, even with kind of the recent correction. And the reason is quite simply, for most of these tokens, you don't actually need to hold them, like, for any length of time. And I think people are starting to realize that. So you see teams that are actually post-ICO. Now they're starting to go back to their communities and think, okay, how can we rejigger the economics of these tokens so that they capture more value instead of just letting the tech that we're building kind of create value. Right now it's about, like, how do we actually have value capture here? So that's been, you know, kind of super interesting to study. And I have a few different categories that I find very interesting in that kind of like subset.

In the utility subset. So that would be computation and kind of file storage. So digital resource tokens. I mentioned, you know, kind of file coin, Ghalm, things like that. I think staking tokens that are used primarily for work. Can you explain what that means? Are interesting. Sure. So basically like right to work tokens. In Auger, if you wanted to stake tokens to become an Oracle and basically represent that you know the true outcome of a given situation. You can actually, based on the value that you could capture in terms of network fees, you can kind of work your way into what's the value to hold and kind of stake this token in this new kind of prediction market model. Numurai, their token is another good example, right? The data scientists need to use the numerai

tokens to basically put skin in the game and say, and represent, I'm betting on my own model that it's going to outperform all these other fools. And if I'm right and I win this game, then I'm going to kind of collect everybody else. So you're kind of betting on your own, on the quality of your own work. In that case, in the case of Numeri, is the value of those tied to an underlying cash flow at the parent business, at the asset management business? I haven't looked at it recently. I mean, they're making a number of upgrades, but traditionally that hasn't, I don't believe that's been the case. Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense, but I think that would start to get into, like, the security realm, right? Exactly. And like, does that make a hell of a lot of sense?

to incentivize the people that are building the models to actually have some of that upside, of course, but our securities laws are fucked, right? So, you know, there are people that are actually, you know, working on these ethical solutions, but they're just getting kind of handicapped by 80-year-old securities law. And, you know, that's, you know, probably an entire hour conversation. I'm sure you've had with multiple guests, I'm sure. And then, you know, I guess I'll kind of give one, you know, subset example that we really like at Masari and we can punt on the exact mechanics of what we're thinking. But this concept of curation markets or token curated registries. And the way to think about a token curated registry is, you know, we've been,

listing credentials might be the one use case that's older than money, which is super exciting. You know, ever since we've been hunter-gatherers, like who's in your tribe, kind of part of your mental list, what plants should you eat? We have these heuristics for making decisions. And usually from kind of time forever throughout, you know, kind of human history to now people have trusted central authorities. The village elders, the SEC, the, the SEC, the American Medical Association, right? Like there's these kind of centralized sources of truth and trust that we just, you know, rely on for certain credentials. And with curation markets and TCRs, you basically decentralize the actual creation of that credential in some cases. So the way that I

think about it is if you were to take kind of Peter Thiel's assumption that college is a tournament and an insurance product, then it's not actually like an education resource and you price it like an insurance product. How could you at scale reward Teal fellows with a credential that would have the same kind of clout forever as like an Ivy League diploma? There is no piece of paper that you have if you drop out of college, which is like kind of your fallback insurance product. And one way that you might do that is you might get all the big tech firms together. And they might say, you know, we're going to run this application process similar to a college admissions process, but, you know, would basically allow super high-octane candidates that really don't need college. It could go directly

into training programs or work with us. We're going to give them this credential. So no matter where they go in Silicon Valley, like everybody's going to know this person is legit, they're qualified. And that kind of follows them around forever, much like a diploma would. There's intrinsic value in that credential. But the question becomes like without a board of trustees at the university level that's maintaining the integrity of the institution, the integrity of the diploma, who certifies that. Right. So one way to do that might be to have, you know, the top 10. tech companies all buy tokens in the system that allow them to vote on the quality of applicants. Oh, and by the way, whoever does the curation of the candidates, the actual work, is going to

earn all the application fees that these candidates append to their actual applications. So you've got a pool of real revenue, a real economic value that would flow to any validator in that system. And the kind of long-term upside is that you've got an intrinsically valuable information. resource. And maybe to give a more concrete example, you know a diploma like that would be, it's not worth zero. I don't know if it's worth $200,000 that you spent on college, because college isn't worth $200,000, right? But it's probably worth something between 10,000 or $20,000. You can probably back into, you know, what's the intrinsic value of that from like a personal like brand perspective.

And that's what we're kind of thinking about with Masari, but we're thinking about actually, you know, credentialing quote unquote or white listing projects that meet certain transparency standards. in terms of what they communicate with their communities. I want to get into detail on that model. We can come back to that. On that model in particular, but this is an opportunity to talk about something completely new because I've never talked about token curated registry before on the podcast, and it is a fascinating idea that the history of the power of lists and authority really interests me.

So maybe another couple of examples. That first one was great as an introduction. But any other favorite examples of how this TCR idea is being applied, and maybe even like the mechanics again, you did it one time already, but the mechanics behind like where the value is created and like the different stakeholders in a given registry. Yeah, I mean, we didn't create this, right? So this is the consensus team, the ad chain team over a consensus kind of pioneer Mike Golden and then the folks at MetaX in California, I think they partnered on it. But Mike Golden and Simon Dele Rivier, who are both over a consensus, have kind of been working on this curation markets, token

curated registry concept for a while. It's been fascinating the research that they've done. And other folks to watch that are working on this are at, you know, ZeroX, Aragon. I think Zeppelin might be tinkering with TCRs as well. So it's starting to become a little bit more in vogue as like a governance mechanism for, for decentralized projects. But the general, you know, mechanics I just walk through ad chain is basically trying to use community governance to verify a white list of websites that do not have malicious, you know, dangerous or fraudulent advertising, advertisements on the site. So this is particularly for media companies. And it's an initial. interesting idea in theory, right? It's like basically a vera sign checkmark for websites and,

you know, making sure that you're not leaking all of your personal data when you visit, you know, a certain site where you're not going to be followed around the web. One of the issues that you've seen kind of in the wild, though, with TCRs is it really matters how you distribute the tokens initially and like what the ongoing distribution is because it can degrade into very unpredictable populism pretty quickly. There are no real checks and balances. So you might design the system in one way, but people will vote another just because they can because they have stakes, so they basically make all the rules. So there's kind of some interesting upgrades and additions that I think people are working on with respect to actually

voting on these different lists and curation markets. One of the beautiful things about when you first study Bitcoin down to its depths, as soon as deep as anybody can get, is how people always use the throw around this term anti-fragile, but the rules are so clearly defined. There's not a lot of subjectivity to the future of what's going to happen in it. Now, of course, you get forked, There's always some subjectivity. But TCR strikes me as being an area where there's quite a bit of subjectivity. And like you said, if you hand out the tokens to the top 10 tech firms, like, how do you know that that's going to ensure the quality that you're trying to build? So I'd love to hear more about what those innovations are, kind of that you just referenced at the end there.

Like how can this be viable and how can you protect? One of the beautiful things about decentralization is you protect against nefarious actors. This seems like something that could be subject to. Yeah. The game theory here is that if you're voting in your own kind of self-interest long-term, you would be wise to only pick candidates that are actually going to add value to the list long term. Because if you accept anybody into Harvard, Harvard's diploma doesn't really matter anymore.

And so the whole exclusivity of lists is something that's always been important. So the governors of these systems, the curators of these systems, have every incentive to only admit onto their nice lists projects or companies or people or whatever that kind of meet certain thresholds. And they have every incentive on the other hand to kind of actually set standards and make a certain bar, you know, high enough that it's valuable for folks to clear that. You mentioned at the beginning in this barbell idea and you've given several examples of this middle part of the bar, the utility tokens broadly speaking, where there's just like a big question mark, maybe there are orders of magnitude overvalued. How do you begin to think about

that. This is more of like an investor-centric question for the future. So something like TCR. It's like, why shouldn't an investor care about this? It sounds really interesting for the participants, for the stakers, for the people that might benefit from the digital asset, the Tiel Fellow or whatever. But why should it matter to people that are interested as investors in this ecosystem? Do you trust Facebook or Twitter anymore? As companies? I don't know. I don't. I don't because they make the rules, right? Their algorithm, I'm not even getting into the politics of it, right? But just in general, their algorithms are basically encoded and programmed so that we get more dopamine hits and more visits and more tweets and more. I definitely trust that they're optimizing for

dopamine for sure. Right. So, well, I would argue like, I don't trust that, right? Because like, you know, you are the product. And so, you know, you're not actually getting the most valuable information. Right. Right. You're getting, you're basically just getting plugged into their system and you're just part of the flywheel that allows them to sell more advertising dollars. So it's actually, you know, I think the reason that some of these social media platforms have gotten so much backlash is because their incentives have become misaligned. And by the way, that's kind of the same with traditional media too, right? Like, that's why it's bifurcation of like MSNBC and Fox News and like there's never any intersection of the Venn diagram anymore. So it's like two alternative realities and it's because

they're, you know, for the most part infotainment. So I think the goal with TCRs, whether you're talking about content, whether you're talking about credentials, is ultimately to have people that are interested in paying for high quality synthesis of information, like truly reliable synthesis of information, like give them a way to actually pay for it. That is an indirect roundabout way where they're paying for it because they're offering up their data and in return, they're being sold advertising. I think that's true in many of the other kind of early TCR applications. There's a company called Relevant that's working on this for kind of curated contents. I'm curious to hear you mentioned the SEC or antiquated securities law.

some of the things that you've been thinking about for a couple years now, what you see as the like the scariest things were the biggest problems in this ecosystem. We'll get to Masari and how they're solving one of those problems again in a couple of minutes. But generally speaking, what scares you? What do you view as the darkest sides of the crypto asset world as it stands today? Well, you know, what's the SEC's mandate? It's, you know, capital formation, fair and efficient markets and consumer protections. Capital formation is not the problem. I think the industry, has got that well in hand. This is, you know, clearly, you know, it's been proven that this is, you know, some disruptive innovation. I think there was just something out in Forbes yesterday.

ICO volume in Q2 was 45% of the IPO market in the U.S. So, I mean, yeah, it's real. Like, it's got people's, it's got people's attention. The problem comes down to kind of the fair and efficient markets piece, which is more on like the exchange front and then the consumer protections piece, which is really where we're focused on. I think the most of the answers to protecting consumers, and I tend to lean more libertarian. So in my eyes, many of the protections that you could give to consumers are just by offering better transparency and more kind of consistent findable data on these projects. And a lot of retail investors, you know, don't care, right? They just, they want to know, is something going to pump? Is it going to dump? Right. Like,

you know, I think we have this, like, lofty ambition that everybody's going to become, like, you know, Warren Buffett of crypto and, like, really study the token documents and, you know, great detail. and it's all bullshit, right? We all know that, but at least optically, like, leveling the playing field a little bit more and making it easier for people to actually understand what's going on at these projects. So I think that to me is probably the area that the SEC has come out most vocally and most clearly and said, you know, here's an area where you guys could self-police. Jay Clayton, in his kind of initial remarks in November, said there may be ways for these different markets to kind of self-regor, market actors to self-regulate via transparency measures.

And he wasn't just talking about crypto. He's talking about penny stocks and in a few other areas. But I mean, he said he like explicitly said, you know, self-regulate, you know, via improvements in transparency measures. And I think, you know, the most transparent projects generally are going to rise to the top anyway. So where do you start? Well, you start with extremely remedial information. How are you managing your token supply? Who are the people on your team? Where are you located legally? Do you have legal counsel? What are your verified? web assets and web addresses so you can't get, you know, people don't get fished or spoofed and they can kind of easily verify when they're sending money to a legitimate project versus a Twitter bot and, you know, Heath Giveaway scam. If you just start there, you can pretty much immediately find the 20% of outright frauds and 20% of best in class. These should be the examples. And what we're trying to do is we're trying to highlight the best examples and kind of going through this process, it's going to be very, very obvious, which ones are just outright, fraudulent or exit scams. And frankly, just let's think about this from a practical level. The SEC,

when they take action, they want to win the cases, number one. So they're not going to go over the biggest projects because the biggest projects can afford hundreds of millions of dollars of legal fees right now. And they want to be able to make examples of people. So let's give them like the clear fraudsters and hopefully that gives the industry time to self-regulate and actually come up with some solutions for the people that are actually in this for the right reasons. One of the things you're talking about sounds to me like what an investor would call a quality filter, right, that the step one of a process might be just eliminate all the crap, the junk. This is something we certainly find effective empirically and I think it makes sense intuitively. So maybe talking a little bit more detail about

the strategy behind quantifying quality of these projects. You mentioned some of the remedial information, but how do you decide if you're on the white list? What gets you there? We're not even looking at quality right now. We're Switzerland in terms of reporting. It's like, here are the things that we're trying to track. They're either true or they're false. You either input them or you don't, either have this information or you don't, either have these policies or you don't. Let's make it as black and white as possible for the first iteration. And then over time, you can add complexity and you can borrow from other innovators within the space regarding what logic you incorporate and how you can automate the reporting and disclosures for some of these projects.

But we call them our NOVA principles, non-controversial, objective, verifiable, actionable, material. What's going to move the needle? What can we immediately check? What's that clear binary? And then, you know, really important right now, it's what's not going to piss people off, right? What's easy? Because you take something as simple as token supply over time.

Some of the best projects out there have been extremely transparent with how they're managing their token supply. In some cases, in many cases, they actually embedded in the original, you know, ICO code. So, you know, you know that the founders reward vests over a four-year period and this much goes to the foundation and this much goes to the community pool and this much goes to the founding team. and whatnot. That's really valuable information that isn't really available anywhere unless you're a computer science guy, right? So like actually getting the projects to just, you know, verify, verify that these are the contracts, pull directly from these contracts, any kind of information that you need about the financials and particularly the supply. And we will fill in the details that only we can fill in, which would be, okay, once they vest, do you necessarily sell them?

What does that process look like for kind of exiting on the open market? Because if you were talking about a security and an insider was selling a significant amount of stock, well, that would be disclosable. And in crypto, that could be a significant amount of inflation in whatever system you're talking about. And a good example, this is, and Vinny's great. He's a friend of mine and for a long time, Vinnie Lingham from Civic. But his team like emailed us and they're like, hey, you know, you got to fix the market cap. We wrote this blog post. We talked about how we're doing our treasury. no one picked it up, but it's basically 33% inflation if they were to sell it, like immediately. And they're not, but that wasn't picked up anywhere. And this is, you know, a hundred,

multi-hundred million dollar asset. I forget where it's trading now, but it's a lot of money. And now of a sudden you've potentially added tens of millions of dollars of inflation overnight, which is many multiples of daily volume. So in terms of like those early principles, you talk about table stakes, I mean, in the public markets, supply is something that's like on the cover of the 10K. Let's get the fucking cover of the crypto 10K first before like we're worried about the computer science elements of these different economic systems, right? It just doesn't matter at some point. So I think that's kind of where we come in. And part of that thesis is that like any of this matters eventually. And right now the truth is everybody's just treating these as binary bets and trades. But ultimately there will be a right sizing of these different network tokens and people will start to think about these on a more fundamental driven basis. And so that's what we're positioning for, which is. is really the 5, 10, 15-year infrastructure play. Given that obviously you're approaching this as someone interested in crypto assets, but also as a person running a business in the space, talk a little bit about your thoughts

on the ICO market as ICOs as an alternative to capital formation versus selling equity in a business. So I guess this is two questions in one. How do you view that market in general, maybe problems that you see with it or have seen in the past? And how do you think about it yourself as somebody running a business that's both equity and I think we'll be also, you know, have token issuance as well. I think the key is just alignment.

And the problem with the current ICO market is that you've got instances where the documents say these are donations. You have no rights. You don't exist. The tokens don't exist. They never will. Right. Like these are like the fucking disclaimers that we have in the industry and these in some of these ICO docs. And we're laughing.

But it's true. Like you know it to be true. You've seen some of these. And so it's totally skewed and nobody cares or nobody has. care just because, you know, 2017 was such a monster year and everybody made money. Now that that's starting to cool off, now is when you're starting to see the teams think much more closely about incentive alignment. If we deliver on these milestones, how does that value get captured by the people that invested in the token? Sorry, purchase the token. Everybody knows that they're investments,

right? So I think that that is, you know, kind of super, it's important in business and economics anywhere, but there has been no incentive alignment between kind of communities and the token holders and the issuing teams and kind of the early investors. And one of the kind of corollaries to that is a very important messy structural issue is the issue of how do you set standards around venture capital lockups for these pre-sales? Because what you've had to date is a dynamic where, you know, VCs have been given preferential kind of inside access to different token sales at a significant discount in many cases in mere months before. kind of a broader launch. And they, you know, they basically know they're in the money from day one

because they know there's a flip. And to date, there hasn't been really any restrictions on when they can exit. And this isn't an ethical problem, right? It's a structural one, and it goes back to the incentive alignment issue, because if you think about your responsibilities as a money manager, you've got fiduciary obligations. So you invest at 10% of what the IFCO prices. And then three months later, there's the ICO and it shoots up 20x, you're a fiduciary. You know, you got to take chips off the table, but at the same time, you know, you've basically, you know, one of the reasons that this has went up 20x isn't because the fundamentals of the project changes, because, you know, you as like a blue chip brand investors have clearly given a signal that this is a high quality

project. Right. You're arming your own brand, basically. Yeah, right. Yeah. So it is. It's exactly that. It's like arbing of our own brands. And I think people recognize this is like a structural issue, but the issue is one of kind of continued access because if you're if you're doing your own kind of back of the napkin, well, if you're in a position where you know that you can exit quickly, then you can pay more on entry. If you're going to like draw a line of sand and nobody else does, well, you're never going to invest in one of these projects unless you have like a USV or Andreessen type of brand where you're so far in the money anyway that you can afford to hold for multiple years just so you kind to preserve your institutional integrity. And in fact, many of these, like the blue chips have said

they haven't sold. But the thing is we don't know on a kind of a per investor basis. And it's important going back to the founder supply issue, it's important when you think about not just kind of fairness of the initial distribution, but ongoing inflation and, you know, ongoing dumps on the market potentially that are unseen. One of the ridiculous but understandable questions that I hear, over here or am asked directly is people that are in business that are used. to adapting to changing conditions, asking like, well, you know, should we do an ICO? You know, is this something that we should take advantage of, some new way of forming capital, as you said? I'm curious if you have a framework or a litmus test for thinking about who and what should be

considering this as a means to raise capital. So what are the conditions under which ICOs make sense? And how will that evolve in the coming, you know, one to three years, whatever period you think is appropriate? I think this is the whole problem in the industry right now. The ICO market has become like a capital raising tool primarily. And in theory, they're not, these tokens aren't supposed to be equity or any equity like instrument because that makes some securities. And so this is like the issue that everybody dances around. And when we're thinking about doing something for Masari, a couple things kind of stand out with how we're considering structuring this token curator registry. The first is we kind of see it as an enabling feature to kind of fulfill the mission of boosting transparency and, you know, getting to more fundamentals focus. And the reason I say that is there is no SEC or equivalence that can mandate Edgar-like disclosures from token projects.

And then you get into the issue of how can you even pick and choose because Bitcoin, who's going to register Bitcoin? Who's going to register ether? And maybe some of these other tokens that got out the door early, maybe they're kind of sufficiently decentralized. So who actually claims that they can even report on behalf of these networks? So you've got some pretty tricky issues there. But I think at the end of the day, what we're trying to do is ensure that in the absence of that regulator or even the self-regulator that they might be able to bless to do this work of kind of enforcing standards, the TCR, the owners of the TCR are able to basically come together and ultimately create that out of thin air, right? So there's a little bit of, you know, fake it so you make it, like create this aura of inevitability. There's, you know, I think a tremendous flywheel that would kick in. If you can get a critical mass of funds, of exchanges, of regulatable. entities around the table saying, yeah, this is how we should do things. This is very obvious. It's, you know, we're not talking about, you know, 150 page 10Ks. We're talking about very remedial

type of information, right? So that's, that's number one. And they're very, very important number two, because I know I get crucified all the time because I've been so outspoken on ICOs and how they're overvalued. And it's like, oh, now you're going to do a shit coin. So, so the other thing that I think makes is very, very different is that, you know, one, I'll make the argument that everybody else makes all day long is like, you know, truly the token holders in our system are using the token, not just speculating. If the long-term value goes up, that's fine. But I believe that very strongly. That's a, you know, another hour that I could make that argument, but people can take that with a grant of salt. But the thing that really matters is that it's only all of the natural

users that I just outlined are all accredited institutional investors. We're not talking about mom and pop investors that are, you know, going to suddenly take interest in basically creating FINRA or, or the SEC, type of enforceability. It just doesn't make sense for them to hold the token because they have no skin in the game strategically. And all the other token users would be a little bit more strategic. So that's, I think, how we try to, you know, separate what's interesting about our token. I think any other project that it's purely for, like it really is for utility, I think

will do well. But I think the kind of hand waving around, oh, we're using it for this, but really we need to raise $5 million or, you know, like that's or a lot more, right? Like that's where people get into trouble. And I will give a shout out to one group that I think is really doing a good job on, you know, how do you actually prove that people are using these tokens and not just speculating? Basically what I was going to ask. I think what token foundry did with the foam space ICO. And I think it, you know, it's the 27th today. I think it's, you know, kicking in. You can register until like 31st. I'm not recommending it. But I'm, you know, it's kind of ongoing. So hopefully this airs after that. But I think the way that they structure the way that they tried to basically create like suitability standards. If you were kind of doing this as an investment advisor or broker, you'd have kind of suitability standards that you'd have to check to see if a certain investment made sense for even an accredited investor. And so now this isn't accrediting people by wealth.

It's basically accrediting, are you actually going to use this, you know, token for its intended use? So that's very interesting to me. So a really clean answer to this idea of who should do an ICO, right? Or why should, the bigger question is, why should you introduce a token into the world, basically? And the litmus test being, it can't be for speculation. it needs to be for some actual underlying use. It raises the question. And people will still speculate, right?

Of course. Can't stop it. Yeah, you can't. I don't think you can stop it. But I do think that you can. Motivation matters. Yes. Yes.

And I thought that about, I think it was one of the longest posts that I've written. I wrote why I invested in Filecoin, right? And it was basically like a protest investment almost because I thought that they did things the right way. And like you need in their system as designed, you need Filecoin to actually prove that space and certain storage capacity has been committed for. a provable length of time. And so there's a holding period. There's kind of real world comp in AWS. You know, if you, you know, you've got this Airbnb type of model so you can figure out what the replacement costs would be. There's a lot to like about that. And that system doesn't

exist without file coin in theory. We're starting to see more projects like that, but it's a valuation. It reminds me of another one of these kind of basic, and I apologize for some of the basic questions, but it's just helpful for me as someone as an outsider to remind myself of these ideas. Sort of like me asking, you know, how do you just describe this whole ecosystem to people? same question apply. I'm glad you're asking them because I know I'm probably getting like way, way to like, you know, it's good. This shows a lot of detail. And you know the funny thing is people that aren't familiar might be like, oh, that sounds like really interesting, but I don't understand it. And then everybody in the industry is like, you know, so basic. Cupidity, you're such like a dumb fuck. Like you didn't explain

any of that correctly, you know. So, you know, I'm sure that I'm going to disappoint a lot of people in the industry every single time I open my mouth. That's just kind of my like, my operating assumption, right? So keep, you know, bringing me back down to Earth. So the very basic. So the very basic question is, is just this idea of use. Like, what is it that's unique, same idea of a litmus test or however you want to think about it. What is it that is unique about the creation of a token as a means to do something relative to just like the normal exchange of cash or money or whatever that you think is a good way to think about whether or not a business should be, should have a token that enables something that is truly differentiated versus what they can already do,

basically so they're not just capitalizing on like a popular category. So I guess people, People in the industry talk about censorship resistance a lot. So I think there's certainly a category of applications that you could argue you must do this on a decentralized basis if you want, you know, truly tamper free. Tamper free computations or storage or funds flow. So I think that's one element. And then, you know, probably the other element is, are there coordination problems that exist within a given market that monetary incentives might be able to solve? And so this is, something that people a lot smarter than me have talked about. But basically like blockchains and cryptocurrencies is coordination mechanisms. I think it's probably the best way to think about it.

Is there a like a structural issue in a given market that requires a better type of economic incentive system and coordination mechanism that just it would be very hard to replicate on kind of like a company basis? How dire do you think this over like the overall ecosystem is if you were to if you somehow had the time to go project by project and assess whether or not it should be a token at all versus a normal mechanism. And then your first let me test of, you know, it shouldn't be designed just for speculation, but actually to be used. How many do you think actually as maybe just in percentage terms or something like this fit this criteria? Should we do like a lightning round where I just talk about like all the terrible projects that are on the top page of Quinn Martin? No, actually I'm not going to do that because that would totally, you know, maybe over beers I'll do it.

You can talk in abstraction. At some point things become so overvalued. they've kind of become indistinguishable from really terrible projects and assets. Because it's just tough to see some of, even the interesting projects, like growing into their value. Simply because at the end of the day, when the tide goes out, are these tokens actually capturing the value, you know, the implied valuation of the network suggests that they are? And the answer almost universally is no. And that's why I think the categorization of securities, which look at the cash flow, look at the, you know, even if it's speculative cash flow, or look at the asset value. You can do that.

Currencies, it's like, what are they replacing? Is this better than gold? You know, so should it be some percentage of the gold market? Should it be some percentage of Bitcoin is like a replacement to Bitcoin? Those all make sense, but it's this kind of middle bucket where, you know, you can bang your head against the wall as much as you want. You can run whatever models you want, but you're just not going to get there under almost any circumstances. And there will be a few outliers where I think the outliers will really be in situations where they don't really start with any intrinsic value. But then the team, like, at some point, has like a pivot and like, oh, shit, like, we should do this instead. And now, like, it's really helped improve alignment across the entire stakeholder

base. And it just, like, something clicks and it really takes off. I think the important thing there is that's only going to happen if there truly is some innovation in the incentive scheme where it's an alignment improvement. And that's what's missing. I'm reading into a lot of what you've said, and I'm just curious to hear your take if I've got it right. So if we go with this barbell theory of sort of monetary security tokens or securitized tokens and then this middle wasteland, if you will, of utility tokens, if I'm thinking from the perspective of an institutional investor, all of whom now know that this exists and probably

need due to like career risk problems to have some opinion of it. And I'm trying to form an opinion, an investing opinion of this ecosystem. What would your recommendation be in terms of just posture for like how to begin to attack this problem where the question that they're facing is, okay, this thing is big now. It's in some big drawdown. It seemed to survive like a lot of things that maybe we wouldn't have thought it survived. And we need to have an opinion. How would you suggest people go about forming that investment opinion, generally speaking?

I kind of feel like I was a few years early to this and like this type of framing. But my framing was if Mark Andreessen and Fred Wilson are wrong, I feel like less bad about being really stupidly wrong about crypto and Bitcoin. If they were making a career bet and brand reputational risk bet, even probabilistic one that's ended up turning up very, very well. If they're good making the sleep, then I am as well as, you know, at that time, like, you know, 27 year old. So I think now you multiply that by like a million in terms of where the tech stacks are, where kind of, you know, mainstream consciousness of this as kind of an innovative new asset class, I think it's much less risky to get behind something like one of the cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin, Ether, Zcash, Manero.

I don't think that's a bet your career type of risk anymore. What is is, okay, if we buy this and then there's a hack and we lose all of it because it's a faulty custody solution, all right, that's like you didn't figure out custody and we don't really care whose fault it was, like off with your head, right? So, but so I think that's like the most important thing that's going on this year is can we figure out institutional custody. Now, Coinbase has their solution. You know, we're starting to see like, you know, bigger, bigger money funds kind of pile in with what they're doing, you know, Ledger is is doing a lot. You know, Zappa has always been kind of at the forefront with Bitcoin. I love Wences. He's a purist and he, you know, he doesn't believe in ether. So he doesn't

custody it. And it's like, cost them so much, I'm sure, but he's just like, no, we're not doing it. So good for him. But there, you know, there are plenty of like those actors out there that are, working on these institutional grade custody to kind of get over that hurdle right now. And outside, so you mentioned, you know, from institution's perspective, it probably doesn't feel like a career risk move on the currency side. But maybe in the other two, let's actually, we've talked a lot about the middle layer of the utility. So maybe. Well, they're just done. They're just bad. They're just dumb investments for the most part. I mean, and if you're going to make, if you're going to take that exposure, the smart play and, you know, I think this is the

pitch of most crypto funds is to, you know, invest as an LP. Sure, you're going to take a little bit of a haircut, but you're going to do it in a vehicle that's tried and true, and you're going to basically offload all the risk onto the VCs, the hedge funds. So I think that makes a lot of sense. It's basically a tax on the folks that can't take the professional risk, right? And that's fine, but that's going to fund a whole lot of infrastructure. I want to talk a little more depth about Masari and I guess the bigger vision and ambitions, right? So you've talked a little bit, we've talked around it a little bit, but it might be helpful just to state, like the simplest version of the core mission and then the steps that you're going to take to get there.

We want to build an authoritative data resource for the industry. So if you think about building a new financial system, what type of infrastructure needs to be built, high quality, standardized, universally consistent reference data is a core component of that. And I think we're tackling that from a few different angles. So there's all of the on-chain effects, which we just acquired that has pricing, volume market cap data and then on blockchain transaction data and things like, you know, developer activity and we're kind of adding a whole slew of metrics to give people a better dashboard and sense of, you know, how these assets are doing comparatively speaking. Obviously with with Masari,

with the TCR product, what we're really trying to do is bring more regular and forcible disclosures because many of the newer projects are kind of quasi, private, quasi, quasi, public. So the insiders really, you need to know what they're thinking and what they're doing or you don't have a complete picture of the economics or kind of the fundamentals of the project. And then, you know, another kind of core piece is just curating content and information and trying to curate research, whether it's ours or someone else's, giving people a single dashboard where they could cover to cover, do their investment, diligence, and, and make, you know, come to some type of decision.

Is it fair to use the analogy that you probably hear all the time that you're trying to effectively build like a Bloomberg of crypto? Oh, man. Yes, it's great because there's like 50 entrepreneurs right now that are building the Bloomberg of crypto, right? So I hesitated, smile like, no, no, no, no. It's, uh, our investors like want to kill me because I always say, no, no, we're building Edgar. Before you can build Bloomberg, you need to build Edgar. And they're like, well, that's not

sexy enough. It's like, I know. That's why when I talk to people that need like sex appeal, I say Bloomberg, but it's, you know, it's really like more foundational than that. At the end of the day, like the Bloomberg of crypto is not going to look like the Bloomberg of Bloomberg, right? Because my analogy suck. Yeah. Well, no, I think it's a fair analogy. I would say where we ultimately want to be from like a kind of leadership standpoint and kind of building this base layer. It's something between a Wikipedia of Bloomberg and Edgar and then I'd even say maybe like a little bit of like a world economic forum type of system. Because I don't want to say like SEC or like FINRA or anything like that because basically those type of entities are very different because they are kind of top down. And they will always be top down regulatory and self regulatory bodies.

But you think about something like World Economic Forum, they don't really have any teeth that they have a shit ton of influence. And that's, you know, where a lot of the kind of world's issues are addressed. And, you know, we kind of make fun of Davos and, you know, out of touch elites or whatever a little bit. But yeah, I think there's some merit to building something that kind of incorporates those different elements. And frankly, you kind of need to if you're going to just hurt cats. One of the things I like about the crypto world is there's no shortage of skepticism and of people looking at other projects and coming up with the reasons why they might not work. So if you had to force yourself to be like your own skeptic or maybe there's someone specific you can think of and a skeptical view of what you're trying to do. What would you say the pitfalls are? Like, what are the reasons that something like this might not work? It's a political challenge. We will not be successful if we don't get a critical mass of exchanges, funds, underwriters eventually bought in. And so that's why when we did our initial fundraise, we went out and we looked at globally, who are some of the top funds that can get us boots on the ground in Korea, in China, in Europe, and North America, right? And we did that. We got a, you know,

a fantastic syndicate together, you know, really smart investors. That's kind of step one. Step two is kind of, you know, how do we expand upon that? How do we start to get more of the exchanges and, you know, other infrastructure providers behind us? And it's, it's a distribution problem and it's a political problem. And, you know, all these assets are kind of reflexive in some sense, right? So the more we sell, the more valuable it is, right? It's a lot of marketing. But it's, I think, the right kind of marketing. But the challenge is, you know, what's the value of this network today that doesn't exist? This is like the whole venture capital dilemma. If you back in and you say, and these are just kind of high level numbers, and these are

not what we're raising at, so I'll just, but I'll use it for kind of illustration. So we need, we're going to raise, you know, $10 million and we're going to sell 20% of the tokens. So, you know, basically the other 80% will, we'll sell over the next, you know, five years. We have constraints just on a nominal basis to like how many partners we can pull in because if you have 40 different partners that want to come in, is anybody really going to care if they put in like a quarter million dollars and they're running a $400 million fund? No, you have to give people enough skin in the game and like interest and excitement, like, oh, this is going to be a billion dollar network. But you can't concentrate too much power on one hand because so much of the importance of how we build these

governance systems relies on the initial distribution of governance and ultimately the ongoing distribution of governance. So it doesn't get centralized prematurely before it has kind of escape velocity. So that's one thing. Now, the nice thing that I always like to joke about is if there's anyone that's done more faking it until you make it in the industry, I'd like to see them, particularly around like consensus the conference, right? Like that's, it's a lot of it's kind of like the same pitch, right? With consensus at CoinDask, you know, a big flagship conference in crypto, you know, I ran CoinDask prior to Masari and that's really the lifeblood of CoinDash right now. But the first, you know, year that we really blew it up, you know, we go to kind of all of our friends in the industry and basically the pitch was something to the effect of everybody's, coming, you should get your ticket before prices come up and before we run out of speaking slots. And then like the next week, you'd basically have the same conversation with the same people and be like, oh yeah, so and so and so and so and so and so and so and so and so and so and so and so and so so and so and so and so and so and so and you're describing every business, every good business ever, by the way. Yeah, it's just like selling like FOMO and like just kind of playing people

off each other like horse trading whatever and like that's basically this this is not, this is not today that technically complex to do the TCR. It's very like politically complex, I guess to it to get the right initial distribution. So if you can get aligned investors that will kind of like make the leap with you, it almost becomes, I think, self-fulfilling because you just need to solve that kind of political coordination problem and that a lot of good things happen. And when it comes to, you know, value capture for us, whether you're talking about the token economics or anything else, look, if we can build an open data layer, the authoritative like data source for a new financial system, like that business is going to make money. Like, we'll find ways to make money in, you know,

50 different type of verticals. And so I'm not too hung up about it right now, but, you know, you always have to be kind of conscious of the tension between how do we capture value and how do we make this open source, right? So those are like some of the big sticky issues that I think a lot of teams in the industry face. Aside from the-cognizant of them. Aside from the hustle that you just described, what were the big lessons that you took away from your time at CoinDesk? The big lessons learned. The people that work on the team that actually put everything, implement the thing and kind of put things into action, they never get any credit, right? It's just like the face of the franchise. And I think like most good, especially like younger, you know, CEOs or executives will basically say like, I don't know what the fuck I'm doing, right? Like honestly. But luckily I've got a knack for like hiring the right people that do. And, you know, so ultimately like they're the ones that like get the brand off the ground. And I'd say, you know, when we acquired Coin Desk, we were basically down to six full time. One of the questions I always think about in crypto is the tendency towards concentration and centralization, whether it be the credit that somebody gets. It's remarkable. The thing is it's human nature.

So I think making centralization and decentralization, making that process more liquid, maybe that's the real innovation. Yeah. It's not, oh, we've built this censorship resistant decentralized currency. Most of the hashing powers is with one company in Bitmain, right? So, you know, and up until very recently, like most of that capacity was behind the great firewall. So, yeah, so much for your, you know, censorship resistant currency that can be co-opted and earned by the Chinese government, right? Like, you know, so I think that's that's one of the bits of marketing language that everybody uses, but, but isn't quite true. But yeah, I think if you can make that a little bit more fluid, right, you can't disrupt Facebook today, right?

Maybe, you know, it'll take some time. but like the boats that some of these big tech companies have are pretty, pretty sizable. So it's not like you have really low switching costs of something like, you know, Cambridge Analytica happens or worse. It's almost like they're too, too deeply entrenched. Back to just like a big, big question, big picture question, outside of your own work and project, what going on in this world today has you most excited about the future? Well, most people I know that have devoted their careers now to the crypto asset world

are big believers in its potential. But the sources of that potential seem to, like what you said earlier, they're morphin every week. If things change all the time, what has you most excited and engaged outside of Missouri? Well, my kids learning to talk. That's a good one. That obviously is, I know you're asking about economic sectors. It might be more interesting. I think AI, like machine learning is like, you know, all these like really, you know, there's a lot of buzzwords and jargon and fascinating stuff that's happening there.

But that, watching that unfold is, I kind of go back. Like, I can't really think about it that much because I kind of just, you know, I, I worry that like everything is going to be machine driven and we're basically coming back to the matrix and the singularity is near and kind of all that. For me, you know, just watching all these AI assistants pop up and how sophisticated they're getting. How long they work. That's, I remember testing out X.com, based in New York, four years ago. And then Amy, the, the AI assistant, you know, it kind of worked. It kind of didn't. And I tried it again like another six months I was just like, oh my God, man. If this is the pace of, you know, innovation, like this is

like how smart things are getting, you can kind of see this freight train. This freight train of change to the economy that's really scary. I can't remember if it was like Tim Ferriss or Sam Harris had a podcast with someone on universal basic income. That's really good. I think I've been thinking about the combination of AI and UBI. It seems like if you don't figure out UBI and like how to fix this ugly populism that we've got right now and like reconcile those two different visions, then, like, I really am like a tinfoil hack guy in terms of what that means about a mad max future. And like, yeah, so I don't really like to bring it up a cocktail party.

He's like, what do I think of the future? Because it's just, you know, it's, it can be bleak. Yeah. And so I get really excited when I see people working on the, let's tap the brakes a second, right? Like, where are the kill switches? And in some cases, you can kind of think about in a world in 15, 20 years where, you know, blockchains replace, you know, a lot of different, you know, traditional financial markets. And you have things like autonomous agents and decentralized autonomous organizations that

like become these unstoppable forces. Auger this past week is a great example. It's prediction market that pretty much immediately got a million dollars in bets placed. And then assassination markets popped up pretty much on like day two for Donald Trump and a number of other like high profile individuals. These autonomous agents, you know, they sound great in theory. But like what happens like how do you avoid the black mirror episodes that come from, you know, from some of these like innovations?

like who's developing the kill switches, like who's thinking about like how to actually keep this in check. Those are the people that I get excited about working with. So we'll go from Bleak to something a little more positive, which is my closing question for everybody. Just to ask for the. I've joked around this guy, Annie, from Fabric VC. He and I were joking that I think, I forget who came up with the title. But for my autobiography, it'll be something like my entire life has been an accident. Right.

So I've just caught a tremendous amount of breaks. but I think that by far the, so obviously, you know, my parents, wife for family reasons, but I would say when I've started my career was in the like throws of the recession and my offer at the JP Morgan Investment Bank was deferred. It was just, I think it was like, it would have been like a pretty significant like setback just, you know, psychologically and kind of career wise. But I accepted on the spot the summer prior. And so I went back to the well for like the friends that I had that, you know, would have recruited me, I thought. And this guy, you know, J.P. Sandler. day, who's a friend of mine at Boston College, he was like, yeah, we'll get you in, like,

right away. And so he, like, fast-tracked me at a venture firm called Summit Partners, which I'm sure most of your listeners probably know. And it worked out, right? Like, within, like, two weeks, I went from, like, okay, my career's got, like, a major setback. We're going to the throes of, like, the worst recession and, like, you know, since the Great Depression. And then somehow miraculously went from, like, that to, I just skipped two years of banking and got, like, right into venture. And it was, like, the best, like, job that I possibly could have had out of school. I was totally underqualified for it. And pretty much everybody at Summit that hired me and then didn't fire me in the first three years. And then, you know, my manager,

Pete Connolly, who was, you know, terrific first mentor and coach, I'd say. Awesome. Well, this has been a ton of new information for me on Crypto. So I really appreciate the time and insight. It's been fun for me. I think that's the first time I've told that story. Awesome. So that's a great closing question always elicits interesting stories. That's great, man. Well, it's been a pleasure. Thanks so much and we'll see on telegram. Hey everyone, Patrick here again. To find more episodes of Invest like the Best, go to investorfieldguide.com forward slash podcast.

If you're a book lover, you can also sign up for my book club at investorfieldguide.com forward slash book club. After you sign up, we'll receive a full investor curriculum right away and then three to four suggestions of new books every month. You can also follow me on Twitter at Patrick underscore Oshag, OSH-A-G. If you enjoy the show, please leave a quick review for us on iTunes, which will help more people discover Invest Like the Best.

Thanks so much for listening.