On The Brink with Castle Island - Edward Woodford (Zero Hash) on Digital Asset Infrastructure (EP.537)

Episode Date: June 17, 2024

Edward Woodford, founder and CEO of Zero Hash joins the show. In this episode we discuss: Edward's origin story in the digital asset industry and his path to founding Zero Hash. Zero Hash's product lineup and the ways that the firm is powering companies seeking to engage in the digital asset ecosystem. The regulatory landscape for digital assets and how Zero Hash has positioned the firm both in the United States and internationally. Stablecoin adoption and the types of businesses that are emerging to service this breakout category. How brokerage platforms are integrating digital assets. Zero Hash's roadmap and what is coming in the next year. To learn more about Zero Hash visit their website.

Today on the podcast, I sat down with Edward Woodford, the founder and CEO of Zero Hash, an infrastructure company that is powering the back end for stablecoin payment companies, tokenized offerings, and a range of other digital asset use cases. This conversation touched on the emerging use cases for stable coins, tokenized instruments, and how banks and broker dealers are thinking about this market. We also talked about the regulatory landscape in the U.S. as well as abroad. I think you'll enjoy this one. So without further ado, here is my conversation with Edward Woodford.

Matt Walsh and Nick Carter are partners at Castle Island Ventures. All of these expressed by them or the guests on this podcast are solely their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of Castle Island Ventures. Guests and hosts may maintain positions in the assets discussed in this podcast. You should not treat any opinion expressed by anyone on this podcast as a specific inducement to make a particular investment or follow a particular strategy, but only as an expression of their personal opinion. This podcast is for informational purposes only.

Brought down by bad mortgage investments, Lehman, which has 25,000 employees will be liquidated. The Federal Government Loans American International Group, AIG. 85 billion dollars. This is a different kind of market, and the Fed is asleep. The federal government is stepping it to stabilize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage giants that have been threatened by the housing crisis. The Bank of England has pumped 75 billion pounds more to Britain's ailing economy with a new round of quantitative easing.

You print a couple trillion dollars, and all of a sudden, people start to worry. So out of this worry, we have something called the Bitcoin. Bitcoin. All right, Edward, I'm really excited to have you on the podcast. I'm shocked that we haven't had you on earlier, just given how much you guys are doing. So I really appreciate you joining. I'm glad I got the invite. Why don't we start with a little bit of your background and what got you interested in the space?

I'm always fascinated with people that saw where this industry was going at a very early time, even before things like stable coins were at mass scale. So we'd love to just start with what got you into the space and the origins of zero hash. Absolutely. We've always taken a view that crypto and cryptography is a technology versus an asset class in and of itself. So obviously that extends to stable coins that are built on top of these fundamental blockchains. But I actually bought my first Bitcoin in 2015. I was studying at MIT and actually bought it through a crypto ATM that was in the bookstore

of all places. And I actually interned there as well. It was actually Liberty X, which got bought by NCR. Great company. I remember that. They were all over the place in Boston. They were, exactly. So that was my first foray.

Christian Catalini, obviously, who now is at Light Spar, was actually one of my professors for that and was obviously advocating. It was one of the leads who gave a Bitcoin to every undergrad student. And I actually asked him recently what happened to them. He said most people lost their Bitcoin. This was when Bitcoin was of 400 bucks. So got into it from an interest perspective, but got into it in 2017 professionally, just because really at that time especially, there was a sense that this was an emerging market,

but one in which a lot of people self-selected out of because of misunderstanding and sometimes even a lack of desire to understand this technology. So founded Zero Hash in 2017 on the fundamental principle. that this is technology. This will disrupt different markets, whether it be payments. We now have, for example, Stripe, whether it be brokerage platforms that are looking to embed crypto into their product. That includes companies now that we power interacted brokers, whether it be remittance platforms, for example, portfolio company yours, Felix Pago. So we're really taking this very, very broad approach towards this technology and wanting to solve two problems for clients. One is

making it really simple from a technological perspective. And then secondly, taking away the regulatory through complexity. So, for example, in the U.S. were regulated effectively in every simple state, including New York, where we have a bit license, and really lowering the friction to embed this technology and this asset class into as many different places as possible. That's awesome. In a lot of ways, the history of this industry reminds me of the early days of the internet, where if you had a startup in the early days of the internet, you'd have to just build a lot of things yourself. It'd have to rack servers, and you'd have to figure out how to get compliant. And over time, obviously, that evolved and cloud can

about. And the way I think about you guys in a lot of ways is just taking away a lot of the regulatory complexity and just the back end for some of these businesses that just want to interface with customers. It'd be curious just how you've seen this evolve. It's been fascinating. So on Thursday, June 6th, we announced that Franklin Templeton is actually leveraging us as a on-ramp and off-frame for stable coins to be able to access Benji. And that really unlocks a lot of the value of these tokenized money market funds is that you can move the 24-7. But obviously, without stable coins, you're limited. by the Fed wire cutoff time. So we signed that deal in May and they're live in June. So that

really shows you the degree to which we can get customers live in a short period of time, taking away that technical and regulatory complexity. Obviously, in the US, the complexity is only increasing. There was obviously sub 1-21, which obviously got a lot of attention because it was vetoed by Biden. There's increasing obligations from different states that have been implemented. New York, for example, less than a month ago, introduced new consumer complaint. procedures that everyone has to comply with. The travel rule in Europe where we have a licensed entity in the Netherlands, MEC is obviously coming into effect. So the overhead, the friction of being able to integrate this technology is only increasing. So the value that zero hash provides,

I think, also increases because of that overhead and that fixed cost. We effectively as a business take away a really, really high fixed cost business and translate that into a low variable cost business. That's effectively what we do. It's really interesting to think about just the use cases for digital assets and how that's evolved over time. I remember in 2014, 2015, I was originally looking at this through a payments angle with Bitcoin. I think a lot of people were looking at this as a credit card disruptor. And you started to see these remittance businesses pop up, but none of them really took off with Bitcoin as the payment rail, primarily due to the volatility and just the ease of use. And really what we always wanted was a dollar on chain. So I'd be curious just how you've

seen the evolution of what people are actually using zero hash for over the years, whether that be buy inhold versus transactional type of use cases? I haven't written off Bitcoin yet. For example, last month we launched Lightning and Uma, which we're really, really excited about. Again, we're here to provide a choice and people will build, I think, ultimately on the best technology. And I do actually think, if you look at, for example, some of the recent innovations in

Lightning, if you look at the paper called LRC20, it actually is really, really interesting for the ability to tokenize now on Lightning. So I'm actually pretty bullish about tokenization on Lightning because when you combine the distribution of this technology of Bitcoin, plus you put something, to your point, a dollar on chain. It's a really powerful combination if you get those two things right. Maybe to answer your question directly in terms of the different use cases and flows that we have, yes, we obviously have a big portion of customers like on ramps.

We put out a case study recently that we started working with, for example, with Moon Pay when there were four people. They're a big company now. The remittance use cases that we have, partners like Felix Pago, if you look at the brokerage business as well. But what particularly excites us right now is obviously the distribution, the breadth of use cases around stable coins. And maybe unpacking that a little bit. That includes, for example, and I alluded to the fact, for example, Franklin Templeton, we also do this now with Securitize,

which is the entity, the transfer agent that is powering the Biddle BlackRock tokenized money market fund. And effectively stable coins are leveraged as an on ramping and off ramping mechanism there. I think B2C payouts is going to be a big thing. For example, partnerize hours like Stripe as a payout product as well. So if you're going to Uber drive in Argentina and you want to hold USDC or USDT You can do that through zero hash. The brokerage business, I think, is one that's really interesting. We've recently launched a fund with Stables product.

So you can fund your brokerage account or your CFD account outside the US instantly. So most people don't realize the news in the last few weeks has been a lot around the meme coin craze. But actually, if you go and you say, okay, I want to fund my account today, it takes several days for that cash to clear. So the velocity of money opens up a lot of opportunity on the brokerage side. We mentioned the remittance platforms, groups like Felix Pagor and others, obviously, there's a lot of movement in that space with MoneyGram and Western Union as well separately. But what we're also really excited about in the breadth of use cases here is also merchant acquires or PSPs, leveraging stables as either a settlement mechanism or as a direct on ramping mechanism or,

for example, at their striped sessions announced, for example, at pay with stable product. And in that vertical, our customers include Stripe, they include Simplex by Nuve, and they also include groups like Shift 4. So when you take that holistically and you look at that, you say, okay, what is the common thread? The common thread is velocity of money, the ability to hold dollars outside of the U.S., the programmability of money, and effectively leveraging stables of a network of networks, in particular across-border use case, example. And those are real examples that are implemented today, and we're very much in the first in-ins. It feels to me the level of disruption here is not widely appreciated by the broader financial community

in the US, when you look at just the idea of using dollars internationally. We're talking about something that very likely, and I would argue, already is disrupting the FX market in terms of the simplicity and the frictionless nature of just moving stable coins internationally. But the other thing is perhaps more disruptive is just local fiat currencies in some of these regions. There's a world here where the dollar just becomes the apex predator of fiat currency on the back of this technology. I'm wondering what you're seeing in that category. I think we as an industry often talk in broad strokes. And I think that actually turns a lot of people off because they say, well, that can't be true.

And people hyperfocus on an example where it's not true. This is not a silver bullet for every single cross-border remittance use case. But if you focus on the tangible use cases, for example, it's public, Ripple and Bitsa put out report recently that 5% of the US-to-Mexico remittance corridor is now powered in some mechanism through Stables or crypto. So that's either using it directly. I pay my sister who lives in Mexico City in, for example, USC directly, or it goes through the hot of Stables.

I think in terms of your question around the dollarization concept, and I think this is really something that the US should be pro on. It certainly does exist. For example, we're very excited about the payroll use case. It's a company. We're actually only 50% based in the US, 50% non-based in the US. We have a big team in Brazil. We pay 20% of our people in Brazil in Stables.

This is real. And now you may say, okay, fine. Zero hash, your crypto company, of course, more people want to be paid in their asset. But we did a report that we actually just released that was a pretty big survey independently done by a group called Sentient, that really surveyed freelancers across a bunch of geos. And there's real demand for this. And it is because of currency, devaluation and risk. So there you start to think of countries like Argentina or countries where there's certain

limits, and then you start to think of countries like Egypt. So there's real demand. And if you look at Argentina, I think one in five adults now is a holder of crypto or stables in some mechanism. If you look at Circle, for example, they put a lot of emphasis into Brazil. They just did a big Brazilian summit. So there is a huge desire here. But I think that is where we need to be better from a use case perspective. There is leveraging stable coins as what I would call an alternative payment mechanism. And that's where effectively you don't hold the stable for a long period of time. And then there's obviously the store of value concept, which I think you're alluded to here,

which definitely does exist. Those two things I think are slightly different customer bases. There are obviously some degree of overlap. But very important in terms of why. why people are using this as a mechanism, either as a transfer of value or as a store of value. You touched on the fact that this is in the U.S. interest, and it clearly is. If you just look at the demand for U.S. treasuries and some of the sovereign nations that are divesting from treasuries, and stable coins being a category that could offset some of that and allow the government to run at deficits. But it hasn't been easy, I would imagine, to figure out how to actually build this company from a regulatory-compliant manner. So maybe talk a little bit about the approach you've taken to getting licenses and various jurisdictions,

in the complexity of actually running this business. So XeroHash is a business that can operate globally. We have regulatory license throughout the world. So whether it be Canada where we have a registration, the US, every single state, effectively, Brazil was surely going to be approved in Argentina. They've just implemented a new registration regime. I mentioned our Dutch entity. We're able to operate in the UK as well with a FIMProm Approver.

We have registrations in New Zealand, Bermuda, Australia. So it is really a global regulatory footprint that we have. The complexity exists in part. I've started to coin this term regulation by implication. And what I mean by that is everyone talks about regulation by enforcement. That's pretty well understood. But regulation by implication means effectively saying if you do something, we're going to take up a lot of your time.

For example, the OCC in the US put out a pretty explicit implication that if you are going to do new businesses in Stables or crypto, that's going to take up a lot of your time. So one of the challenges for infrastructure business like ours is, is we need upstream partners that are the biggest fintechs in the world, biggest financial services companies, biggest brands in the world to adopt this technology. If you raise the friction through this implication, that is obviously a big challenge. And that includes things like sub one-21, which I think people don't really understand sub one-to-one. What sub-1-2-1 actually meant was if you hold stables or crypto,

because from a regulatory perspective, they're seen as one and the same today, I think that will eventually change. If you were a broker-dealer or a publicly traded company, What the SEC was trying to do was to say if you're end customers, even if you use a third-party provider like zero hash, if your end customers are holding crypto stable points, you will need to recognize that on your balance sheet as a liability. The crux of it is that you can't recognize that as an asset. So what does that mean?

You have to collateralize that with cash for your balance sheet to work out. Now, we've worked with a number of our partners with auditors to actually mean that a lot of our partners that are regulated in this manner actually disarm 1-2-1, although it appears. applies because President died and vetoed it. We've actually found a way for the advice to say, yep, the advice is fine. We're not going to argue that point, although it was a massive overreach. You actually don't need to recognize it because there's no concept of safeguarding for our platform. So we've actually figured a way to meet the definition that the SEC put out. But obviously, that's a huge amount of time and energy and resources that have been put into place there.

So that's the challenge of building a business in this place, I think, regulation by implication, which does also extend to ensure that you have sufficient banking redundancy. All of these pieces, and the Supreme Court was just a case around anything that is not illegal, can you just decide not to bank it? So I think that is a real challenge that is often not spoken about is what I would call regulation by implication, either explicit through sub 121 or the OCC, or slightly less explicit, which is effectively a nudge or a wink or asking questions that really dissuades partners, whether it would be banking partners, payment partners, or actual customers from entering the space. The regulation by implication is a great way to phrase it. And yes, I saw that

NRA case, I believe, at the Supreme Court around, you can't just arbitrarily... All growled sweeted quite extensively about it. So you'd like to think that maybe that changes what the banking landscape looks like here, where there are 4,000 plus banks in the U.S. and probably, what, 10,000 credit unions, and you could probably count on two hands the number of banks that actually would do business with a crypto company at this point. And it's not necessarily because it's explicitly legal. It's because they've been told via phone calls that we will be taking a hard look at your

business if you do something in this category. just seems like that is effectively a very quiet choking off of the industry at a very critical level. Absolutely. And that extends to infrastructure providers, extends to partners and platforms. But the background music has certainly changed, I think, in the last six months for a bunch of different reasons. But yes, I think that's one of the challenges of grown in the space. But obviously, for us, we take a global view on this, not only because we want to provide our customers a one-stop shop to service their customers in Europe, same way that we service them in Brazil, same way that we service them in the U.S. It is also a geographical hedge, and we apply

different pressure, different focus with different geos based on the clarity that is provided. I guess the flip side of this is there is legislation that is being drafted to address stable coins. There is legislation that has been passed through the house around market structure that would give a lot of clarity to banks and broker dealers to participate. I'd like to think at some point Sab 121 goes away. And then the implication is, what does this market look like when all the banks, broker dealers and asset managers actually have regulatory clarity here. How do you think about that? We're talking about a really big market right now that doesn't have some of the largest categories in financial services even active yet. So the Franklin's

and the Fidelity of the world and the Black Rocks of the world have been able to push it forward, but there's hundreds of other institutions that are probably on the sidelines until we get some of that clarity. You just have to think the market is going to look a lot different in a couple of years. That clarity is going to be a big unlock, a big, if you want a metaphor, almost like a domino fall in. But yes, in the brokerage space, we do have, for example, Interested Brokers, which is client of ours, there are 45 billion publicly traded company. The reason that groups like Charles Schwab haven't entered the space is because they're a bank holding company. So a bank holding company means that it applies to your entire business. So they have a brokerage

and they're also treated like a bank. That brokerage has the same limits as if they were a bank. So that's one of the big unlocks I think that will happen. And that's the big difference. Fidelity isn't a bank. So people often say, well, why is Morgan Stanley E Trade not in the space or why is Charles Schwab not in space? But Fidelity is. They're pretty big businesses too. What Interrected brokers is in the space powered by zero hash. And it's because of the bank holding company piece. So the bank piece is, I think, one of the biggest unlocks for this space, reducing the friction, reducing at a board level. There's obviously a lot of conservativeness around saying, hey, we want to adopt stable coins as a transfer mechanism. Just removing those barriers, whether

they be real or not. But whether we like it or not, there's a lot of this. for a reaction at a boardroom level, that does change the needle. And that's why the ETF did change the background music. It felt BlackRock's doing this. We can do this too. And I think we're starting to get there. That's why it really excites us as a team at zero hash is being what the group that powers the first end, the first group into the space. So if you look at the tokenized money market fund, we're powering the leading tokenized money market funds with stable coins. So form in this bridge, we were the first player to bring in groups like Stripe in the traditional PSP space into the space. And we want to keep doing that

across the board, whether it would be remittance, cross-border, payouts, peer-to-peer marketplaces, it's like an upwork or a paynear, or those players where you say, look, we'll overcome that friction, will help you get there. And then you are effectively growing the total addressable market by bringing the first player into the space. And that's what really excites us. I'd like to think that some of that regulation and legislation will drive out some of the bad behavior that we've seen, because this has been a two-edged sword where, yes, we don't have some of the largest, most reputable financial services firms in the U.S. in the industry yet. And that's really driven a lot of activity into unregulated venues outside of the U.S.

So we can look at this and say, yes, the industry has had a lot of own goals, so to speak, but a lot of that is because there weren't options in the U.S. So how do you think about some of those firms that might be operating at the grayer areas of the market and how that will evolve? There's been a lot of epitaphs in this space of companies that have either been poorly run or companies that were being actively breaking the law. That does exist in other industries as well. If you look at the Banking as a Service, Fintech space, we could apply the same broad brush approach there as well. I think regulation needs to focus on what is the problem that we're trying to solve. And what's really interesting, for example, in the UK, where I'm originally from,

the FCA actually has a specific mandate whereby innovation and growth of the economy through financial services, an explicit mandate of that regulator. By law, that is one of the considerations I have to make. So when you look at the US, making sure that innovation is occurring here, if you look at this as a technology in asset class, and you mentioned Fit, for example, which had been passed by the house, which is, again, very focused on trading. We are really trying to advocate that this is a technology. Trying to regulate a board eight picture in the same way as a tokenized money market fund is an odd approach. And actually, I was talking about this the other day about gold. So Paxos has Paxos gold that is a tokenized representation of gold. Then you have

electronified versions of gold as well, which because it's a spot commodity product isn't regulated. Well, does FIT mean that just because you tokenize a gold product that now is regulated? Because that's what Fitt says, a spot contract in crypto would need to be on a registered DCM, a registered DCO. So I think what is often missed in this conversation is what are we actually regulating? This is technology. The same technology on ETH you can build a board eight, you can tokenize gold, and you can move a tokenized dollar. Those are fundamentally different things. But if we try to say, let's regulate the technology, it's in the same way as saying, let's regulate the internet.

That doesn't make sense. Let's regulate activities that are on the internet, but you don't regulate the internet. So in the same way that when we electrified markets, I'm sat here in Chicago, corn was traded in a very different way as it is today. But we didn't say, hey, hey, let's just create an electronification regulator that's going to regulate stock markets as well. So thinking this is a technology, in those use cases and those relatively simple gotchas, we need to change the way that we're having this conversation at a federal level. Otherwise, we're going to basically narrow what this technology can do, and the innovation will occur elsewhere because there's not a box. This is a common thread. That's the way I would describe.

It's a common thread amongst different use cases, different asset classes. Are there tokenized securities? 100%. Are there tokenized commodities? 100%. I really think we've got to change the way that we're talking about this. It's a really good framing that you just had there because even with the tokenized US dollar, you could see there's going to be a lot of different use cases for that, depending on who is using

it and how big it is. So you guys are active in freelance payments. That's going to be a huge category it already is. But also some of these securitized financial products, you could imagine them settling against a US dollar instrument at scale. So could you imagine the overnight repo market looking a lot different in five years because you're actually moving a tokenized dollar through that system as opposed to doing Fedwire, quite different. Very different. We've spoken about stables today. I'm curious to see how tokenized money markets. Do we change the vernacular in the space? So right now when we talk about stables, we talk about stable coins. We're talking about tokenized dollar.

We support USDC, USDT. We're open to other tokenized dollar. If you look at Euro, we support EuroC, for example. I think the conversation is going to move towards. We're a broader category of stables, and you're going to have stable coins, and then you're going to have stable instruments. And within stable instruments, you're going to have things like tokenized money market funds. There is a potential that tokenized money market funds do cannibalize a little bit of the stable

coin space. Because if you look at the attraction of a tokenized money market fund, It's the ability to hold an instrument that is a yield-bearer an instrument. And where I see you gave the Fed wire, the Fed example, where I think we're tokenized money market funds as a category of stables, as we want to call it, if you think about just collateral movements, if you look the amount of collateral that needs to be posted over holiday periods coming up to 4th of July, the banks are closed. The ability to move tokenized money markets is also closed.

So if you can streamline this, what it actually does is it allows people to, one, earn interest on their money. Two, actually hold money that they don't need to lock up effectively, which reduces the cost of capital, which allows for more investment and actually frees up a lot of capital. So there's huge benefits of this space. But I think the panacular in the space is going to change. I think that stables and stable instruments are going to be seen as one and the same interchangeable, different use cases you have described. And there's going to be different use cases and utilities. And the bridge between both traditional fiat to stables, to stable instruments is a big, big opportunity. It's really going to turn a lot of these markets into 24-7, 365 markets, in

my opinion. You already see this when you have conflict in Iran or Israel. The price of Bitcoin moves. You see SVB weekend, stable coins are bouncing all over the place. It seems relatively inevitable to me that this technology will just change what capital markets look like writ large. I think it will accelerate what is already happening. So on May 28th, something that isn't discussed very much because it's not very sexy, is in the US, equity markets move from a T plus two settlement process to a T plus one settlement process. We've got a lot of investors that are in that world. B&Y put out a research piece earlier this year. They believe that one third of all trades were going to struggle to meet that settlement obligation. So what that settlement obligation means is

that you have to deliver the cash. If you're, for example, in South Korea or you're in Japan, to actually move dollars. It's hard into a U.S. banking institution, especially when you have to think about, you have to do all the reconciliation, you have to do all these pieces. And just to be clear, the equities markets that they want to move to T0, but there's these restrictions. And so I think tokenized money market funds, tokenized instruments plus stable coins, is an accelerant for that technological shift for a 24-7 market that brings a lot of benefits to the industry. Ultimately, the movement from T7 to now T1, it wasn't really a technology problem in the first place. It was just the fact that different ledger systems needed to talk to each other. And it was more

of a coordination game. And it turns out that public blockchains are really, really good at that. So it's good to see that Stablecoins is leading the charge on that front. Absolutely. So when you think about what's next for Zero Hash, how are you guys thinking about just the end use cases that could pop up here in the market? A lot of people talk about blockchain gaming as a breakout category. We're having the advent of social networks built on top of some of these platforms. How do you guys think about deploying resources towards these more emerging categories? So I think for us, we're an API, an SDK business that can be deployed into a whole host of different use case and applications. The way that we describe our business today is that we effectively provide a value engine, providing all of the infrastructure to allow for the movement of value between Fiat,

and that is between each of the three. So stables to crypto, stables to fiat. Also, for example, stables to stables. When we talk about stable coins, even USC, I think there's 15 blockchains that this is built on. That technologically, to create that ability to move stable, if I'm holding USTC on Seoul and you want to receive USTC on E, how do you do that in a seamless maze? So that's the cross-chain bridge and infrastructure that we can provide as well.

So, yes, this technology that we provide is infrastructure. We want to be embedded into as many different use cases as possible. I think where we see particularly growth there is is cross-border remittance. There's obviously been a lot of startups in Latam in particular that have started up. I'm starting to get attention by some of the biggest cross-border payout companies, some of which are customers of ours that we haven't announced yet. But that really is a big lever for growth. I think if you look at the payroll space,

even products that have a high degree of friction. So deal has a product where there's a lot of friction, but you can move money to Coinbase and Binance. I think they put out publicly that 4% in a very, very cumbersome, clunky way, 4% of payouts are going to a crypto infrastructure. So you can imagine how zero hash could it bed that so that it's a one-click process, a seamless process. And I think you could see 10%, 20% of these very, very large payroll businesses

is starting to leverage stable points in crypto as a payout mechanism. So for us, I still think there are definitely these new use cases that would exist, blockchain gaming, which is nascent. They actually think what we will start to see first, and what you'll see more from us over the coming months, is these partners that are really buttressed in these initial proof points that we've been able to prove over the years. Well, it's great for the industry,

and you guys have done a lot of the hard work to get yourself operational in order to actually unlock some of these use cases. So it's great to see the technology and the regular side of things come together at once here. Where can we send people to learn more about zero hash and some of the products and partnerships that you're launching? So you can follow us on LinkedIn, so it's just zero hash on X, which is zero hash X. Or if you want to reach out, you can reach out to contact at zero hash.com. Awesome. Well, congratulations on all the progress and thanks for joining us today, Edward. Thanks for having me. Great to chat.

Thanks for listening to another episode of On the Brink with Castle Island. To find out more about Castle Island, visit castle island.V.C. To listen to all of our podcast episodes, please go to On the Brink-Podcast.com or just click on the tab in our website. Thanks for listening.