On The Brink with Castle Island - Weekly News Roundup 07/24/20 (the bombshell OCC letter, the custodian gold rush, Ampleforth mania) (EP.105)

Episode Date: July 24, 2020

Matt and Nic review the stories of the week. Covered in this episode: Why holding Bitcoin in banks isn't necessarily contrary to the nature of Bitcoin VALR, a South African exchange, raises $3.45m from 100x Group and others The OCC's bombshell letter saying that banks can custody cryptocurrency What this means for established crypto custodians Follow-up questions we have for the OCC Hester Pierce expresses her disappointment with the outcome of the Telegram case Standard Chartered working on cryptoasset custody Paypal partnering with Paxos Coinbase blacklists the Twitter hacker addresses Our explanation of what's going on with Ampleforth The potential pro-Bitcoin regulatory troika in the US

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. 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 into Britain's ailing economy with a new round of Concentive 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 a Bitcoin. Welcome to On the Brink. I'm Matt Walsh. And I'm Matt Walsh. And I'm pumped. What a week. Yeah, there's some new happenings have occurred. There's a lot of good stuff going down. Bitcoin is not a stable coin this week either. It finally broke out of its narrow range. The official coin metrics Bitcoin reference rate says that it's 9600. Well, not bad. And the OCC has some big news this week that we're going to get into, and it's all about securing Bitcoin and other crypto assets in a custodial manner. But if you want to secure your Bitcoin in a non-custodial manner, then we have something for you. So this week's episode is brought to you by CASA, which is one of our portfolio companies. So how confident do you feel about the security of your Bitcoin? Every quarter we're hearing stories about people getting hacked on exchanges, a new exit scam, a friend losing their

or someone passing away and having their family come up empty-handed. The best way to keep your Bitcoin safe is to hold it for yourself. And Casa is the easiest and the safest way to do that. So they have one of the most well-respected teams in the industry, amazing design, 24-7 support. They make it really easy. And premium memberships also include an inheritance planning and white-glove support feature.

And they also allow you to buy Bitcoin. So these are services that were previously only available to their ultra-high-net-worth customers and now they're available to everyone. So if you're ready for security upgrade, you can get started with a membership for as little as $10 a month. And if you use the coupon code Castle, you'll get 10% off. So head over to keys.casa, have your peace of mind that your Bitcoin is safe. Good week for talking about Bitcoin custody, huh? Yeah, and a lot of people chimed in and saying that, you know, I thought like the whole point of Bitcoin was that you could be your own bank. Like, what do we need banks for? And honestly, it's a good point. But,

Some people do want custodial intermediation for their bitcoins, but for everyone else, there's CASA. Yeah, to all those people that were like mad that the banks are getting in, just calm down, all right? You can still hold your Bitcoin on your own. It doesn't change anything about the protocol. Yeah, the whole point is that you have that option of holding physical and that holding physical is relatively cheap. It's easy to verify an inbound payment by running a node. And it's concealable and it's transfer. These are qualities that gold doesn't have, right?

So you get the nice attributes of gold, you know, the non-state nature of it, but you also get much better portability and verifiable. So Bitcoin is something that's custom built to be easy for an individual to hold. That said, you know, some people want to put it in the bank. That's fine. I don't begrudge them that. Yeah, we should not begrudge them that. So before we dive into all the topics, let's hit on our podcast this week.

So you sort of broke the rules here. and you had another audit person on. Yeah, maybe we'll give it a break for a couple of weeks on the kind of back office audit conversations. But yeah, we had another conversation with Sal Tonello from KPMG and his colleague Sam Winer. They're doing a huge amount of work to basically translate on-chain data to traditional data infrastructures.

I think it's super interesting. And KPMG continues to just be really far in the lead versus their competitors. So, you know, hey, this is the stuff we got to talk about because there are a lot of big financial institutions that will not enter this space until they can get someone like a KPMG to help them put the product into the into action. Yeah, this is kind of key enabling work. And it's interesting. If you look at the big four, there are a lot of blockchain initiatives and, you know, kind of lots of like R&D stuff. But KPMG has a dedicated crypto practice, you know, as part of the blockchain working group, but they have a specific crypto practice, which is meant to work directly with kind of exchanges and institutions that directly touch cryptocurrency. So, you know, they kind of know where to put their chips. Yeah, for sure. They are not doing private blockchain

stuff over at KPMG, which is good to see. And then the other thing that happened this week was there were a couple podcasts on stable coins or as we like to call them crypto dollars. So you had a conversation with Nate Madry from Coin Metrics. And then you also appeared on FinTech Beat with Chris Brummer, which by the way is a great podcast. Yeah, FinTech Beat is one of my favorites. And Chris is a really great host. He's super animated. You could tell he read the report too, which was great. Yeah, he actually did read the report that we wrote. I'll post that one in the description. So that was one with Fannie Wang was also in there. She was the former assistant general counsel at Maker. And she has some pretty pointed critiques of crypto dollars, dare I say.

Yeah. And most of this episode we did with Chris was about, well, what's the difference in a CBDC and a stable coin? And it basically comes down to public versus private sector and the ability of the private sector to provide something that the public sector likely cannot. And, you know, I'm of the view that stable coins or crypto dollars issued by private entities will actually give you materially different product from what a retail facing CBDC would look like. Right. Yeah. I thought that was a fascinating conversation. I think people should check it out. And Chris really seems to be engaging on some of the crypto blockchain stuff lately. Yeah. I think if we have a crypto czar position created in the next administration, Chris is a shoe in for that.

Oh, well, Naha might also be in the running for that. They're probably the front runners. All right. So before we get into the news, let's just do two quick deals. So Valor, a South African cryptocurrency exchange, they raised $3.5 million from 10x group, which is Bitmex. 100x. Oh, 100x. Yeah. I was an order of, was that an order of magnitude off there? Well, yeah, because it's a reference to the amount of leverage you can get there. Yeah, who needs 10x when you can get 100x? So their bitmex has been actively investing in other cryptocurrency exchanges, which is definitely a thing, right? There's going to be a lot of regional

competition for these cryptocurrency exchanges, aggregating users in various jurisdictions. So add valor to the list. They'd raised a small amount of capital, I think, last year. And this is a more substantial round. So exciting to see that. Yeah, there are dozens of deals for these regional exchanges, which get done. I wonder at the extent to which you should have local knowledge of the regulatory situation because that seems to sort of affect their ultimate fate. But there have been some very beneficial regulatory outcomes in some of these more far-flung jurisdictions recently. Yeah, India comes to mind in terms of a regulatory regime that's evolving pretty quickly. At the Supreme Court level, too, that was kind of a critical decision at the highest court.

South Korea also has recently liberalized their attitude to crypto. Actually, you know, in no small part thanks to the effort of hashed the crypto fund. So shout out to hashed. Yeah. Yeah, good job. Yeah, they were kind of a key element of that lobbying effort. Well, the only other deal I saw this week was Orion Protocol, which is the D5 project. They're a liquidity aggregator.

They also raised $3.5 million. It looks like it was a token-based offering. So let's get into it. Let's talk about the OCC. So I'm going to set this up, and then we can talk about some of the big takeaways here, because I think there's a lot of second order effects. So on Wednesday, the office of the controller of the currency, the OCC, they issued a letter, and it was basically a guidance letter.

And for those of you who are not familiar, the OCC is the national banking regulators. So they oversee national banks and federal savings associations. And they basically came out with this clarifying letter that said, you know, any institution that they regulate can offer crypto asset custody services for their customers. So this is a big deal in my mind. I mean, you know, maybe I'll just start here is that one reason why it's a big deal is that there are no federally chartered banks, to my knowledge, that currently offer crypto asset custody services. So, you know, this has been by far the biggest reason for inactivity. We know of a bunch of banks where they have skunk works groups and have built

some stuff, have been looking to partner around some stuff, have done business plans. And they just don't think that they didn't think that there was regulatory clarity from the OCC specifically on whether or not they could put customers into this type of product, into crypto assets. And so now it's pretty clear that they can. You know, I guess people had, they kind of figured that the OCC would adopt a friendly to crypto stance because Brian Brooks took over. former chief legal officer of Coinbase. But I wasn't expecting this. This was kind of a bolt from the blue.

Yeah, I mean, this is great. I was not expecting this. Of course, there are a bunch of people in my in my DMs that have told me that it's been in the works for a while. So some people knew about this. But the business case here should be pretty obvious, right? So you have this massive retail demand. You have growing institutional demand.

and you have, you know, this demand is coming from affluent customers. It's coming from millennials that all of these banks want to retain, you know, as they go through intergenerational wealth transfer events. And by the way, you can charge 40 to 80 basis points to custody this thing right now. So it's a great business opportunity, not to mention the fact that you can charge some high spreads if you can get into the agency trading business. So I think there's going to be a lot of banks that just dust off a business plan or maybe start a business plan and figure out how do you get to market?

with something like this. So I want to talk about the letter itself. So it's quite readable. And there's some pretty interesting stuff in there. So they basically give a history of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency. And they sort of describe them in context relative to fiat currency. And they actually adopt a definition of fiat currency, which is fairly good, in my opinion. You know, so they, unlike the New York Fed, which had a really bad definition of fiat currency in a recent blog. So the OCC goes into diesel. And then they basically say, look, banks have been storing high assurance information, even cryptographic information in a fiduciary manner on behalf of their clients for a long time.

They've been storing documents, you know, digital information. So it kind of stands to reason that they would get into this line of work. But it's just that there had never been any explicit acknowledgement of that. So it does kind of very logically flow from the fact that banks are already storing digital, you know, high integrity information. It's just now they're extending it to private keys. Yeah, I think people just had to have this spelled out. I mean, you don't want to be on the wrong side of the primary regulator. And it's, you know, until recently it's been a.

pretty fringe industry. And so, you know, really no harm, no foul if you don't enter. But now all of a sudden, I think you're going to have these build versus buy considerations around how do you get to market. So I had this tweet, which I meant as a joke to just say, you know, Fidelity's phone must be ringing off the hook right now with banks that are saying, can you subcustody this asset for me? Can you subcustody Bitcoin for me? And then it was funny because Fidelity digital assets tweeted like a half an hour later, we applaud the regulator and we're open for business on the subcustody front. So I think you're going to see a bunch of activity here where there'll probably be some M&A activity with startups that have built wallet

infrastructure and key management and some of this trading technology, you know, for folks to get to market quicker. So for those who aren't familiar, what does subcustody mean and why is that so good for FDAS? Well, so subcustody is a, you know, is a thing in other asset classes where you'd have a primary custodian, like a J.P. Morgan Chase or Bank of New York Mellon, and maybe for some assets they allow customers to hold those assets. Could be a bar of gold. Could be anything, really. And the account is held somewhere else, but the relationship is intermediated by the primary customer. And so you could imagine a world where a bunch of banks decide to offer Bitcoin custody, and it's powered by Fidelity Digital assets on the back end. But those customers go through the primary

custodian. So to me, that's probably going to be something that BitGo is really well equipped to do, Paxos, Fidelity, Gemini, Coinbase, you know, really anyone that's offering custodial services and that's operating within a regulatory regime that a big bank could get comfortable with, you know, I think there would be great subcustodians. That could be a way for a bunch of these banks to just get something in market quickly. So on balance, would you say this is good or bad for some of those crypto custody startups. I mean, on the one hand, they now potentially have a bunch of extremely large and well-funded competitors in the actual banks. On the other hand, they are kind of the early in-market participants, and there might be a bunch of M&A activity kicked off by this.

I think it's good, is my short answer, is I think that we're in this rapidly growing market here, and custody is definitely not a winner-take-all market. There's some, there's five, global custodians that sort of dominate, but then there's a longer tail of other ones, and there's specific competition around RIA custody as well. So I think it's not a winner-take-all market. I think having built out some of this infrastructure, all those startups that I just mentioned and Fidelity are just really well positioned. I mean, they've already done the really hard stuff around the key management and the infrastructure, making sure that it's secure. or my guess is that a bunch of these places have, you know, sock audits.

So they would be pretty well positioned to go out and compete for that business. So, you know, I think it's great. So what do you expect to see here on the heels of this announcement? So I think the one thing, there's a couple things that I'd love to get more details on. So the first thing is just kind of a simple one is who asked the OCC for clarity here. I would love to know the bank that said, give me some clarity. and like we have something ready to go. So there's clearly at least one firm that is really ready to do something here.

And I'd love to know who that is. I don't know if we'll find out. The second thing is that it's unclear to me that there's specific wording around the trading of Bitcoin and other crypto assets in this letter. So to me, the follow up, we might need to get a little bit more guidance here actually on whether or not the banks can go out and buy the Bitcoin on behalf of the customer. that might seem like a super small thing, but I think we're probably going to need them to come out and say, in addition to that guidance that you can hold this for your customers, you know, you can go out and like buy it for them.

So that's what I'd love to see. I think Coin Center has a really good coverage of this. I'd recommend everyone check out the Coin Center blog. They as usual do a really good job of explaining this in layman's terms. But I don't know. This is a big deal to me. This is, we've been expecting this for a while. And I think the other thing that could happen on the heels of this is maybe some of these other agencies, I'm thinking about the SECC, start to get a little bit more specific around what like broker dealers can do and what possession and control of a digital asset under 15C3-3-3 looks like.

This can only lead to good things, I hope. What do you think the effect is of this guidance on the state-by-state licensing regime for money transmitters as the de facto. to a way that crypto exchanges and custodians were regulated. Yeah, maybe that changes. I mean, maybe we start to see. It's not like we have an overarching federal mandate here, like a fintech bank thing yet. I think that's what everyone's kind of hoping that we can get to.

So this doesn't bring us to that level. But it does say, you know, if you're a bank, then you can do this. But I don't see any startup saying, oh, I'll become a bank to do this. I think their desired path would probably still be. either the New York Limited Purpose Trust or the MTLs or some combination of both. I don't think it all of a sudden says becoming a bank is a great startup kind of endeavor. No, because becoming a bank is pretty much the hardest thing you can do in terms of the capital required and just the barriers to actually getting there.

Yeah, it's hard. It's hard. For sure. Shout out to the Wyoming legislation, which is meant to specifically cover crypto banking. what we'd refer you to the episode we did with Caitlin Long. She gives a great explainer of it. She does. She explains it very well.

So another piece of news from our regulators. Everyone's favorite securities regulator, Hester Pierce, gave a speech recently, where she actually said that she basically disagreed with the outcome of the telegram case. So tell us what happened there. Yeah, so she made some comments to the blockchain association in 16. Singapore, and they're posted on the SEC's website. So what she said is, I do not support the message that distributing tokens inherently involves a securities transaction. With the SEC's telegram complaint cast as evidence of an illegal securities offering that the project would require

numerosity, a widespread distribution and use of grams across the globe, I see as a necessary prerequisite for any successful blockchain network. So, you know, I guess basically what she's saying is that the SAFD, you know, holds up in her eyes and that there is this, prerequisite if you believe in the SAF that you have to have this transmutation into tokens. And in the past, she's called for a safe harbor where these token projects would have three years to experiment before the regulators sort of retooled their framework. So I guess not entirely, I'm not entirely surprised by this at all, actually. Are you? No, this is in line with her previous comments on SAFTS. I also thought her comments on standing were interesting. She's,

said the willingness of the SEC to ask for and for the district court to grant such sweeping injunctive relief against a non-U.S. company in a case where one quarter of the funds came from U.S. investors reasonably might raise some concerns among our international colleagues. So basically, she's assailing this concept that the SEC is the world's securities regulator, which it effectively is in practice. But she's kind of questioning this doctrine. and asking, if most of the telegram investors were foreign and telegram itself is XUS, what does that have to do with the U.S.? Why is the SEC the one to take charge of this thing? Right.

I mean, I think Hester Pierce is more forward-thinking on this industry than some people that are actually in this industry, to be honest with you. Totally. And so I guess we're still in limbo with regards to whether she takes the reins at the SEC. The J. Clayton situation is still unclear. And it's also not 100% certain what the succession would be within the SEC. Right. I would love to see her get that job.

Yeah, from what I understand, she would be the favorite if Jay actually takes the STNY job, but it's not 100%. Right. Well, let's move on to a few other stories. So, you know, as if we could not get any more bullish in cheerleading this week, there was a couple other announcements that in an ordinary week would have made news. So standard chartered is a big bank and they're reportedly working on a crypto asset custody offering. So maybe these guys are the OCC letter. On the face of it, you know, super logical.

I'm sure they're seeing it and seeing all the business case attributes that we talked about earlier, but these guys are coming out and saying they're going to do something. On the heels of that, we also had PayPal, more details around PayPal's for into crypto. They're reportedly going to partner with Paxos, who we mentioned earlier, to procure their coins for their touted crypto service. Yeah, I saw that. And I also saw some news from Visa this week. So they had a blog post just articulating their entire digital currency strategy, which they're doing a lot. I didn't realize how much stuff they're doing. Partnering with startups, doing internal experimentation, sort of reminds me of fidelity. And that's exciting. So that's called advancing our approach to digital currency.

Visa is clearly doing something around stable coins. Yeah, I think it's their crypto-at-shake, Kai Sheffield, is frequently heard opining on the topic. And they are taking a very progressive stance there, which is super exciting. Yeah, he's a great Twitter follow, by the way. Yeah, and it seems like their interest is not just within the capacity of the potential emergence of a CBDC, but is also focusing on the private sector stable coin space, basically. Right. Did you see this news that Coinbase acted pretty quickly here?

They prevented $280,000 worth of Bitcoin to be sent to the Twitter hacker last week. Yeah. Some people were kind of decrying this and saying, you know, Bitcoin is super intermediated and this is against the ethos and so on. but look, when you use Coinbase, you kind of know what you're signing up for. It's a managed experience. So it kind of stands the reason that they would intervene and blacklist those addresses. I mean, who are these people that are like, man, I wish the hacker got the money?

Like, come on. Coinbase does a great thing here. Just let's all say, hey, good job, Coinbase. Way to just push that, you know, update through pretty quickly. Well, the risk is that if Coinbase is mediating 80% of, on-chain transactions as opposed to, you know, 15, then they can just make policy with regards to what gets broadcasts on the network. Hey, it's not your keys, not your crypto, and you should definitely understand that. So if you, you know, don't ever want to be censored, then you shouldn't be

using Coinbase to begin with. But it looks like they saved a bunch of people some money that otherwise would have gone to whoever this hacker was, which, you know, I read Krebs report, by the way, it looks like it might be a 21-year-old UK kid. What it gets me is that we initially thought this was a super sophisticated, like state-sanctioned operation. And as it turns out, it was probably just a couple rogue hackers. Yeah, really, it's kind of scary when you think about it that way. But Twitter has clarified that there's a couple dozen accounts whose DM data was accessed now.

Yeah, I saw that. So I guess the next step here is that those will start to be sold on the dark web or something. I don't know what someone's DM history is worth, especially if it's a high profile account. Presumably there's not a lot of confidential info being sold via DM. And the other thing is, how do you sell some information to someone without revealing what the information is, right? Because once you've told them what it is, then they know what it is already. So how do you give someone a teaser of, you know, maybe there's a super juicy DM in there? How do you convey them the value of that without actually handing it over in the first place?

So you have a lot of issues in terms of actually fencing this stolen data. Probably just use it for blackmail. Okay, so what else happened this week? I guess, you know, we're going into the weeds here, but what about Ampleforth? Do you want to talk about that? Yeah, so I do want to talk about it. Ampleforth. So there's a lot of pretty crazy stuff happening in the crypto industry outside of the scope of this podcast probably because it's super technical and, you know, requires explaining how

automated market makers work and so on. So there's a lot of growth in DFI. But I think the number one most fascinating experiment maybe or mind bogging, mind bogging experiment maybe is the growth of this quasi-stable coin called Ampleforth. So the quote-unquote market cap of Ampleforth as of today is $390 million. When we wrote a report about stable coins two weeks ago, it was about $10 million. So this thing is done at 30x. And you might say, well, you know, what does it matter? Because if a stable coin's market cap increases, nobody actually makes money.

well, that's where you'd be wrong. So Ampleforth is a special kind of stable coin where the supply actually changes in order to try and keep the price at $1. So instead of having a backing or having a senior ad shares model where some pool of capital buys back, commits to a peg,

and Appleforth, the only thing that happens is basically there's a, daily stock split to try and keep the supply, the unit value at a dollar, and the market cap can vary. So if the market cap grows quickly and it breaches its peg to the upside, they print more ampals. And if the peg falls, they do effectively a reverse stock split. So it's one of the most exotic models I've ever seen. And the growth is really astonishing. So in early July, the supply was about 20 million. And as of today, it's 390 million. So there's basically a positive feedback loop happening where if you push the unit price above the peg, they meant more amples.

And if no one is selling and they continue to push the price above the peg, more and more amples get minted. So everybody on paper, kind of in nominal terms, looks and feels richer. Not only is the unit value increasing, but the actual number of tokens you have is increasing. So there's this crazy positive feedback loop propelling this thing upwards. It sort of reminds me of senior shares in that respect, right? As it has this positive feedback loop up, I wonder what the feedback loop is on the way down. Well, that was obviously the critique of senior chairs that if there's a confidence crisis and the thing falls below the peg. the market that is signaling that they've lost faith in the thing, so then no one should

really, in theory, be buying it and arbitraging it back up to the peg because it's kind of like a confidence death spile. So that was always the critique of senior chairs. When Ampleforth loses value and goes below the peg, it reduces the number of units that the average holder holds. So you kind of lose in two ways. You lose based on unit price and you lose based on the number of units that you're holding. So what it tries to do is keep constant your share of the market cap, which is pretty crazy. But yeah, so positive feedback loops on the way up and on the way down too. Is there any evidence that people are using ample fourth in the same way that they're using USDC and Tether and some of these other stable coins? Transactually no. I mean, because it's a pretty

bad stable coin. It's hovered between about $2 and $3 for the last couple weeks. So it's not good at staying at its peg, right? Because the rebases are daily and they're incremental. They're not like tether where if tether departs from its peg by a few basis points, it'll get arbed back to one. The arbitrage cycle and ample force is much more, is much slower. You know, from the, I kind of really like it, though, from the perspective of just trying to put some of these, you know, decentralized stable coins out into the wild. I really wish that we had gotten to see a few more senior shares models attempted, at least in the wild. It would have been great to see if base coin actually could have launched. Well, Tara and Seelow have senior ad shares elements.

So there are senior ad shares projects that exist. Right. So I'm excited to see kind of what those look like once they start to get heavy, heavy scrutiny. Yeah, the Soros attack was what people used to always talk about with base coin. Remember that? Of course. Yeah, I remember designing some attacks, which set the base bondholders at odds with the base shareholders. That was my critique of base coin, is that their interests were not aligned. I guess it'll be interesting to see how this one evolves. I guess if it gets to a certain level of adoption, well, maybe not adoption, but I guess if it gets to a certain level of market cap, then the idea is that people would start to treat it with the same utility as a tether is sort of what they're hoping for. Well, in this,

case, I would say the market cap isn't really correlating with growth and liquidity, and it's also not correlating with the peg being retained. If anything, the volatility is increasing as the market cap grows. And right now it's being treated as a game, basically, where if you push it above the threshold, you push it to premium to the peg by the time of the rebase, the supply increases, and hence the market cap increases, and everyone feels wealthier. So right now, it's basically, a game where the community tries to push it up to that threshold each day. And at, you know, at some point, they're going to run out of steam. And then my guess is that this thing basically unwinds. Well, I guess if nothing else, then you can say that there's just a lot of experimentation going on

in this industry. And this is definitely, for this week at least, a textbook example of just a new thing being attempted. The cool thing about Ambleforth is that Neil, is involved with it. So that's Neil Ferguson, the historian, not the discredited epidemiologist. Oh, really? He's involved? Yeah. So he actually wrote some of their materials, I think. So if nothing else, you should look at their little red book, I think it's called, which is kind of a cool monetary overview.

All right. So I think that's it for the week. Pretty busy one. I think this OCC, it's not every week that you get an announcement that every bank can now start open hunting season on their, you know, crypto asset custody initiatives. Yeah, we have the regulatory Troika potentially coming up here, as we've been saying with the OCC, the SEC, and the CFTC, all being governed by favorable individuals. So here's hoping that Hester gets the seat.

It's going to be a lot of bank compliance people that are going to be asking, what's a 51% attack and a bunch of other questions? Yeah, and what's a fork? Yeah, how do we treat forks? It's like if you're storing gold, building and then half of the gold turns into tungsten. Just some of these people that are on the inside of banks that have been pushing for these crypto asset initiatives are just going to be so excited this week. And then once they run into the kind of buzzsaw that is internal compliance, they're just going to be like, oh, man. Yeah, it's not easy to build this stuff.

All right. Well, that's what we have for this week. Hope everyone has a great weekend, and we will see you next week.