On The Brink with Castle Island - Weekly News Roundup 10/25 (Deals, Libra, Poloniex, Grayscale, NYDFS) (EP.11)

Episode Date: October 25, 2019

Matt and Nic from Castle Island Ventures review the top stories of the week in the cryptoasset industry. This week's topics include:  - Deals - Facebook Testimony - Circle spins out Poloniex - Grayscale trade - Regulatory Talk

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 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.

Coming to you live from the Citadel, this is on the brink with Castle Island Ventures. I'm Nick Carter. And I'm Matt Walsh. So welcome back from D.C. Fintech Week. That's right. We did a good week trying to read the regulatory tea leaves down in D.C. So we'll catch you up on some of that later on. As always, there's some ripple news in the regulatory.

It wouldn't be a week of a podcast with the two of us without talking about ripple. Yeah. So I had the chance to see Brad Carlinghouse talk in D.C. I had to resist the urge to heckle him from the audience. Once again, he stated that XRP to Ripple is just like the relationship between oil and Exxon. Yeah, Exxon is just stumbling through the field and they discovered oil, similar to how Ripple was just stumbling through the internet and found XRP. Yeah, so every time they make that tortured and somewhat mendacious,

analogy. I just think of Arthur Brito and the other founders of Ripple, who I can't remember right now, just discovering... Jed McAulb. Yeah, discovering a fountain of blue XRP liquid just spouting up from the earth and, you know, dancing wildly in celebration and collecting it in buckets. Just like a bunch of fidget spinner logos of XRP. Just flowing forth from the fundament. Oh, we'll get into that. I'm glad you didn't heckle them. Why don't we start off with what we usually start off with, which is a quick rundown of the deals and the fundraising that happened. And again, the reason that we do this is because we often get questions from folks that are looking to break into this industry, who are the hot companies, who's raising money. And this is typically a good place to see who's raising and who will be hiring soon. We're a little light on the deals this week.

Yeah, not a lot of deals. Actually, the first one's a big one. So this is a Pier Nova, which is an enterprise blockchain company, kind of been below the radar for a few years, started as a mining company, pivoted to private blockchains a couple of years ago. They raised $31 million in a series B led by Mosaic partners with participation from intuitive venture partners and Medici Ventures. And Medici Ventures is the subsidiary of overstock. That's actually the only deal this week. And the other deal is that our peers over at more. and Creek Digital raised $61 million for their second venture fund. So congrats to them on the first close. Yeah, some pension funds in that one as well. So moving on, I guess the big story of

this week was that Mark Zuckerberg appeared before the House Financial Services Committee to get grilled for several hours about Facebook Libra and a variety of other topics. So if anybody has the ability to make the general public feel bad for Mark Zuckerberg, it's Congress. This was not a pleasant experience for him by any stretch of the imagination. No, and I don't think anyone really should feel bad for him, but this was just a, this was kind of painful. I had this on in the background and was watching it periodically, and there was just some very painful moments of this one. I was down the street from where the hearing was taking place at the Fendek Conference, and apparently there were people that lined up for 24 hours prior to the hearing. And the word on the street is that the people sitting behind.

Mark Zuckerberg were Facebook staffers because they didn't want anybody to pull a Bitcoin sign guy or interfering the process in any way. That would have been great to have the Bitcoin sign guy come back and make an appearance. One of these days, he'll bless us with his presence once again. So there was a funny moment where someone actually, one of the congresswoman, made fun of his haircut. So it got off topic a little bit. But he has a written opening statement, which actually seems like it has been pulled off of the internet, but it was on the congressional site. So we'll have to see if we can find that and we'll put it in our newsletter if we get it back up. But I thought the big takeaway from his memo that he submitted for the opening statement was that he's really left the

door wide open to reevaluate this basket. So for the listeners who are not as familiar with this, so Facebook is proposing to, and they have created a Libra consortium. I believe right now, 21 members, has been a number of defections. But the idea is that there will be creating a cryptocurrency that is backed by a basket of fiat currencies in short-term debt instruments, so treasuries and things like that. So the U.S. dollar, I forget what the exact percentage was. I'm not sure if you remember, but it was somewhere in the 30 to 40 percent range of the original proposal. So I think rightly so this has been interpreted by members of Congress as potentially kind of a threat to the dollar in the sense that what if Libra were to catch on,

could this be something that imperils the global stability in the reserve status of the dollar? And what we've seen here is that, you know, we talked about this last week is maybe what they're going to do here is just make the basket comprised entirely of dollars and just have this be a stable coin. Yeah, and they've been really vague on this front. So in the testimony, Zuckerberg says the basketball will be mostly dollars, but some of their messaging has been that this could end up just being a wrapped dollar instrument. And you sort of understand the indignation that some American policymakers had for a U.S. tech company creating their own monetary standard filled with a bunch of foreign currencies. So they've been pushing back really hard, and it seems

successfully on this front. And it seems that Facebook might be compromising. They're a little, their original vision to some degree here. I mean, maybe this was their original vision. I mean, why not just start from a very ambitious perspective and get pushed back into something that you think is palpable or palatable? I think that's potentially what's going on here. It's pretty clear that if you cut through the veneer of all the posturing, you know, this is all about financial leadership and the ability to exert the power of the dollar.

So, you know, Zuckerberg made the comment that this is a great tool. to quote extend financial leadership of the United States. So the converse of that though is that if it's just a dollar backed instrument, it might be less acceptable to foreign monetary authorities. So they may not want the U.S. to engage in covert dollarization with Facebook Libra as the rails for this in a kind of a direct-to-consumer way. And I talked to a few central bankers, and particularly your European central bankers this week, and they were all pretty fired up about this concept and

really none too pleased about Libra. Yeah, I mean, if you think about it, from a geopolitical perspective, you have a private company, a U.S. company that if they launched this as a U.S. dollar-backed stable coin is essentially exporting dollars to every country in the world in a direct-to-consumer manner, putting those dollars on people's smartphones, it would crush some of these other currencies. Yeah, and we've actually seen this sort of thing happen before in a more low-tech way. We've had spontaneous dollarization in Ecuador. That was a bottom-up movement where individuals decided that the local currency was not safe for them anymore.

And they went to dollars. And this imposed a huge pressure on the local sovereign currency because it increases the velocity of that currency because nobody wants to hold it anymore. So once this starts to happen, your best bet is to get out as soon as possible. you have a rush to the exits as the local currency depreciates relative to the dollar. So we could see Libra potentially being a high-powered equivalent here, potentially dollarizing some of these weaker economies. You know, regardless of whether Facebook succeeds in this, I think it's basically guaranteed to happen one way or another, whether it's through Libra, Bitcoin, some other stable coin.

I think it's just a matter of time at this point. Yeah, I agree with that. The other interesting thing here is the sanctions discussion. in the anti-money laundering discussion. So that was a big theme that he was hit with repeatedly. And his stance on this was nuanced. So he explicitly said that Facebook's efforts, so Calibra, who would be running a wallet on the network,

they would do full know-your-customer and anti-money laundering screening. They would not allow for anonymous accounts. He said that he couldn't obviously speak for other members of the consortium. And at one point, he said that he could see the benefits of having some of those anonymous accounts. I think that clearly there would be benefits, right? I think that in a network like this, if you don't have the ability to transact anonymously, then it wouldn't be as the utility would not be as high. You'd have people that wouldn't want to use it.

I'm thinking about journalists who might be writing negative commentary about their local governments. They necessarily maybe would not want to be transacting. They would not want their identities known. So we're not just talking about criminal behavior here when you're talking about anonymous transactions. Yeah, there's a huge number of edge cases where governments might try to suppress individuals by means of this financial network. And, you know, there's some degree that happens in the U.S., but plenty of it happens overseas. And, you know, Facebook is operational in a lot of these countries. And so in some sense, they have a duty to allow anonymous or pseudonymous transacting.

So it's a really difficult line for them to tread between trying to be compliant with the most rigorous demands of the various KYC regimes and also enabling for some measure of financial privacy. I'm not sure if they can actually split the difference here very well. Yeah, I'm not sure if they can either. And on the sanctions front, there was one of the congressmen explicitly said, we like to impose sanctions as opposed to sending troops. And so that just speaks to the kind of the enforcement arm of the U.S. government, which is the financial sector.

And there's a real threat here if Facebook were to not, play within the guardrails here. Now, Zuckerberg has said, we won't launch this thing without full approval. So it sounds like they'll be fully compliant. But this is going to continue to be the biggest story of the year, I think. And in some sense, we should be grateful to Facebook Libra for making these implicit goals, which are held by the government and various policymakers in the U.S., making them say them out loud.

You know, we use the dollar as. a enforcement mechanism abroad for strategic purposes. These were sort of understood to be U.S. policy, but they've never been so explicitly stated until now. And in some ways, it's potentially abusing their status as the, you know, the administrator of the global reserve currency, you know, and I think potentially making cryptocurrency or alternatives, you know, very attractive.

But it's so it's interesting to see that this conversation is really crystallized what the state affairs actually is. So I'm sure we'll see more to come on this. We'll keep an eye on it. And I'm sure we'll probably be talking about it as soon as next week. Moving on, there was some news out of Circle this week. So, and this relates to Poloniacs. So this week's Circle announced that they're spinning out their Poloniac's exchange business.

And so this is the crypto asset exchange that was acquired by Circle in February of 2018. It was reportedly acquired for $400 million. And so this is one of the largest, you know, alt-coin exchanges in its heyday, quite popular. This was before Benance really entered into this market in size. And so it was announced in a Poloniac's blog post that the exchange will no longer service U.S. users and that there's going to be a timeline for those users to withdraw their funds. It concurrently Circle had a blog post that said the company is going to be doubling down on building a more open, global, and accessible financial system.

So we can talk about what we think that means. The new Polonex entity will be backed by up to $100 million from an investor group that is reportedly led by Justin's son, who some of you will know as the controversial leader of the tron currency, cryptocurrency. He's the guy that bid on the dinner or the launch with Warren Buffett and had to back out. So there's a lot to digest there. Hot takes. It's interesting to see Justin's son is trying to take his assets from highly abstract and intangible, namely Tron tokens to, you know, actual real cash flow generating businesses like Polniaks.

And it seems like he's been successful so far. Yeah, this is quite a move for him. I mean, I guess you look at the success of finance, and a lot of that was driven by Tron listing, actually. So digging into this, I think there's a few takeaways here. So one is that this Poloniac's exchange business had a tremendous degree of regulatory uncertainty, and I think Circle was under a lot of pressure to either become fully compliant or to figure something out. and I think they went with the path of just spinging out. And, you know, when you look at the exchange landscape right now,

I think you have two choices to make, and it's difficult to play in the middle. On one end, you can decide to be a fully regulated exchange operating in the United States and service more of an institutional customer base. And, you know, I think that is the path that like Eris X and a couple of others have chosen. There's also another path where you could just be listing, assets as you will with very lax standards as to whether or not there are securities or not. And those are the offshore exchanges like Binance and Bifnnex that tend to have the most volume right now.

So the middle ground where you have the coin bases and the crackings of the world where you're kind of doing a mix of both of those, those tend to be a tougher place to be. And I think Poloniac's leadership realized that and has chosen to compete head on with Binance. Although interestingly, you know, Coinbase just recently came out with the list of assets that they planned on listing or were researching in advance of potentially listing. So they haven't exactly slowed down on the listing front, which is interesting because it seems to me that they're, for the most part, trying to be in the more regulated and compliant camp. You know, word on the street is that exchanges have avoided the SEC's attention, you know, thus far.

the only really big action was against Ether Delta, and that was kind of a slap on the wrist. But these things take time to build, and cases will be brought. So it's going to be very risky to be one of the exchanges that is listing assets, which we all know are unregistered securities. Yeah, and there's a bigger question here about just market structure. So when we say exchanges, people that are maybe from a traditional finance background will think about a real exchange, but these are not. These are closer to retail brokerages. They specialize in retail direct accounts. And so anyone can go establish an account as long as you have a driver's license on these things.

These are not exchanges in the traditional sense of the word. And it's interesting that many of the exchanges combine functions, which in traditional finance are totally disaggregated. So an exchange like Coinbase will do custody, brokerage, exchange, clearing all internally within one venue, which is kind of an odd concept if you think about the way that NASDAQ interfaces with DTCC, for instance. And my guess is that we will see an unbundling of these processes. And it's already beginning to happen to some degree. You know, exchanges like ErisX are outsourcing the custody to third parties and just focusing on, you know, hosting a venue for trading, for instance. Yeah. We actually have a podcast coming out with the guys at Erasex, Tom Chippis and Matt Trudeau on Monday where we're going to talk about a bunch of these markets

structure issues. So if you're a fan of that, we'll speak at length about it on Monday. So you know, Circle here, I think, is in the midst of a little bit of a transformation. So we'll get rid of this Poloniac's exchange business. Presumably they'll have some upside, you know, if that goes well. It looks like that OTC desk, which has seen a lot of margin compression. The flows there are probably going down. I think that this industry is largely moving towards electronic trading as opposed to voice brokerage. So the company from the blog post seems to be focused now on the seed invest platform, which is the business unit that is positioned to be, you know, an ATS venue for the tokenized real assets, so actual securities, as opposed to utility coins that are securities.

And then they also have the payments business. So the USDC stable coin effort, which is that joint venture with Coinbase. So it seems like they're going to be focusing on that. as opposed to the exchange business. And so stay tuned, I guess, for Circle, but we're definitely rooting for them, Boston Company, a lot of smart people over there. And USC, if you look at it, it's actually the second biggest stable coin behind Tether,

over a billion dollars, I think, in USC as of late. And, you know, the largest stable coin that's actually, you know, somewhat credible and regulated in a more serious way. So the next one on the list is grayscale. So I don't know if you cut this. but a couple weeks back, they put out the word that they'd raised $254.9 million in Q3 into their suite of products. And so Grayscale is a crypto asset manager. It's a subsidiary of digital currency group.

And they specialize in making these vehicles, which are structured as trusts. And so you buy into the trust, which is, you know, they have a Bitcoin investment trust, for instance. They have an Ethereum investment trust. and I believe six or seven others, including a large cap fund trust. And so the idea is that you buy into them, and then after one year, those shares are tradable. And so you can actually trade the shares in the trust on the OTCQX. And what ends up happening, and so you can buy, for example, the Bitcoin Investment Trust, GBT in a Fidelity or Schwab account, since there's a finite supply, since you have to buy it at Nav and then wait 12 months,

12 months in one day, you'll have this new supply rolling onto the market, and there tends to be a premium to the underlying. So, for instance, I'm looking at it right now. The premium on GBTC is 10.4% above the underlying spot rate, meaning to buy GBTC on a brokerage account, you're paying 10.4% higher than what you just buy Bitcoin on Coinbase. And the premium in the last year has fluctuated as high as about 35, 40%, and historically, there has typically always been a meaningful premium on GBDC. That's right. And so that's just a quick definition of what these products are. And, you know, I think in general, a lot of people think that asset management, investment management is going to be a really attractive sector as these assets get pushed

further and further into development. And so people look at that $254.9 million. dollar raise and say, wow, that's crazy. That's kind of a proxy for demand for long-term investors that want exposure to this asset class. And I think, you know, some of that might be true, but I think there's a little bit more to the story that we should untangle here and define. It's, I think it's more of a trade personally. Yeah, so there might be something else going on here. Yeah. So this, this $254.9 million, they said 84% of that is from hedge fund. Okay, so interesting, like not necessarily long-term investors. And 80% of that is in kind, meaning it was purchased not with U.S. dollars.

It was, for example, Bitcoin going into a Bitcoin trust. So it wasn't necessarily new inflows from Fiat, but just the same Bitcoins that were already held by investors being transmuted into this trust format. That's right. So I'm not 100% sure that this is what's going on, but I have a possible explanation for this 80% in-kind and a possible explanation that, you know, for the hedge fund portion as well. So what could be happening here is that digital currency group also has a trading desk genesis, which does lending as well. And so there is a potential trade that you could do here where you would borrow Bitcoin. So you know, you're a hedge fund. You go to Genesis.

You borrow X amount of Bitcoin. You know, you'll have an interest rate on that. You take that Bitcoin and then you put it into the trust. And so you essentially make new GBT at NAV. And so that has a 2% management fee. And so say that you can borrow Bitcoin at, you know, 4% to 5%. I'm not sure if that's exactly the annualized rate. But from time to time, we'll get the listings from the desks.

And I think a couple weeks ago, I was looking at 4.56 for Bitcoin. So 4.56 plus 2%, 6.56. That's essentially what you'd be paying to be in this trade for a year. And then the math that you'd have to think through is that after a year, would I be able to sell it at a premium that's above the borrow plus the custody fee? And so right now you'd be making close to 4% theoretically risk-free. I'd have to think about what the edge cases are there. But that looks like a pretty attractive trade if you're squinting hard enough.

Yeah, it's not perfectly risk-free because there's a chance that the premium goes to zero and you're underwater on the trade because you paid for the borrow cost. And it's likely that the premium would go to zero if an ETF was finally announced. But that hasn't happened so far. and it doesn't seem likely to happen in the near term. Yeah. So we bring this up not to bash it. I think that this is a pretty clever,

there's a pretty clever trade if this is what's going on. But I think we bring it up just to point out that that's, you know, some people have pointed to that being a huge proxy for institutional demand to hold Bitcoin and maybe not quite. Yeah. So basically this could explain the big inflows into GBDC. And, you know, unfortunately, it might be the case that a lot of the holders of GBDC are not exactly seeking long-term exposure to Bitcoin. They're just doing this premium play.

And again, we just put this out here as a thought. And, you know, if anyone has thoughts on this, we're perfectly happy to revisit this hypothesis. And the unfortunate thing is that the main way to get access to Bitcoin, really the only way, unless you're going to buy the futures, which you can do through some brokers, I think, is to buy GBD. But for retail investors, you're buying it out of premium, which means you're getting less bang for your buck. And you're also exposed to the risk, not on just the underlying, but on, you know, this trade occurring and the premium getting crushed as you might want to exit your position. So you're facing significant tracking error potentially. Yeah, that's right. But as you point out, it's still the only way to hold Bitcoin in an IRA or a brokerage account.

So I think a lot of people will continue to do it. And as long as the SEC, you know, withholds. the potential of an ETF, this is going to be the default for most retail investors. And we're not getting that ETF until we address the underlying spot market. So we need those exchanges to start surveillance sharing agreements and grow up a little bit. You guys know what to do? The playbook is right there. So switching gears a little bit, you were down at DC FinTech Week.

Let's talk a little bit about that. What was going on? Yeah, so FinTech Week is pretty interesting. Every year gets a little bit more and more crypto-heavy. So I also spoke last year. I was pretty much the only crypto representative there, and there are a few more this year. So we actually had the good luck of listening to Jay Clayton, the SEC commissioner. He was invited to opine on whether they would be sharing their view on whether XRP was a security, which he declined to do. And he was also asked if he would explain himself on the EOS decision or their settlement with Block 1, which he also declined to talk.

about. Possibly more interesting was the new CFTC chairman Heath Tarbert also spoke, and the CFTC just came out with a pretty unambiguous decision that Ethereum, they believe, to be a commodity, although he did mention that potentially things which transmute from securities commodities could go back, which was an interesting twist, which we hadn't heard before. but since we're in completely untrammeled precedent, free land, I guess anything could happen. How would that work? So you would have a crypto commodity that all of a sudden becomes a security again? Who knows? I mean, we've never seen a precedent for something to go from being a security to a commodity, which has a lot of crypto lawyers like Preston Burn gnashing their teeth. So I guess there's really no

rules in this brave new world. Something interesting that he said, though, was that now that they've given the go-ahead or the all-clear for Ethereum in terms of being a commodity, they expect that there would be futures products built on Ethereum in the next six to 12 months. Yeah, I would think so. I guess there's a playbook there with Bitcoin that I would imagine that if Ethereum is pretty safely not a security, that we'll just see that playbook enacted on Ethereum. And so, as I said, we also saw Brad Garlinghouse talk. He was actually one of the more entertaining speakers of the day,

really had the audience in the palm of his hand. And this came on the heels of the news that Ripple is opening an office in D.C., which is the kind of thing you do if you're really keen on lobbying the government to give you amnesty on your potential security that you've been issuing to retail investors for years. I think they'll be pretty comfortable on the swamp, though, don't you think? Yeah, they had a lot of representatives there, and they have a lot of lobbyists on stuff. So it seems like they're trying to buy their way out of trouble. trouble right now. I saw that Linda Lacewell, who's the superintendent of the New York DFS, was there and said something along the lines of potentially revisiting the bit license in some respect. But she said,

don't get too excited about what that would mean. You know, that would be great to have a little bit of a revisitation there. Yeah, it's always funny to see crypto projects launching in all 49 states with the exception of New York. Yeah. This bit licensed thing is just such a joke. So from all angles, right? So you have, you know, startups that it's pretty onerous to comply with this. And so you're just making it very difficult for entrepreneurs in the state of New York

or that want to service people that live in the state of New York. So that's not great. I mean, you can understand some of these things around anti-money laundering and terrorist financing, why some of it's in place, but there's got to be a way to make this a little bit easier on the small guys. But the other angle is that it's actually a big problem for the large companies as well, because what you have is these very highly capitalized companies. And there's a lot of actual personal disclosures that are required on the Bit License. And so you have these people that are maybe sitting on the board of directors of the company,

and they would ask for these just incredibly onerous personal disclosures that a lot of these people just aren't going to be happy or, you know, maybe they just wouldn't even do it, is provide some of these disclosure. So what you end up happening is large companies that are looking at this and having an issue and saying, well, you know, maybe we're not going to go do this business unit or start this enterprise. So I think it hurts a lot of different people. And some of these large companies are just the types of institutions that you would want to be publicly pursuing crypto. Like if people knew the names of some of these companies, they'd be like, oh, I can't believe that they're actually contemplating doing a cryptocurrency business unit,

but they're not going to do it while the bit licenses is out there. Yeah, it's a perfect case study in overly burdensome regulation. Not only that, it's a perfect case study in regulatory capture. If you know the history of the bit license, it was crafted by Ben Loski, who then turn around and joined Ripple, who was one of the first recipients of the bit license that he himself wrote. Yeah, well, he didn't just. do that, but he started his own consulting firm to help people interpret what the hell this thing even means.

Quite an amazing maneuver, one that I'm sure we'll see many of our other regulators perform over the next few years here. Yeah, I guess that's the way to fame and fortune, unfortunately. So speaking of regulatory moves, so we're keeping an eye on this telegram thing. So the SEC a couple weeks back issued an emergency, essentially a halt order, a cease-to-sic. on the issuance of their token on the grounds of it being an unregistered security. And so Telegram investors had the opportunity presented to them from the company to take a 77% refund offer.

And it looks like they've opted to just extend that clause to get the money back. And it's going to be extended until April. And it looks like we're gearing up here for a fight. So Telegram and the SEC are going to be duking it out in court of law. Yeah, this is a really interesting psychological point. from the perspective of a telegram investor, you have the potential of either guaranteed loss of 23% or potentially unlimited loss, but also potential gain. And so this is a great case study in loss aversion, which is the concept developed by Kanaman and Tversky, the behavioral

economists who found that people become risk-seeking when faced with the prospect of loss. So we have a real-life case study right here. Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, my guess is that the math here is, hey, spend X dollar amount more to fight this battle legally. Cap that number, but let's see if we can get some clarity over the next few months. And if not, my guess is that the plug gets pulled. Yeah, so this is the same recipe that was served up for basis investors who chose to take the loss, in fact, in the launch. But they got something like 90 cents on this. dollar back. Yeah, and that one never got, got litigated or anything. So I think Telegram appears to be looking to fight this out. And then another one that we saw this week, so BACT announced that

there are going to be releasing options contracts on their Bitcoin futures, and those are going to launch on the 9th of December. So just another positive development, I think, in the overall liquidity landscape and market infrastructure for crypto assets. And back, they had a very slow start, but they actually had their highest day of volume, something like 600 BDC traded on the platform, which is quite respectable. So they seem to be getting a little bit of traction now. Yeah. All right.

So a couple other things, maybe a couple good podcasts came out this week. So you were on the Coin desk podcast. Yeah, there's a lot of questions over whether Bitcoin is a macro asset and what that means, whether it's a safe haven. So that's on the new Coin Desk macro podcast. And we had Zach Prince on on Monday. He was actually also on Baselair with David Nage at ARCA. That was a good episode as well.

So check that out. And then I don't know if you got this, but Arc Invest had Rick Edelman on from Edelman Financial Engines, a huge RIA firm. I thought that was a great podcast. They talked a lot about the investment case for crypto assets and Bitcoin and prospect. of an ETF, so really well done over there as well.

And stay tuned next week. We have the ErisX folks. Yeah, we have ErisX. We have Tom Chippus and Matt Trudeau coming on Monday. And then later on in the week, we'll have Tom Lee. All right. We'll catch you next week. Thanks for listening.