On The Brink with Castle Island - Weekly News Roundup 11/1 (Bakkt, R3, Exchange Errors, SEC Actions, Coin Metrics Nonce Analysis) (EP.14)

Episode Date: November 1, 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 - Bakkt - R3 - Paxos no action letter - Derebit and Bitmex issues this week - SEC actions  - Nic's Talk at Blockchain Week - Coin Metrics Nonce Analysis

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. Welcome to another episode of On the Brink. I'm Matt Walsh. And I'm Nick Carter. And this is your weekly news roundup coming to you a little bit later in the day. Our podcast equipment did not get back from San Francisco Blockchain Week. Yeah, we actually had a real ordeal bringing this podcast to you guys. What happened was my flight from SF to Boston was a nightmare because there was a weather event.

So they had to add more fuel so they could go around it. and then they took off a bunch of bags to account for the additional fuel, including my bag, with our precious podcast equipment in there. So I had to get it delivered to me this morning. It was terrible. A couple episodes on that SD card, too. I'm glad that it made it. Yeah, some really high-quality stuff on there.

It would have been catastrophic if we'd lost them. What did you think about blockchain week? So blockchain weeks are always kind of tough to go to, but SF blockchain week was pretty good. There was a pretty interesting crypto economics. conference. We went to an IDEO event that I thought was quite good. Those guys know how to put on a good conference. Yeah, at that event, people were invited to do tweets in real life. So they had like Meltem and Joey Krug up there delivering tweets, but verbally, I guess we used to just call those like speeches. Yeah. There was also, they had a good design thing here, exercise where they put up a

question and you had to move to one side of the room or the other, depending on what you, you know, you thought the answer was to the question. And the last question was something along the lines of which crypto asset do you think has the most upside over the next five years. And it was Bitcoin versus anything else. And I went to the Bitcoin side. I noticed that you stood on the other side. Yeah, I was just being lazy. But yeah, I'm in the Bitcoin camp. There was quite a lot of chatter in the room around. Maybe you had found some long-tail crypto asset that you weren't telling people about. Got to keep them guessing. So why don't we dig into the content?

So as usual, why don't we start off with some deals and fundraising for those folks who are looking to maybe get into the industry? These are generally companies that are going to be hiring since they just raised a bunch of money. So the first one this week is a coin list. So this is the spinout of Angel List. They've raised $10 million in a round led by Polly Chain, had collaborative fund in there. It looks like Jack Dorsey's family office participated as well. They raised a $10 million, and it looks like what they're doing is they're going to build a crypto asset exchange. Yeah, I guess the token issuance has kind of slowed down a lot, and that was their initial play.

And it seems like this is a bit of a pivot for them, but congrats to them for the round. Another one was Wobie Japan, which is a subsidiary of the parent company. So they raised $4.6 million for that exchange. It was led by Financial Products Group. Another one was there's a company called Zama. So this is a company that's actually building. It looks like a platform for airlines and governments to share data. They raised $5 million from Local Globe and Oxford Capital.

The next one is actually a token deal. I don't know if you saw this one. So synthetics, which is a decentralized finance project. It's built on Ethereum. So it already has a token out there. They raised $3.8 million. And it was actually just a token sale. to a private investor framework ventures.

Did you see that one? Yeah, synthetics is easily one of the projects in the DFI space that people are most excited about right now. It seems like their product lets you get synthetic exposure to a variety of financial products. The next one is Keyless. So this is a private key security company. They raised a $2.2 million seed round,

led by Gumi Cryptos, had participation from Ripple, blockchain Valley Ventures and a few others. And then to close it out, a couple mining-related deals, or soon-to-be deals, maybe we should say. So Canon Creative, which is a mining manufacturer, they have filed for an IPO to list on NASDAQ, so we have some reading ahead of us this weekend, reading that S-1.

Then a couple days later, Bitmain, and this is not official yet, but they've reportedly filed a confidential prospectus for an IPO. So a couple of mining ones. to close it out this week. Yeah, and, you know, in crypto so far, there have really only been two kinds of companies that have accumulated a lot of value or captured value.

It's really the exchanges and the mining companies, the manufacturers, the ASIC manufacturers. So as these start to IPO and become public enlisted companies, I think that gives the industry a lot more credibility that it's probably been lacking. There's really been no way to get direct exposure to the asset class. So it'll be fascinating to dig in and read some of these S-1s.

Definitely. So jumping over to the news, one that caught my eye was backed. So this is the crypto asset affiliate of the Intercontinental Exchange. So they've announced that they're going to be launching a consumer app to allow retail users to transact using cryptocurrencies. And so this is expected to launch in the first half of 2020. Backed is probably best known as being the custodial arm that is facilitating derivative contracts through ICE. What did you make of this retail play?

I find it kind of strange, actually. I mean, they've really innovated quite strongly in terms of the custodial play, the backed warehouse, and the kind of vertically integrated market they've built. And then this consumer app seems totally orthogonal to those priorities. I don't know if it's, if we, I think there's this feeling among some of the companies in Bitcoin land that we need to demonstrate to outsiders that people actually use Bitcoin for everyday payments. So maybe that's sort of what's motivating this. But I think there's been more of a recognition recently that Bitcoin is not suited to these kinds of small-scale

payments. So it's unnecessary to try and target them. I found it interesting. So Starbucks is actually an investor in Backed. And they were mentioned, I think, in a few articles here as being maybe one of the first companies that will use this. They have, by all accounts, the most successful app for payments out there right now. You think we're going to move to a world where people are using consumer apps and able to pick whether or not they want to pay in dollars or maybe pay in Bitcoin or some other crypto asset in the future? Yeah, I think that is eminently likely.

But in this case, I don't know exactly how back this app is going to work. My guess is that we wouldn't have final settlement of Bitcoin every time. a payment is made, it would probably be an IOU kind of transaction. So it's kind of funny. I say this a lot. You know, the story of this industry is reinventing finance from scratch. Obviously, that's something that Matt Levine has been known to say. But in this case, we had final settlement and people found that amazing for doing commerce over

the internet, because it's very much unlike these kind of deferred settlement payments networks. And then gradually, we tried to rebuild the various deferred settlement mechanisms. in order to make spending experiences easier and less frictional. So it's kind of funny that we came around to building payment systems that will likely come to resemble the existing payment systems we have. Yeah, in some ways, backed if successful, and if all of these consumer-facing things get to spring up on top of it,

they would be the digital asset custodian, and they would look a lot like the DTCC does for traditional equities in the sense that they're just an omnibus account, and there's a books and record system sits over it to do the settlement. Or like a full reserve bank issuing bank notes. Right, right. So definitely one to keep an eye on with BACT.

Another story is speaking of kind of a traditional enterprise firm, R3, so this is the private blockchain company that it's building CORDA. So they're suing a company that is behind the Coda protocol. So Cora versus Coda. And they're alleging that Cota trademark is confusing and similar to Cora. So R3 is previously known for having sued and settled with Ripple for an undisclosed amount of XRP. And I guess you could say that they appear to be in the patent trolling business now.

Yeah, I guess in the absence of actually having products that people pay for and use, you can always default to frivolous lawsuits. Yeah, I guess we could talk more about. about how absurd we think that this lawsuit really is, but I suspect that just like our three's product suite and, you know, business model in general, we suspect that like no one cares at all. So maybe we'll just leave it there. Moving on, the SEC has granted Paxos trust company a no action relief to settle equity securities on a private blockchain for broker dealers.

So this was announced. This is Chad Cascarilla, his company. So it looks like Credit Suisse and Societ General will be the first two companies to use this settlement service. So, you know, we're not historically big private blockchain fans. But in general, I'd say this is actually pretty good that the SEC is weighing in and opining on what it takes to hold and to settle a cryptographically secured asset. I actually pretty happy to see this. I guess this has a nice amount of historical symmetry because you tell the story when you were. first started looking at crypto, Bitcoin, and later on blockchain Fidelity, it was in the context

of security settlement. Yeah, so we had this scenario that we called frictionless capital markets, and it was essentially what if securities could move peer to peer in almost a bearer transaction type of way, similar to Bitcoin. And Paxos, I think, was really, it was called 8bit at the time, but it was really at the forefront of looking at some of this and built up quite a consortium. the trouble with some of these private blockchain projects historically has been that you're dealing with more than a technology problem. You're dealing with a lot of entrenched interests from various

financial institutions and you might not be dealing with the ultimate decision maker in terms of the participant in the consortium. And so it's just difficult. You end up in these rooms with 20, 30 people sort of looking around the room and trying to figure out who's going to make the first move and if they make the first move, is that actually in your best interest and who's getting disintermediated here? So I think historically they've been very difficult to get off the ground and digital asset holdings, which is Blythe Masters, former company. That's probably case in point for another one that had some big designs about going after some of these use cases and kind of puttered out. But good for the Paxos guys.

These guys have been at it for a long time and have a few different use cases. This is just one of them. And they, of course, still have the exchange business as well in StableCoyne. So good to see. So there was some, there's been some big news affecting the biggest derivatives exchanges in Bitcoin land over the last couple of days. Yeah, so some big news actually last night. So let's jump into Bitmex first. What happened here?

Yeah. So it seems like this morning Bitmex accidentally sent an email out to everyone on their email list, all their users with their emails in the CCC. field, meaning that they leaked the entire list of everybody that's a Bitmex user. That is like the word, the feeling when you're at a company and you accidentally hit reply all, that's got to be like 10 times worse. Yeah, so I guess it's okay when it's like a mailing list and you accidentally CC everyone. In this case where you're revealing the potentially the identities of lots of Bitcoins and people that trade large amounts of value of Bitmex,

it seems horrifically bad. Yeah. And by the way, some of those people, my guess, that they're not supposed to be trading because either they work for a company that doesn't allow them to do this or maybe, you know, they're a U.S. corporation that maybe should not be trading on a Seychelles-based exchange in the first place. So I bet some people are not happy about this. Yeah. It kind of reminds me of the leak of the users of Mount Gox where you could kind of verify if someone had actually been a trader on Gox and owned Bitcoin when they said they did. Yeah, so now we have, what is it, 30,000 people that are Bitcoin holders. that are kind of out there in the public.

Not great. We can't build those citadel soon enough. I know. So the other big derivatives exchange, Deribate, probably the number two, they didn't issue with their reference rate, actually, yesterday. So it's a little bit hard to unpack what actually happened. It looks like there was a market maker or an algorithmic trader,

which kind of went haywire, and created this massive oscillation on several different, spot exchanges at the same time. And then Coinbase actually went down after this started, potentially in response to the oscillation or the abnormality in the market. That part's not necessarily clear. But the consequence of all that is that Deribit, they create their price index that all of their contracts are settled against from a combination of those other exchanges. And since they were co-moving in such a volatile fashion and Coinbase wasn't around, which is typically a big component of the index, their index had a flash crash and tons and tons of contracts

were liquidated. Yeah, I think that's an accurate representation. I'm looking at some of the public statements of their COO. So their COO came out and said that it cost their users $1.3 million and it was a result of their platform, their index calculation at Deribit failed to remove some incorrect outlier prices as part of that calc, which, you know, that's frankly, that's inexcusable. So it's a good thing that they are reimbursing the $1.3 million because a real robust institutional reference rate, that wouldn't happen on one of those, despite the fact that we were oscillating all over the place. Yeah, and I guess what both of these show us is there's still a lot of amateurishness in the markets for Bitcoin and crypto derivatives. You know, the interesting thing about these markets is that you don't need permission from anyone to start a crypto exchange because the big, buried entry is just somewhere to settle these assets and they settle on chain. So you can just start one.

I wouldn't advise anybody to, but you could start an unregulated crypto exchange and create some interesting financial products and get attention and grow organically. And that's exactly what Bitmex and Deribet have done. With Deribet, they've had a really big year. But ultimately, a lot of these entrepreneurs that have the ability to create interesting products that traders like, they may not necessarily have the operational experience running a serious operation. And sometimes we get these snafews. Yeah, I mean, we had seen this a couple weeks ago with Bitmex.

Their index construction was heavily weighted towards BitStamp. and there's some abnormalities on that trading platform. So a lot of these things are just really well understood in other asset classes, so index calculations and how you do reference rates. And it just seems like a lot of that professionalism has been slower to migrate over to the crypto asset realm. But it has to because if it doesn't, then we're not going to be able to see large institutional participants.

People talk about custody and regulated exchanges all the time. But this data piece is just so important. and it's a major barrier. Yeah, and, you know, it's an interesting tension between financial innovation. You know, arguably the perpetual swap, which BIMX pioneered, is a really compelling instrument, which traders absolutely love. And then between just getting the bread and butter things right, the basics of running an exchange, like an index, which is harder to game,

which so far neither BIMX nor Derebit has succeeded at doing. Yeah, and frankly, they should probably be using third-party index construction anyway. So did you see the SEC charged another crypto company this week? Yeah, it's interesting. So this is XBT Corp, which I guess is also known as First Global Credit. So they're a Swiss securities dealer and they sold what the SEC is calling unregistered security-based swaps. So these were instruments which were meant to track the price of Bitcoin. if I'm not mistaken, and the SEC is claiming that they should have registered.

Yeah, so it looks like these services were designed for users that wanted to fund their margin accounts using Bitcoin and then use that to leverage positions for other assets, ETFs, indexes, equities. And so it looks like they're saying that the Bitcoin-funded securities swap sale was in violation of federal securities laws. And this was running, it looks like, from March 2,000. 2016 to July of 17. So what I thought was interesting is that there's actually a lot of businesses in crypto, which tout their ability to create products, which track the performance of the S&P 500 or something without actually collateralizing it with equity or anything.

It seems like the SEC takes a pretty dim view of this. Yeah, this definitely looks similar to a number of startups that we've seen over the past few years. So it'll be interesting to see. I wouldn't even say that the SEC takes a dim view of it as much as they just say that it's illegal. Yeah. So probably expect more on this front. Right. So speaking of things that are illegal, late breaking news, I saw that you tweeted out about Veritasium today.

So what is this? Yeah, Veritasium is one of the kind of one of the wildest ICOs I think I've ever encountered. And I've publicly tangled with its enigmatic. founder, this guy Reggie Middleton, who's kind of a sort of well-known financial blogger. So it's unclear what the token was ever meant to do. I mean, it really, the claimed use case changed like dozens of times. I think it was intended to make Reggie rich. Yeah, so it did that for a while.

And then the SEC caught wind of it actually, a friend of mine, this guy Light, published a really in-depth research report on Veritas. I'm a while back saying, you know, all these claims are false. All these promotional claims are basically false. And it seems like the SEC was actually aware of that report. So for those of you who might be weighing whether you want to publish a critique of a given ICO or token, you know, go ahead and do it. Like the SEC is paying attention to the industry. This one was the most egregious ICO I think I've seen.

Yeah, it was incredibly stupid. but I think the issuing team retained something like 90%, 98% of all the tokens. And it only took about 10 minutes to realize that the token itself had absolutely no usage and that all the promotional claims were bunk. So the long and short of it is that the SEC sought emergency relief to halt all actions related to the project, and they found Reggie and his co-founder liable for disgorgement of about $8 million, including civil penalties of about a million dollars and told the folks behind varied that they couldn't offer any more digital securities in the future.

So pretty serious outcome. I'm not even sure if this is if this story is fully over yet. Either way, the very tacitia my CEO is essentially defunct. And this is kind of entertaining because I tangled with Reggie in the past. and it seems like the chickens have kind of come home to roost on this one. Didn't he challenge you to a competition of Twitter followers or something at one point? Yeah, so in early 2018, I published a prediction, a hashed prediction of a bunch of coins that I thought would fail over the course of 2018, and Veritasium was one of them.

I mean, it didn't completely fail. It has now. And at the time, when I revealed the results in early 2019, Reggie got very upset and said, well if I prove you wrong Nick you owe me all your Twitter followers and so I think by that logic he owes me all his Twitter followers Is that how Twitter works? Can you just

can you just capture someone's Twitter followers? They should build that function in like high stakes wagers That would be pretty cool So I guess the this is a Done and Done project It always makes me want to check these ICO bench and ICO drops websites

to you know see who is involved with This one doesn't have an advisory board, but one of the next shoes to drop over the next few months is as the SEC continually cracks down on a bunch of these fraudsters and crazy ICOs, there are some reputable people that were involved in some of these projects as advisors that got tokens. So those folks can't be too happy that their names are out there on public websites. Yeah. And, you know, so there was this reputational game that took place in 2017. People sold their reputation for advisory shares in these tokens, which they then dumped on retail investors. So there has been a very significant effort to rewrite the history of the ICO boom and for a lot of the people that are involved in these things and profiting from them to now disclaim their engagement. My message to these people is we are ready to have you on the show if you want to undergo our ICO Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

We will trade you amnesty, not legal amnesty, but amnesty in our eyes in exchange for dirt on what you did with these projects. Yeah, I would just say this is not legal advice. I remember being at a meetup with one of these unnamed project teams that was walking through how they did their ICO and how they were paying Korean translators to put their white paper out there and giving people tokens. And a couple months later, the SEC got wind of that. and took some actions. So this is not legal advice. But yeah, please come and participate in our shit coin inquisition. We want to reveal to the world all the dirty secrets of how these things were marketed

and created and sold and dumped on retail. So if you have any interest in doing that, we'll have you on the show. The whole thing, it's a big enigma. We'll see how it all turns out. Moving on. So you gave a talk out in San Francisco this week. So the talk was entitled, What kind of assets are cryptocurrencies? an empirical evaluation. So let's talk about that for a little bit. Sure. Yeah. So I actually

posted these slides online on my Twitter page. So you can go have a look at them. So basically it's a very simple talk. The objective was to situate cryptocurrencies in the context of U.S. payment systems and compare them just by the numbers. So if you look at how payment systems work in practice, you kind of have this. You have two sorts. You have the kinds with lots and lots of actual transactions, and then you have the sorts with really large transactions on average, but relatively few transactions. And there are two pretty clear groups. So on the one hand, you have cash, debit and credit cards, and then on the other hand, you have ACH payments and checks, and then the huge settlement networks like FedWire. And so there's this kind of inverse relationship

between transaction count and then the actual throughput. So the question is, you know, what are cryptocurrencies ultimately going to be? Are they going to be these payments networks for smaller retail transactions? Or are they going to be settlement networks where they are just batching up lots and lots at certain transactions, which might be happening off-chain, on a side chain, or at a institution like a crypto bank, for instance? And so the jury's still out on this. My think preferred approach here would be to have them look more like settlement networks. There's also, you know, ultimately issues that cap the transaction count of these systems, notably the fact that they can't tolerate too much data throughput.

Otherwise, the whole security and trust model breaks down. This was an attempt to just put them in context and present a ton of data, including I added up all the BICTRAs. coin, which is held in custodial accounts of various custodians. So definitely check this out if you're interested in any of that. One of the interesting things to me here is if you think about just the positioning of some crypto assets, some that are explicitly competing to try to be payments-oriented cryptocurrencies, this presentation to me would suggest that there's not a very bright future for some of those. Yeah, I think there's a fundamental misconception. You know, these are bearer style final settlement assets, that's really not amenable or conducive to small-scale commerce.

In fact, final settlement is kind of an impediment when it comes to transacting on a retail basis. It's actually, it introduces all sorts of issues. And we've undergone a very slow process of learning this. But the real obvious issue here is that you simply can't process data relating to hundreds and hundreds of millions of transactions per day, all on a blockchain, which must be replicated and saved among every participant. It's just, you know, there are physical limits in terms of the amount of data that can flow through these systems. And this is, so you're not buying the hype on the new smart contract platforms with infinite

scaling? Well, I always see, it's interesting, they'll often characterize scaling. they'll be like, scaling is just a problem of X, and X might be, you know, bandwidth or sharding or something. But at the end of the day, the question I want to ask these projects is, how much data are you going to ask an individual participant in your system to store? Because if the answer is a lot, then you're just going to have a few industrial nodes that are securing the system. and it'll be a very hierarchical node arrangement, which is just the way that traditional systems work.

So I see no improvement there. If they want to retain the flat hierarchy, there really is an upper bound in terms of the amount of data that they would demand a normal node operator to run. Yeah, and this is to say nothing of the consumer experience and the fact that a lot of these centralized non-cryptocurrency payment platforms are just a lot easier to use right now. and have, you know, pretty limited barrier to entry for people.

And this is one reason why I'd actually be kind of interested in seeing Libra launching. I think Libra, by being explicitly a consortium as opposed to sort of pretending to be, you know, meaningfully decentralized, they would immediately offer transactors a better experience than virtually all of these quasi-decentralized payment-focused tokens. and they would probably expose them for the relatively hollow projects that they are. Makes sense. So last one, coin metrics team put out some great analysis this week around irregularities in the nonspace on public blockchains. So essentially, so I think we need to define some of these terms for folks that don't know what the non-space is.

But I thought that this was an interesting look at potentially detecting. A6 on networks that were previously thought to not have A6 on them. First, before we kind of dig into this, what is the non-space and just frame this analysis a little bit for us? So the non-space is just the set of integers that miners search through in order to create a valid block. And it is meant to be random, basically. So they're meant to be generating heaps of random numbers every second.

And then occasionally one of them satisfies the very narrow criterion such that they can create a valid block, basically. And any more detail would be extremely tedious to get into. So it would follow that there should be a, the non-space, if you were to look at that, if you were to kind of visualize it, it would, it should look pretty uniform. Yeah, it should look like the noise when on those old-fashioned TVs where the TV is just producing a bunch of noise. And for the most part, it does. However, there's also non-random data which shows up. So if you look at the history of all the blocks in Bitcoin or Monaro or Ethereum, for the most part, it's noisy, but then you also have these very indicative patterns. And that implies that the miners are searching only a subset of the non-space.

Why would they do that? It's unclear, but if miners are searching a subset, it shows there's homogenization. in the ways that they're searching, which is a potential sign that they're using a specific kind of hardware, which has these idiosyncratic properties in terms of the way that it searches through the non-space. And since randomness is kind of an expensive trait, this hardware isn't necessarily concerned with showing good randomness. It just is concerned with performance. And so if you were to map a GPU mineable coin, it should look pretty uniform. As you say, it should look like the white static that you used to see on televisions.

But if there were an ASIC on that network, it's possible that you would start to see some variations. And they would probably show up as kind of straight white lines around a certain number or something like that. Yeah, exactly. So ASICs, for whatever reason, just tend to search a subset of the non-space. And if they win a lot of blocks over a certain period of time,

those subsets are going to become visually present. if you create a scatter plot of the nonses. And that's exactly what happened. So you can see ASICs emerging on Bitcoin. You can see them emerging on a whole bunch of other chains. So the coin metrics team did this analysis for a bunch of blockchains. This is actually really kind of critical stuff because it shows when ASICs were introduced. It also puts a lot of manufacturers in an awkward spot because it shows that ASICs were operational prior to the public shipping of those ASIC chips,

which kind of implies that they were mining prior to releasing ASICs to the network, which means that they basically traded against their customers explicitly. Yeah, so let's talk about why that's a problem. So, you know, you might hear that and say, well, of course they turned them on to see if they worked. But, you know, why is that not necessarily what's happening here? So it seems like in some cases miners created more hardware than they knew the network could tolerate. So since a new step function in ASIC quality means that all of the old hardware is essentially obsolete, having the newest hardware gives you a huge, huge advantage.

And if the pool of rewards is relatively fixed, as it tends to be in proof of work, because only so many coins are mined a day, if the hardware manufacturers are mining, that is disadvantaging their own customers that are buying this stuff. So Ethereum in particular looked like there were A6 on the network well before they were generally available to the public. Yeah, and that's another interesting thing. Ethereum's having this huge debate over whether they should switch to a algorithm which is more friendly for GPUs, as opposed to remaining on this current F-Hash algorithm, I think, for which there are A-6. And the coin metrics team also demonstrated that they really do believe they're A-6 on Ethereum. So that might actually swing the debate. Who knows?

This is something that if you're buying mining equipment that you certainly would have wanted to be aware of. Yeah, this is really fascinating stuff. I call it on-chain archaeology, just learning all about the history of these networks from a data footprint. All right. So I think that is what we have for this week. You're looking forward to anything next week? So next week, we have a great podcast with Nick Roseman from Union Square Ventures. and after that, I recorded one this week in San Fran with a few folks from the Erbit Project.

So looking forward to both of those. Awesome. And who knows, maybe we'll have some more SEC updates. And so that's it for us. Everyone have a great weekend. This was on the break.