On The Brink with Castle Island - Weekly News Roundup 1/3/20 (Alternative Launch Ideas, Token-economic flops, Crypto Banks, and more) (EP.30)

Episode Date: January 3, 2020

Matt and Nic from Castle Island Ventures review the top stories of the week in the cryptoasset industry. This week's topics include:  - Hedera Hashgraph Tokeneconomics Proposal - Iota goes down for 15 hours  - Nic's Alternative Launch Blog Post - Crypto Banks and more

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 a Bitcoin. Bitcoin. Welcome to the On the Brink podcast. I'm Matt Walsh. And I'm Nick Carter. And Nick, we are back from our week-long hiatus. Yeah, sorry, guys. We took a break.

Did you get any good Christmas presents? I got a sweater from my sister. Thank you, Georgie. You gave me some Bitcoin socks. That was very thoughtful of you. Everybody got the socks. Everyone got the socks. That's a very nice gift.

Yeah, these are from, I think it's called Mount Sox is the company I got them from. So they came with like a proof of sock, you know, that there wasn't some sort of counterfeit sock in there. It was really great. Like, you know, supply chain integrity is key. Sox are a really big part of the Bitcoin war, aren't they? Alpaca socks.

Yeah. Those were some of the first goods ever sold for Bitcoins. We got to keep that going. Every, actually, for two Christmases now consecutively, I've given out. swag with the Bitcoin Wizard, the Microsoft Paint Bitcoin Wizard on it. Last year was Mugs. This year, it's socks. I like to give out Open Dimes. Open Dimes are good. Treasers. That's also been part of my repertoire, Casa Nodes. I've been known to do ledgers in the past. But, you know, there's just something

about the Bitcoin Magic Internet Money Wizard, which is so nostalgic. That was like one of the reasons I started caring about Bitcoin because the ad was all over Reddit. It was a very popular Reddit ad. was a great ad. Yeah. Well, we're back. We're back in the content game. We're going to be doing a round roundup today. And then on Monday, we'll be releasing a AMA answering a bunch of questions that we got off Twitter. Some really great questions. So we're looking forward to that one. Yeah, we have 65 questions so far. So some of them are actually pretty good. So stay tuned on Monday for that. We'll do a quick rundown here. There were no, really no deals. These are typically the two quietest weeks of the year deal-wise and fundraising-wise, a lot of firms that have raised funds,

kind of sitting on those announcements until mid-January. So nothing really to report on the deal front, but why don't we hop into a couple personnel moves? The first one that I thought was interesting was, so we all know that Kelly Loeffler, former CEO of backed, has recently been appointed the junior senator for the state of Georgia. The backed chief product officer, Mike Blandina, has been named CEO of the company. And the current CEO, Adam White, has been up to the president. So some personnel moves over it back. Not sure if this means anything, but congratulations to these two folks.

And BACT remains one of the, I think, more exciting projects to watch in the space, certainly from an institutional infrastructure standpoint, this is something that we're keeping a close eye on. And Mike has a payments background, right? Yes, I believe that's right. payments is also a big part of BAC's push here in addition to derivatives and custody. It seems kind of orthogonal to the nature of the business, given that they are doing, innovating on custody and exchange. So I always found it kind of curious that they had this payments focus. Yeah, and certainly some of these initial partners and some of the firms that are on the cap table

are more from the payment side. And so I think the idea here is to, potentially immobilize, create a payments rail by immobilizing digital assets and essentially having that warehouse domino bus account and then building that payment rail on top of it. This, yeah, it sounds like a side chain in some respects, you know? Right. You lock Bitcoin in the backed warehouse and then, you know, presumably there's second or second layer, quote unquote payments built on top of that. Yeah, and you don't need to necessarily just lock Bitcoin.

You could see this being something that would work with a stable coin at some point in the future as well. This is the rise of Bitcoin banking. Right. Full reserve. With the proof, with the proof of reserve. That would be nice if they chuck that in there, if you're listening backed. So congratulations to Mike and Adam on those promotions. There are a couple interesting token project stories over the past couple weeks that I wanted to get into here.

So the first was HEDERRA. So HEDERA hash graph is a smart contract platform. They've raised a total of $124 million in funding, which is staggering. Some of that is at a $6 billion valuation, which is also incredibly staggering and just outrageous, frankly. And so this is all raised via simple agreements for future tokens, these SAFs, which are modeled after the Y Combinator safe note. And so HADERA has launched their public chain, and the value of the token is really plummeted.

I don't know what the exact amount is, but it's just been a precipitous falloff because basically what's happening is that all of the early holders, all the VCs essentially, are just dumping the token and trying to get out of this position. And so they're rightly concerned that the network is kind of not doing so well. And so there's been a proposal that's been put out that essentially locks up staff holders, that they can opt into it. and there's some kicker on the upside to incentivize them to lock in. But essentially what they're trying to do is just lock up these early VCs so that they can't, you know, they can't sell. So what do you make of this? There's a paradox there because the VCs invested knowing that they would have a short

time to liquidity. That was the value prop. That was the idea. I mean, we heard this so many times in 2017 through 19, you know, tokens are interesting because you have a short time to liquidity, which is code for, we plan to exit this position as soon as possible, maximize the IRR and sell before. Retail has realized that, you know, they've been duped, essentially. So if token projects start imposing these much longer lockups, the instrument becomes less attractive to investors. So it's, I guess, you know, it's good

housekeeping, it's a good idea to have vesting, but it also defeats the purpose of the instrument in the first place. I mean, this is just so comical, right? So this is all about token economics, and we're going to rejigger it, and the economy of our smart contract platform is not really figured out, so we're going to make some tweaks and have these proposals. Why don't we focus on, like, why does anyone need Hedera Hashgraph? Like, what is this thing even for? Like, should they maybe focus on trying to get customers to use this thing. Like, what is this thing? Yeah, optimizing for the token economics of a newly launched smart contract, you know,

platform is kind of like optimizing the aerodynamics of a brick as it's falling out of the sky. There's no way to put lipstick on this pig, you know? People need to want to own the token. That's all there is to it. And I don't think anybody does. No, I mean, there's clearly no holding preference here. There's no reason to want to hold Hedera hashgraph. And any number of these tokens that have launched over the past year that are about to launch. There's long been this speculation that the thing that would kill the projects would be class action lawsuits and not SEC action, which is more likely if investors actually lose money with a high initial launch valuation. Yeah, and it's going to be interesting to see who steps forward with some of these class actions.

I think there's also this concern on the investor side that if you've invested in some of these and they end up being securities and you're found to be flipping them in under a year, that you've been essentially committing a Rule 144 violation since you're essentially an insider and flipping those securities in under a year. So some of those investors just won't come forward. There's also a number of these ICOs, I'm not saying this is, true for Hidera, but a number of other projects have raised without doing proper know-your-customer verification. And so you have a lot of investors that probably don't want to come forward

and say that they were harmed by the token price going down because they have been evading taxes and they don't want it to be clear kind of what their addresses are. And so who knows, some of these things will keep on going. And some of them will be forced to do rescissions and not all of the actors will come forward, not all the investors will go forward. And so there will be some project teams that are just sitting on millions of dollars of ether, Bitcoin. And, you know, hey, we tried to give it back, but I guess we'll keep it now. Yeah, it's kind of silver lining there, that these, the token holder basis are so fragmented. They're globally dispersed. They lack the ability to coordinate easily. And I think it will let a lot of these token issuers off

the hook. Agreed. The next story that has to do with a token that I'm not so crazy about is Iyota. So Iota was actually down for about 15 hours a couple days ago. So Iota is another one of these smart contract platforms. You might have heard about them in the past. They rose to prominence when it was the MIT DCI came out with research that basically said that Iota's hash function, which they had rolled on their own. you know, it had some collisions and essentially didn't work.

And it was a very contentious argument. Iota amidst personal attacks. MIT came back and defended themselves. Joey Edo, when he was still at the MIT Media Lab, came out with a blog post there. So that's probably where you've heard of Iota in the past. You certainly have not heard of Iota in the sense of people actually using the network or it being valuable. That's certainly not something that they're known for. The weird thing is that Iota has this.

range ability to get partnerships with European firms. So named partnerships where it's not like, you know, it's not like tokens will claim they have a partnership with Amazon when they use AWS or something. Genuine like innovation lab partnerships. I think VW and Boch as well, which has always puzzled me to no end. But I think having a treasury with lots of funds to spare is. Oh, it's a nice Swedener, I guess.

You can kind of buy these partnerships. Yeah, that's right. So, you know, this is a project that has a lot of hair on it. And it's down about 69% on the year. But the part that I want to highlight was just that the network was down 15 hours. Like, people are people surprised about this? Like a public blockchain network was down for 15 hours. You know, it's funny, though, is that if it happened on Bitcoin, we would hear about it, of course, you know,

it would be catastrophic. But these kind of second tier blockchains go down all the time. This is something I've learned from coin metrics. So they run 40 or 50 different chains. Many of them they're running three or four nodes. And every week one of these chains will be down for a day or half a day. Happened with Tazos recently. It was down for a few hours.

Happened with Tron. you know, it happens a lot. I think people don't realize how unreliable some of these networks are. And the other thing is that they optimize, I guess, for, you know, quote unquote safety over liveliness as opposed to, you know, proof of work, which really demands that things keep plowing forward, that new blocks get made all the time. They take a slightly different tradeoff, which is why in some of these delegated proof of stake networks. If there's an issue, they just halt the network. Yeah. With Iota is a bit different. Iota

has a coordinator, which is crazy. So they've been talking about core decide, which is their fancy word for like killing off the coordinator for years now. And they haven't been able to get that. So it's wholly centralized, right? The consensus has to run through this coordinator, which is run by the Iota Foundation. So they have never meaningfully decentralized the, validation of this network, which is hilarious, first of all. And so the coordinator, you know, apparently had a fault, and that's what led to this downtime. Yeah. So I think the centralization is the key point here. It's just a lot of these networks are extraordinarily centralized IOTA is a textbook example. The other thing that I think is interesting here is what is Iota trying to be here? I mean,

is it trying to be money? Is it trying to be a platform for Internet of Things applications? I would say that a public blockchain first and foremost has to be treated like money if you actually want the token to be worth anything. And so this is a really terrible, terrible characteristic of public censorship resistant money is to be down for 15 hours and to have a single validator that needs to be up and running in order for your network to actually work. If you're trying to make a payment on this network for 15 hours, it would not go through. So if you're trying to run an application, it would not work. So no matter what you're trying to be here, it was not working for 15 hours. Yeah, they don't have the resilience that comes with genuine decentralization. They trade it off and have this coordinator.

And even with that, they weren't able to make the network work. You know, leave aside the fact that this token is purportedly for IoT purposes, so meaning low power devices, each transaction. requires a proof of work to be attached to it. And that's meant to be additive and to, you know, in the aggregate, mean that there's lots of proof of work going on. But this means that the network, the protocol, asks your internet-connected light bulb or whatever or smart lock

to perform a proof-for computation, which is contrary to the way that IoT works in terms of having, you know, dormant or low-power devices. Right. So it's an incoherent concept. just in the very first instance, even before you get into all the nonsense about the terrible cryptography and the dysfunctional governance and so on. So I think we've kicked Iota enough, but it's still the 23rd ranked asset on coin market

cap. It has a network value of $462 million. It's down 69% on the year, and it has another 100% down to go before it gets to fair value. Moving on. Did you see this story about Coinbase wallet says that it's going to be thinking about removing its decentralized application, its DAP browser, in order to comply with Apple's App Store policy? Yeah, there are a lot of takes that were like, oh yeah, Apple is scared of DFI and, you know, they see DFI as a threat. I don't know if that's quite the take, but I kind of enjoyed. watching people spin this. But I think ultimately it's just a function of the fact that if there are payments occurring, you know, Apple wants a cut of that. And there's no way currently to

allow them to get their pound of flesh, the 30% of every transaction. Yeah. And so this is something that a lot of the early Bitcoin wallets struggled with as well. And it took a long time. This was back in 2012-13 era. It took a while for even coin bases of the world to, figure this out with regular Bitcoin transactions and now obviously, you know, these cryptocurrency wallets are allowed. The DAP browsers, I think you're right. So they haven't said what the issue was with the App Store or what the issue is with the app store, but I suspect that it's around taking cuts of payments and the fact that some of these DAP browsers would propose to intermediate certain transactions and they would need to find a way to pay Apple in probably paying them

then cryptocurrency is not going to work. But this really for me highlights just the distribution challenges that are going to be inherent with these daps just in general. Like how do you get a decentralized application in the hand of a user? Right now, Apple and Google are really standing there as a gateway for most of these customers. Yeah, and we saw it with Metamask as well. Metamask got the extension, got banned for a while from Chrome, I believe, and then reinstated afterwards. But, you know, so much of what is being built here is exposed to what the large

internet oligopolis want to do and what they want to permit. So it's certainly every time something like this happens, it makes Erbit seem like a more important and urgent project. It also kind of makes you realize that if the large tech companies wanted to shut down activity relating to public blockchains, they probably could do so they could interfere with a lot of that because we haven't built parallel infrastructure to support this stuff. Yeah, I think this highlights maybe not only Erbit, but a whole class of projects that are going after this decentralized browser, decentralized internet theme. A lot of them are pursuing it with tokens and not sure if that's going to be what ends up

working. But more and more people will become aware of cryptocurrency as a result of some of these monopoly structures that really stand in the way of people using these new products, no doubt. And as all these big tech companies get into financial services, which they all are involved in now in some capacity, your financial freedom is going to become beholden to these companies. And they treat property in a very kind of arbitrary way. You know, Twitter and Facebook, their, their house. happy to deprive you of your handle, your access to those platforms. People say you don't have a right necessarily to a platform. I probably disagree with that. I think of it like the early

squatters, you know, that were, you know, secured a plot of land and the American West or something and improved their land and built a farm there and built a homestead. You mix your labor with your property and you've created something which traditionally in the U.S., we would say you actually have a claim to that. I think the same is the case with social handles. You take a namespace on Twitter or something. You actually improve it. You build a social graph. You build reputation.

To be deprived of that is to be deprived of the fruits of your labor, in my opinion. So, you know, the tech companies take that attitude to financial transactions. I think a lot of people will wake up and realize that the standard that has been set is extremely onerous and very user hostile. I think that's right. One of the blog posts that I think really does a great job of articulating some of these challenges and just some of the adversarial nature of these monopoly structures was blogged by Nick Grossman, friend of the pod, a couple days ago. So he put out a blog and he referenced a piece by Corey Doctor Al from the Electronic Frontier Foundation about adversarial interoperability. I'm not sure if you saw that one, but I thought that did a good job of laying out some of the challenges here. And it does continue to feel like we're going to be heading down a regulatory path here with some of these big tech companies.

And potentially the outcome being that the user gets to control their social graph and control some of their online identity and perhaps kind of, a real estate as you're saying. Just having the ability to exit a system with your social graph intact would be an improvement, which right now you don't really have that. I mean, you don't have the ability. Like you get banned from Twitter. That's it. You know, you can't, you know, bring that like network with you anywhere else.

Yeah. And being able to bring it with you and not only bring it with you, but be able to build things on top of it, build new products and services. That's where the design space starts to open up a little bit and becomes like, less siloed and certainly where some of these projects that are launching in the crypto space would become more feasible. Yeah, Blockstack is another one work on this problem. Right.

Another story that I thought was interesting. So the Block had a report that there's going to be a new crypto-focused bank. It looks like it's going to be called Ziglu, which is going to launch this year. It's going to be launched by Mark Hipperson, who's the former Starling Bank co-founder. I just thought this was interesting because I continue to think that there's a really big opportunity here for a traditional bank to just become more and more active in the crypto space. We've seen signature bank and Silvergate become very active in the space, start to bank some of these companies that are traditionally really hard to bank. There's a lot of risk here, obviously. There's a lot of banks are worried about banking crypto companies because they hold the underlying.

They might have some risk on losing that. they might also be at a higher risk for AML and OFAC violations. But someone's going to get this right. And I think to some extent Silvergate's already proving that there's a model here and proving the growth that you can have. And if your bet is that crypto assets are going to be a thing, it doesn't need to take a directional bet on Bitcoin versus Ethereum or security tokens, but just any cryptographically secured asset on a blockchain,

if you think that they're going to be a thing, I think you want to be a bank that really embraces that and starts to understand what custody looks like, what the exchange environment looks like, and what the risks are and start to build those capabilities. And starting as a crypto-only kind of vertically integrated bank, I think makes a lot of sense right now, and I'm surprised that we haven't seen more of it.

So I think this is an exciting development. If you guys remember our podcast with Dan Matashevsky, he went to detail on how the fates of these early crypto companies turned on whether they were able to get, banking relationships up and running or not. And that had a massive influence on the positioning of some of these firms and their success in the industry. Definitely. I mean, this has been a really single point of failure issue for a long time. And we've seen Coinbase jump from bank to bank. We've seen almost every company jump from bank to bank, having issues even

with keeping payroll up and running, which was, as Dan called out, had been an issue for Cracken over the years. So it's been a problem. It continues to be a problem. A lot of people don't talk about it, but this is also a huge opportunity. So if anyone's working for a bank out there, we think it would be a good career move to push your firm more and more into the waters of cryptocurrency because it's not going away. Totally. Although if you think about five years ago, we've come a long way in terms of banks supporting the industry. We have signature, Silvergate, various overseas banks, which are now taking crypto seriously.

Definitely come a long way. So you had a busy end of the year in terms of writing. So you had a guest post on Pomp's newsletter, talking about the founding story of coin metrics, the reasons why on-chain data is so exciting and interesting. You also had a real rah-rah one on Medium. The cat is out of the bag. Bitcoin is everyone's problem now, talking about some of the macro backdrop that Bitcoin was born into.

And then you had a post that I wanted to spend a little bit of time talking about, which was in support of proof of work unfair launches, which is more or less a thought experiment on how proof of work public blockchain might launch by selling A6 as opposed to selling token pre-launch. So let's talk a little bit about that. What was the idea behind this blog post? Yeah, it's an idea that I've had for a really long time, actually. I tweeted about it in early 2018, I think, you know, the intuition being that fair launches are quite difficult to pull off these days. You know, I'm not like suggesting anyone launch anything. And some people on Bitcoin Twitter got aggrieved because they interpreted it as that I was endorsing, you know, alternative coins, which is not the case.

I just think it's interesting and useful to have a dispassionate discussion of the tradeoffs involved in launch methods. which people don't discuss very often. For some reason, some launch methods just become the default. So in the 2014 era, you had proof work launches, and then you had, you know, 10-minute ICOs on Ethereum. Bat was one. I remember status was another one. ICOs that were over in seconds.

And then you had more long, drawn-out ICOs. you had Tezos, which was six weeks, I believe, and EOS, which was an ICA, which lasted a full year, which actually that was a good model because it gives buyers a lot of time to discover the asset and for it to derive a market value. But the big issue with the EOS launch was, or ICO, was that they had outflows from the Treasury during the ICO. So in theory, they could have been recycling funds back into the ICO, which would have meant they could have acquired any fraction of supply of EOS for essentially free. So there were issues there.

So I wanted to look at all the positives and negatives with different launch methods and see if we could, because it's kind of a multi-dimensional problem space, right? There's a lot of things you want to optimize for. If you were to launch coin, you'd want to be able to monetize. You probably would want to rely on the proof of work distribution, which is totally underrated, in my opinion. But you also don't want to violate securities law. So, you know, a big problem that I believe some of these token launches have is they sell, you know, there's definitely an investment contract there.

And then that kind of poisons the whole asset because potentially the thing gets branded to security and then it can't trade on any of this infrastructure, which is built for, quote unquote, commodity, you know, tokens. So what if you could disentangle the kind of investment contract thing from the coins themselves and rely on? the fair launch, which kind of unambiguously, the regulators in the U.S. considered to be commodity-like. You know, so that's why Bitcoin and Lightcoin and Monero and so on, you know, and Grin, these are considered to be unambiguously not securities because there's nothing that's being sold. You have to burn your energy to acquire the units.

It's just a conversion of energy into, you know, a token. and there's no treasury, you know, there's no issuer per se. So then the thought was, could have founding team manufacture ASICs essentially have permission to mining for the first six months? They sell the ASICs to buyers. Now, whether the ASICs are a security or not, I'm not sure. Some people think they are. Some people think they actually might not be. But the ASICs are firmly disentangled from the coins. The coins would just be issued by the protocol. So that's the notion of the ASIC unfair launch. It's an alternative proposal, to my knowledge, no one has done anything like that yet. So just to make sure that I'm capturing it, so the team would

essentially contract with an ASIC manufacturer, say these are specifications, we're going to keep it a secret in terms of what the exact algorithm is going to be, the hashing function, and we're going to sell these things. And then at a certain point, you know, more manufacturers will hop on board, presumably and we're just going to hope essentially that we can monetize through selling these we'll do a rev share or something on the A6 and that's how we'll pay our developers over time. Yeah and yeah so I forgot to mention it's important that the hash function be kept a secret until the day of launch and then you'd expect from what I understand of ASIC manufacturers the shortest turnaround is about four months for a proof of work ASIC so you can expect that between

four and six months after launch, you would lose that monopoly. So those, you've essentially sold medallions, you know, you've sold mining rights to those early kind of speculators, and their advantage would decline after probably four to six months. And that's part of the design, because you don't want people to have a perpetual advantage. You don't want the earliest adopters to become the feudal lords of this chain, which is absolutely the case with the pervestake chain for instance where, you know, if you have a proof of stake token and you stake it, you're exercising a permanent anti-dilution right, right, which is, it's kind of unnatural. Like, you don't have those in early stage fundraising because it would turn the instrument into something that's toxic to new

capital, right? Dilution is, you know, part of the deal in terms of equity at least. So with proof of work, A6s are a little bit like a proof of stake token, except for the fact that they depreciate over time. New generations can be created, you know? So the set of early validators that has that kind of quasi monopoly on supply, they're disempowered over time, which in my view is a good characteristic. You don't want the like 10 or 15 earliest speculators to have a huge chunk of the network in perpetuity. you know. So I think this churn in the validator set that you get from proof of work is actually a great, great feature. So that's basically why I wrote the article. And I could see some pushback here from folks who believe that protocol development should be funded through or developers should be paid through the protocol. That could be a reason to push back. But I think we're both on the same page that that's probably not a sustainable model for something that's trying to be non-sovereign money is to extract rents from the protocol. And Bitcoin is already proving that there's a model of patronage that is emerging. And we've seen that through Linux and Red Hat and various others.

But that could be one reason to look at this model and say, well, it's kind of unclear how you'd pay the developers. And I guess what you're saying is, well, that's a separate issue other than. Yeah, I mean, I see the ASIC retailing as a way to finance the initial R&D effort up front, which probably has to occur if a new useful protocol will come to exist. However, I think creating this, you know, siphoning funds off from the protocol to pay a set of developers just creates this kind of elite, which is, in my view, no different from the way that elites monetize their proximity to the Fed or to central banks. I mean, it creates a capture of the protocol almost. And we've seen this happen in a lot of cases in crypto already where you have protocol funded developers. you get this kind of aid dependency situation forming, which, you know, if you're familiar

with international development, you know that a stream of cash flow to a given jurisdiction, that local apparatus will kind of recalibrate itself to exploit the aid, you know, in perpetuity. You kind of get the same situation, crypto, with some of these companies that get addicted to the drip of senior rates, essentially, and they can't weed themselves off of it. Yeah, we're seeing that with Zcash right now. Yeah. So in this proposal, it's designed to allow the founding team to exit the project because they wouldn't have this significant authority in the project,

especially not protocol derived authority. So that's the idea. So I wonder if we'll see this in action. I think it might be likely, actually. I think there's a few projects that are considering it. Well, we'll keep an eye on that. So that wraps up the news of the week. It's been a little bit of a slow week,

but I'd expect things to start to pick up after the first of the year. We'll probably start to see some more deal announcements and some more news trickling out. So stay tuned for that. We've got our AMA on Monday, which will be dropping. So also tune into that. And we have a Patriots game on Saturday night. Playoffs are here.

So we're excited about that. Yeah, we've got the prime time slot on Saturday. So it's the revenge tour. My Redskins are not in the playoffs. You have a new coach. As is typical, but we do have a new coach. So we're going to win the offseason. We're the offseason champs.

You're going to have a high draft pick. Yeah. Honestly, I think we should actually trade the draft pick. Oh, really? Yeah. Yeah. So I actually watched some college football to evaluate this number two pick that we're potentially going to go for.

This guy, Chase Young, wasn't that impressed. Oh, so you're not going to not buy in that. I actually did some scouting. Yeah. All right. So you're selling Chase Young. Yeah. Yeah.

Trade the pick. Trade the pick. All right. Well, stay tuned for next one. week. We'll have an update. Go Patriots. Hope everyone had a healthy and safe new year. And we'll see you all on Monday.