On The Brink with Castle Island - Weekly Roundup 02/11/22 (Bitfinex hacked coins recovered, NY Fed attacks Stablecoins, Gofundme bans truckers) (EP.284)

Episode Date: February 11, 2022

Matt and Nic return for another week of deals and news. In this episode:  Kraken brings back PoR Bitfinex hack money launderers are arrested The long history of Bitfinex, hacks, Recovery rights, Tether, and LEO Who is entitled to the recovered BTC from the Bitfinex hack? The NY Fed attacks stablecoins, and private banknote issuance Ottawa truckers are banned from Gofundme Are US Treasuries backing stablecoins stranded liquidity? Why central bankers attack stablecoins to promote CBDCs Content mentioned:  NY Fed, The Future of Payments is not Stablecoins Sponsor notes:  Fireblocks is an enterprise-grade platform delivering a secure infrastructure for moving, storing, and issuing digital assets. Learn more at fireblocks.com

Brought down by bad mortgage investments, Lehman, which has 25,000 employees, will be liquidated. The federal government loans American International Group, AIG, $85 billion. This is a different kind of market, and the Fed is asleep. The federal government is stepping it to stabilize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage giants that have been threatened by the housing crisis. The Bank of England has pumped 75 billion pounds more into Britain's ailing economy with a new round of Conchitiated Easy. 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 On the Brink. I'm Matt Walsh.

And I'm Nick Carter. And we said we'd never do this again, but we're in person on the same microphone, passing it back and forth. It's just a you would think we would have higher production quality here. Yeah, it's been 280 episodes, and we still haven't reliably figured out how to record these podcasts. We're sitting in a conference room, just huddled around a computer right now. But this is how you do it. And this episode is brought you.

by Fireblocks, which is an awesome company, more on that company later in the episode. So it was a busy week, busy podcast week. You had Jeremy Welch from Cracken on. Yeah, we're all very excited that Cracken has resumed with a brief seven-year hiatus, proof of reserve attestations. Actually, they used Arminino, which we've had on the show, I think twice. And Jeremy came on and explained to us why they started doing it again and how they're doing it and how it works. So that brings the number of platforms doing proof reserves routinely to two.

You have Bitmex and Cracken. And what's the prospects of getting more exchanges to do this? Do you think there's going to be a groundswell of support for this? As far as I can tell the grassroots community of proof of reserves, enthusiasts, consists of me. Yeah, it's pretty much just you, I think. But apparently that was enough to sort of, you know, bully Cracken into doing it again. I think Arminino, you know, they built that whole business model on proof of reserves, right?

Let's get some more customers for Arminino. Those guys are doing a great job. Yeah, maybe they should sponsor this show, honestly. But, yeah, I mean, I don't want to take any credit away from Cracken. I mean, they clearly have been on the forefront of this. They did, I believe, the first major proof reserve. procedure and they brought it back. And I know it's not something their clients are necessarily demanding. So it takes a lot of sort of foresight on their part to do something which is a cost

center and may not have immediate tangible benefits. But you know, I'm actually pretty optimistic. I think regulators will ask for proof reserves as they have done in Canada. There was a regulatory missive in Canada while back asking for pre-OAR. So I think that there's going to be some top-down pressure here. I mean, eventually you're going to have proof of reserves as the foundation for proving on-chain that you have not re-hypothecated assets in the context of things like securities lending. And so this whole, do you remember Patrick Byrne with his whole overstock thing where

the vampire squids are nakedly shorting my company? A proof of reserve would actually be part of the solution to some of these actual capital markets use cases. Yeah, entirely. And I think he actually might have won a lawsuit along those. lines. But yeah, I mean, you have an, you know, we're talking about a cryptographic asset that you can freely prove who owns it at a given point in time to any arbitrary third party. And that gives you so much scope for innovation on an accounting basis, on a contractual basis. And so it's just

completely under explored. But it's crazy because we're talking about the key feature of blockchain assets, which is auditability, and we're just treating these things like their lumps of gold or something, and they can't be audited. So it's crazy to me that it's been overlooked this long. I'm just going to note right now that we did a Barry's boot camp this morning, which is the first time I've ever done that. And holding this microphone up every time you talk, it just feels like I'm in the Barry's boot camp again. That was your first Barry's? That was my first Barry's. Quite an interesting experience to go there as a team. Pretty interesting scene there. Yeah, so we did, I don't want to swear on this show. This is a family-friendly show, but we did ass and abs with Sammy.

It was quite an experience. And Sammy really drives a hard bargain. I mean, for a first, that's for first berries, that's a tough first one to do. That was, tomorrow's going to be a really painful day, and I'm sure the day after that and the day after that are also going to be pretty painful for me. Yeah, this is a fitness focused fund over here. We like, we like to encourage each other to stay fit. I'm, I'm, I'm amazed that was your first one. Wow. Yep, that was my first one. All right, let's hop into the deals and the fundraising of the week. The first one up is Alchemy. This is the Node Infrastructure Company. They raised another $200 million from Lightspeed and Silver Lake. That was north of a $10 billion valuation. What an amazing grill story over there for Alchemy. Yeah, it looks like there's a couple of unicorns

in the Node infrastructure space right now. Yeah, almost decadcorn. Next up we have Credo. spelled with a Q. So a lot of these, you know, it's hard to communicate how it's spelled. So that's CRETO with a Q, their defy infrastructure company. They raised 80 million from 10T, Raptor Group, Kingsway, and others. Next one up is Aleo. This is a smart contract platform. It has a privacy focus. They raised $200 million. That was from SoftBank, Kora Management, A16Z, and others. Then we have rare circles, a platform for NFT memberships. They raise $7.5 million from Tiger, White Star, Alpaca, Not Boring, Mike Dutis and others. Next up is Polygon.

This is the public blockchain protocol. A lot going on on Polygon. They raised $450 million. It was from Sequoia, India, SoftBank, Tiger, Galaxy 776, and many others. And that's, of course, the L2. So it's kind of incredible that we have second layer networks that are now raising monster rounds. Yeah, Polygon certainly has been a big beneficiary of, you know, the fact that it it's EVM compatible and things are just not working at the Ethereum base chain. So a lot of

projects migrating over to Polygon right now. Then we have NFT Go, which is an NFT data company. There is 6.8 million from Quiming Ventures, Circle, Autonomy and others. Next one is Mudrek. This is a crypto investing platform. It's based in India. They raise 6.5 million from Akram Ventures, Tribe Capital and others. Then we've got OpenNode, which is, of course, the well-known Bitcoin and Lightning payment processing company. There is 20 million from Kingsway, Avon, Tim Draper, and others. We have some M&A news next. Makara, which is a crypto-robobvisor.

They've been acquired by Betterment. So it seems like Betterment customers are going to get some crypto-robo on the horizon here. And that's founded by Jesse Proudman of Stricks. So big congrats to the team at Makara. Next up, we have a Bitcoin mining deal, compute north. the well-known Bitcoin miner raised 385 million from Mercuria, generate capital, and others. Next is this one is going to be my favorite company name of the week. This is Sardine. This is a great founder. His name is Soups. This is a fraud and compliance platform. Team comes with some

coin-based DNA. They raised 19.5 million from Andresa, Nica, and Experian. And lastly, we have Cairo Digital and NFT. platform. There is 10 million from Avalanche, Polygon, Raleigh, Fimbushi, and others. All right. So the first big story of the week, I mean, this is a huge one. So what a wild story. The Department of Justice has recovered $3.2 billion worth of Bitcoin that was originally stolen in the BitFinex hack in 2016. And so if you recall at the time, I think it was around $76 million worth of Bitcoin was stolen. And I want to talk about the circumstances of how that was hacked and stolen, but the story here is that two individuals, we can pull up their names here, but they

were found to be in possession of these $3.2 billion worth of Bitcoin, and they were in the process of laundering it over the past couple of years. They were only actually able to launder a little over $2 million of this $3.2 billion haul. So there's a lot to get into here. I guess my first thing is, it's not clear that these two actually stole the Bitcoin. What they're being accused of and what they're being charged with is money laundering. It's not the actual hack itself. So I guess my first question to you is, are these the two that actually stole the coins? It's unclear.

And it seems to be the case that they were the ones that were allegedly in charge of laundering the funds. they don't seem like criminal masterminds, and in fact a lot of the social media posts and amateur rap videos from this pair have been emerging of the last few days to general mirth and confusion. But the whole story is just absurd. I mean, you got these two individuals

that have a fortune of billions and billions of dollars they're apparently unable to spend it, and they spend their time making like parody rap videos and just hustling in the content game. So it turns out that sitting on a horde of Bitcoin, you know, isn't as sort of fun as it might seem. Like they lived apparently pretty modest lives. I mean, it turns out Bitcoin is a terrible way to launder money.

You've got $3.2 billion worth of Bitcoin, but it's tagged by every blockchain forensics company under the sun, and it's really difficult to move these assets around. You certainly can't move them into regulated exchanges is without drawing some questions. You can't just show up a coinbase as someone that has a W-2 income and say, here's a billion dollars worth Bitcoin. I'd like US dollars, please. It just doesn't work that way. Yeah, what's interesting is actually the blockchain is so transparent. A lot of people had the hacked coins tagged, and they noticed that they were moving in a different

way from usual. They weren't doing the standard pattern of going through mixers, and people suspected that that meant that the government had actually requisitioned the coins before the announcement came out. Which ended up being true. If I read this correctly, the government actually moved on the coins about eight or nine days ago, which was before the arrest. So that's another piece of this story that's pretty interesting. From the public filings here, it looks like the government got access to a cloud server that was controlled by one of the principals here, actually got the private key off of that cloud server, and then got a warrant to be able to seize the assets. And so So can you imagine being one of these people and just saying, oh, my God, like $3.2 billion worth

of my Bitcoin just evaporated. Did I just get hacked? Or did the government know about that? Is someone about to break down my door? That's got to be a weird feeling. And apparently they'd also enumerated all of their wallet addresses and transactions in a file stored on this cloud server, which is sort of like OPSEC 101, don't do that if you're trying to launder money.

Yeah, don't. You ever heard of a hardware wallet, right? Yeah. So, I mean, I don't know. If I had $3.2 billion of illicit Bitcoin, I don't know what I would do, but I probably wouldn't store the private keys on a Google drive. So there's a bunch of theories out here,

some of the best ones that I've heard. So let's say that you're the hacker back in 2016 and you have $70 million in change worth of Bitcoin. Let's say you are smart enough to know that it is going to be very difficult to launder that money. and you'd be far better off just finding someone on a dark net marketplace that's willing to actually pay you in, say, Monero or Zcash or something for that haul. And what would you sell that at? I mean, you stole that $70 million. Would you sell that for half a million, a million? A million

dollars even. I mean, it's unusable, really, if you have that view. Yeah. So I think that's a compelling theory that effectively the hacker realized that they had to offload the, hacked billions, which, as you say, was only worth 75 million at the time. It seems huge now, but it was a big deal at the time. I mean, it caused Bitcoin to crash when BitFinex was hacked. But, yeah, I think you probably want, you view it as kind of a toxic asset. You want to offload it, and you're willing to take a bath to do that. So, yeah, I think the suspicion is that the couple here were not the original hackers, and they had either bought the rights to the stolen Bitcoin, acquired it somehow or become unwitting accomplices and didn't appreciate the risks and the

difficulties of trying to longer this. I'm going to be interested to see if the facts of this hack end up coming out. So if they're not the hackers, then maybe we won't know this. But remember back in 2016, there was actually a lot of finger pointing because if I recall correctly, Biffinx had a BitGo implementation. And there was, you know, fingerprint, finger pointing from. each side really around, hey, your side was socially engineered. Your side didn't have 2FA. I don't really know where we landed on that, to be honest with you. Yeah. The other thing

I want to just make clear is, you know, and this happened after a recent case where certain amounts of Bitcoins were somehow seized by the U.S. government requisitioned. This isn't a case of the U.S. government using a secret quantum computer to, you know, break elliptic curve digital signatures. steal blockchains from Bitcoins from the blockchain solely with, you know, a public key. This is a case of old-fashioned investigative techniques, tracing expenditures, and then using subpoena to acquire control over a file held with a centralized company that was beholden to the U.S. government. Yeah, this actually, you didn't need to be necessarily a crypto expert really to solve

this one maybe if you take that lens. Yeah. And it appears that and so Matt Levine's article is interesting because the hackers did a bad job or the launderers did a bad job laundering the bitcoins, which you know causes it's just more evidence when people like to say, oh, Bitcoin is a terrible asset for money laundering. Thus, you know, criminals should avoid Bitcoin. The flip side of that and there's an interesting debate that was being had, I think, by Joe Wisenthal and others. is, well, if it's that bad for money laundering, can it really ultimately protect user privacy? And if it's fully transparent, then, you know,

maybe it's not a good monetary asset because it's too surveillable. And so there's, you know, it's a poison chalice just to say, well, you know, Bitcoin's fully transparent, thus, you know, no criminals would ever use it. The flip side is that, okay, well, then maybe that under's Bitcoin a less desirable monetary asset. Well, this goes back and without opening a can of worms back to should privacy be instantiated at the base layer. And I just don't see that ever

happening on Bitcoin. I think the auditability of the supply would prevent that from ever being realistic. But you could imagine a big push for a protocol upgrade around that. I don't think that would be successful. You could also imagine a world where wallets just by default put in tumblers and mixers, but I think that would probably have some negative ramifications, at least in the U.S., from a regulatory perspective. When your business is scaling up and your portfolio is growing, you don't want to waste precious time on manual crypto treasury management or settlement. Fireblocks can handle that for you with smart custody solutions for your crypto business,

along with industry leading security technology. Whether you're starting a new fund or expanding operations, Fireblocks offers scalable solutions for companies of any size. From day-to-day crypto transactions to the most advanced defy strategies, FireBlocks is here to give you a competitive edge. They'll take care of the back end so you can focus on the big picture.

Visit on the brink.com slash fireblocks to learn more. So the other interesting thing is that this seizure caused the Bitfinex LEO token to rally, which was one of the most interesting things around this. So to take you into a bit of history, in 2016, when the hack, occurred. Biffinax did a bail-in. They gave you something like 75 cents on the dollar for every you know, Bitcoin you held on the platform. And instead of, and to make their users whole,

they gave them a recovery right token, which was redeemable for 100 cents on the dollar. and they, I think, ultimately, through their own business model and revenues, were able to pay those out. So all of the assets that they deducted from user accounts, they were able to eventually make those users whole. And then in 2019, I believe, around the time of Tether being losing funds through, actually, sorry, around the time of the crypto capital hack of $850 million, when they commingled their reserves with Tethers,

BitFinex actually filled the hole by, you know, moving funds from Tethers Reserve to their own balance sheet. BitFinex then decided to fill that newly created hole with a LEO token sale. And among other things, the value of the LEO token, and this is getting so convoluted, was a claim on the recovery of the hacked bitcoins if they were recovered. And I don't think anyone expected them to ever be recovered.

And so incredibly, the saga has now come to a bit of a conclusion where many of the coins have been recovered. And LEO has rallied because it was like a call option on these ancient lost coins. That's, it's such a, hopefully people followed that, but that's the most, fascinating part about this once you look at the recovery because it's very much unlike Mount Gox and some of these other exchange failures where people were not made whole. The losers of these bitcoins actually were made more than whole as a part of this. And so BitFinex did right by their customers and they effectively repaid them based on the fee revenue of the business. Now I think there's

going to be a lot of lawyers that are spending a lot of paid time here trying to figure out if the people actually have claims on it or is it actually BitFinex that has claims? claims, does this Leo token? Is this airtight? So, you know, you might see some legal fights from BitFinex customers that actually think that they deserve those Bitcoins back. Right. It's such an interesting situation because the individuals that were stolen from, their loss was socialized and BitFinex gave them an IOU, which they eventually paid out. So in Bitcoin terms, all those individuals received a payout and were made whole. And so then the question is who, to whom is, are the returned bitcoins owed?

And, you know, I guess it's the LEO token holders in large part. This is where you just have to have a prudent executive that just says, look, we might need to nationalize these bitcoins. This is the strategic reserve for the United States going forward. Yeah, we should kickstart it. It looks like Russia is on the brink of nationalizing, you know, Bitcoin reserves. after having said very hostile things, they now seem incredibly pro-Bitcoins. So the U.S. really needs to fire back here. So that story will be ongoing, I'm sure, for the next few weeks.

But I cannot, someone needs to write a book about this, for sure. I mean, there needs to be more books about this industry. And this looks like it could be up there with the Silk Road in terms of how crazy it is. Yeah, I mean, the BitFinex story generally has just an obscene amount of twists and turns and just crazy intrigue. But this really takes the cake. I mean, just having two money launderers living in plain sight in New York, posting aggressively on the socials, you know, truly deranged videos. And, you know, with one of them maintaining a rap career, alter ego,

just an incredible thing to follow. And I think, you know, Ben Eiffurt had a funny tweet. He said, you get the supervillains that you deserve. Yeah, these are the ones we deserve as an industry. Yeah, just absolutely wild. Wild supervillains. All right, so moving on from that, it looks like there's some interesting developments in the SEC's case against Ripple. The judge who's overseeing that case for now has ordered the company to release a 2012 memo

that they apparently sought legal counsel on whether or not the issuance of XRP would constitute a securities issuance. And I think the SEC believes that this will be a bad thing for Ripple. if the memo says this looks like a security. But Ripple seems to actually think that this will be favorable to the company. So stay tuned. It looks like the price of Ripple rallied a bit on the news. So, I don't know, another interesting development. Yeah, that SAC versus Ripple case is providing a number of twists and turns.

And one of the Ripple strategies seems to be attempting to paint Ethereum as a security or to find contradictions in the SEC's treatment of Ethereum versus Ripple, which is an interesting approach. But, yeah, that case is ending up. It kind of reminds me of the SAC versus SAC Capital case, and we all know how that one ended. Well, that one, I believe, ended with a negotiated settlement that SAC Capital didn't really get smacked around all that much.

So we'll see Ripple certainly has some of the best lawyers in the business working on this. So we'll see what happens there. Sootheby's auctioning off another 104 crypto punks. Looks like it's going to be a 20 to $30 million haul. So strong market for NFT. Sotheby is definitely seeing that opportunity. Yeah, the punks have been selling off lately on the back of controversy from Larva Labs'

management of the platform, which is kind of impenetrable, honestly. But certainly, it looks like actually apes have now decisively flipped the punks is sort of the number on blue chip NFT. That happened really quick. There was a, the capital markets, by the way, around NFTs seem to be taking off. So Fortune had an article about one of our portfolio companies, Arcade.xyZ and how they're building out of financial services business around NFTs and doing loans.

So that market continues to grow. None of mine are going up though. That's the sad thing. None of mine seem to be participating in this bull run. I hate to see it. I want to talk about this New York Fed, Federal Reserve Bank and New York blog post about stablecoins, if you'll permit me. Let's do it. So they have this blog called Liberty Street Economics, and the title of this blog is the future of payments is not stable coins.

So you can already sort of guess how I'm going to react to this. I would say that your reaction would be the future of payments is stable coins. Well, it's not the only future of payments, but it's certainly a future for payments. And their critiques of stable coins are totally whack, for lack of better words. So the first one is stable coins tie up liquidity unnecessarily, which is such an unfair thing because first of all, these regulators are the ones that insist full reserve for e-money companies or effectively stable coins. And then they, you know, say, well, you're tying up treasuries unnecessarily.

So it's like which one do you want? Do you want fully backed? Because, you know, because they'd be the ones to turn around and critique Tether for not being fully back. So do you want fully backed stable coins? Or are you going to turn around and say, actually, this is an unnecessary use of treasuries. And, you know, you need federal deposit insurance and, you know, you need some reserve ratio that's less than one. So I think it's also ridiculous and it betrays an ignorance of the stable coin usage types to say that a treasury security that's backing a stable coin is an unnecessary use of liquidity because if you look at stable coins, they have an extremely high velocity. They have a very high turnover. And so you look at the velocity of something like a USDC, it'll be 50 to 100. And that means that unit is turning over 100 times in a given year. So to me, that strikes me as very efficient. Whereas if you look at what banks are doing, you look at the velocity of M2, it's very low. It's actually dropping. And, you know, banks are just not really that willing to lend these days. And so it seems completely unfair to say it's an unnecessary use of liquidity. They argue also regrettably that stable coins are risky and don't satisfy the no questions asked principle,

which is based on this paper by Gorton and Zhang, which we've covered in the past, they compare them correctly, I think, to historical private banknotes or free banknotes, but they misrepresent the free banking era, and they only talk about the sort of, so-called free banking area in the U.S. that wasn't really free. And they ignore other successful instances where historical privately issued banknotes were 100% fungible, even as far back as the 1700s. And, you know, you'd look to Scotland or Canada or Sweden for those examples. And then lastly, they say we already have an efficient form of digital money referring effectively to tokenizing bank deposits on a quote unquote DLT platform,

which is just hysterical because, you know, first of all, the reason stablecoins exist is because the bank sector didn't correctly serve the crypto industry. So stablecoins exist as a direct response to the failure of the banking sector to actually provide for these kind of consumers. And stable coins offer a very different value proposition from anything like a CBDC because they are private and they, you know, imitate the qualities of physical cash in the digital realm. Whereas every indication we have from the CBDC enthusiasts suggest that they'll be pretty surveilled. So it's just, it's shocking really that the New York Fed can make these claims about. stable coins that are so completely off base with apparently no pushback. But it seems to me

like a concerted campaign to delegitimize stable coins in order to push a CBDC. And I think it's very important to push back when we see them. This kind of reminds me of early internet arguments. And it's hard to jump into this and just hop right to programability. But to me, that's the big thing with stable coins. It's just that you can have financial apps. that are free and open source and that anyone can install stable coin integration. You can use US dollars in a fully programmable way without intermediaries.

And you can build smart contracts around certain occurrences. And eventually we're gonna get to things like machine payments and stable coins. There's gonna be a pretty wide surface area. It's hard to go there right away with people don't get it. And so it kind of reminds me of the early days of the internet where there was a kind of a push by some of the telephone companies to just own it.

And maybe if you had the view back then, that the internet was just for like reading the newspaper or maybe having an occasional correspondence that actually made sense. But it was really, the internet was about much more than that. It was about being able to build anything and distribute it to pretty much everyone in the world who had a connection. And so you wouldn't have been able to have that innovation if the telephone companies just controlled the pipes. And to me, that's kind of the same argument, different vantage point right now for stable coins. And if there's any wonders, about what is intended for the state alternative to stable coins, CBDCs.

Just listen to this quote from Augustine Carsten's, the general manager of the bank for international settlements. He says, our analysis for CBDCs, with cash, we don't know who is using $100 bill, but with CBDCs, the central bank will have absolute control that will determine the use. So, you know, it's not like you have to read between the lines or anything. every time we see analysis, any kind of white paper on CBDCs from a central bank,

it always talks about embedded KYC, embedded AML, embedded surveillance, embedded control mechanisms. So no government is going to create a form of truly digital cash that mirrors the qualities of physical cash. Barring that, the private sector has to step in, and that's what stable coins give us. So switching gears here briefly, crypto's in the news in Canada this week. So the Ottawa truckers, which is a big protest happening up in Canada this week, they were raising capital on GoFundMe, and they actually got de-platformed. And so they couldn't accept Fiat payments via credit cards. And kind of a crypto-to-the-rescue type of situation for these Ottawa truckers,

where now you're seeing cryptocurrency donations flow. And so it's a, you know, we talk a lot about politicized payment rails and no better example than the Go-FundMe incident this week. Yeah, and this is another instance where you just have to open your eyes and take the headlines and just pay attention to what's going on. It's clear that payment processors are increasingly political, and that's been the case for, you know, well over a decade now. And the problem starts at the source, you know, it ultimately comes down to the banks and to bank regulators that push policy on banks and political policy. We did a little miniseries on this, our Operation Choke Point

miniseries. And this isn't going to stop happening. As long as bank charters are few and far between, and banks are increasingly concentrated, it's going to be easier and easier to regulate them. And they, the banks can determine what the payment processors do. So there are crypto alternatives to go fund me. I think there's a Bitcoin one called Tallycoin. But that seems like the easiest thing in the world to do in such an obvious use case. I'd hope and expect to see more of that. I think we certainly will.

So I think that's it for the week. certainly a lot of deals this week. I think it will be a lot next week if all this chatter is true. So this industry continues to be a busy one. We'll leave it there. Yeah, this weekend is the Super Bowl. We've been promised quite a few crypto ads. I think FtX has one. I'm sure crypto.com has hired some A-list celebrity to say incomprehensible things. So keep an eye out for those crypto ads. Who do you got in the game? I got to go.

with Joe. I'm going Joe Barrow. I like that guy a lot. That's a guy who's got a lot of swag. Yeah, I think basically everyone wants the Bengals to win. So we're going to go with the Bengals. That's it for the week. Have a safe and healthy weekend. We will see you on Monday.