On The Brink with Castle Island - Weekly Roundup 04/16/21 ($COIN lists, NYT FUD, Hester's Safe Harbor 2.0, Gensler confirmed) (EP.207)

Episode Date: April 16, 2021

Nic and Matt return for another week of news and deals. In this episode:  Nic's feud with the NYT How Lysenkoism fits in Issues with the contemporary press Coinbase does the biggest direct listing of all time Is COIN a trojan horse for Bitcoin? Coinbase mafia? The best thing about Coinbase being public Gary Gensler finally confirmed as SEC chairman Our thoughts on Hester Pierce's token safe harbor 2.0 How do you do disclosures in token land? The former CIA director points out that Bitcoin has less illicit usage then believed Content mentioned:  SEC Commissioner Hester Pierce's Safe Harbor 2.0 Nic Carter, On Bitcoin, the Gray Lady Embraces Climate Lysenkoism This episode is brought to you by Sovryn, DeFi on Bitcoin.

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 concentrated 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 On the Brink. I'm Matt Walsh. And I'm Nick Carter. What a week for crypto. Coinbase going public. We've got you going to war with the New York Times.

It's just a very eventful week. Yeah, I'm constantly at war with the press. I don't want to be at war with them. I'm very peaceful, but they make me do it by publishing bad articles. So what choice do I have? So what happened? You woke up at 5.30 in the morning. you just popped open the New York Times?

Someone sent me this article overnight. I had read their NFT article, which was also egregiously bad. Turns out they wrote a pair of bad articles on energy consumption, one for NFTs, one for Bitcoin. And I'd read all of the academic articles that they were citing in this one article about Bitcoin's energy consumption. So I knew that they were basically invalid. And I don't believe that the author of that piece read the academic articles. I suspect and I allege that she did not. And so I couldn't let...

It doesn't look like she did. She didn't because if she'd read them, she would have known that they're just not really worthy, valid pieces of academia. In fact, the Mora at all paper from 2018, the one that stipulates the Bitcoin is going to cause two degrees of global warming. there are a number of papers specifically refuting that paper. She would have known that had she looked. She didn't look. Well, I appreciate you introducing Lycuncoism because I was not aware that this was the thing.

This was a political campaign waged against genetics and science-based agriculture in the mid-20th century. Yeah, so love a good Soviet reference here and there. So Lysankuism was basically this doctrine of fake science that the Soviets pursued, and they got so wedded to the fake genetics, like fictional genetics, that they put a bunch of scientists that were pursuing real science in jail and executed them. And so this is my tongue-in-cheek way of saying that our media establishment, unfortunately on the topic of Bitcoin, is embracing fake science.

And they're not putting us Bitcoin dissidents in jail just yet to protect their science, but I'm sure they will soon. Or they would if they could. I do think pushing back against these complete inaccuracies is important because so many people that are not familiar with cryptocurrencies will just read the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal. And they'll take this for fact that Bitcoin is melting down the planet. Yeah, and this is why we have to build our own platforms. Wink, wink, this is why you're hearing us on a podcast. right now, you can't trust these intermediaries to be the gatekeepers of, you know, epistemic gatekeepers, right? They don't have a special purchase over the facts.

They, in fact, they surrendered that role a long time ago. The New York Times fired their public editor, basically the person that was responsible for making sure the content was correct and in line and they're adhering to some sort of standard. They don't have that position anymore. So they basically forsook that role. And it's, up to us to challenge them on it. It's a free market of ideas out here. It does feel weird that New York Times has had a very anti-coinbase policy, I would say, for a while, or at least it seems that way to me. And I guess Bitcoin is thrown in with that hate. Yeah, no, I think Bitcoin is a casualty if they're animus against Coinbase here. And it's no coincidence that as Coinbase is getting

listed, biggest direct listing of all time, third most explosive public offering. of all time or initial public equity listing that the New York Times has some sour grapes. So not a coincidence to me. Well, kudos to you for hammering out a 20-minute medium read in a quick morning. So how many more of these do you have in you? I am doing some more formal work on the topic. More to come on that. Hopefully that will put the matter to rest forever.

and then I can retire from being the designated energy rebuttal guy, which is a role that I do not relish. I would like to stop being that person. Well, defend the, what's the saying? You've got to defend the wall. Exactly. So let's do a quick ad read. This episode is brought you by Sovereign.

That's Sovereign with a Y, as in Yankee. Sovereign is defy on Bitcoin, built on Bitcoin, secured by the Bitcoin Network. it lets you earn borrow and trade without giving up control your coins. Connect your wallet at sovereign.app. Start earning interest on your Bitcoin today with Sovereign's Lend facility. Pledge funds to liquidity pool, earn trading fees trade up to 5x leverage on the centralized exchange. That is sovereign.

Dot app. Sovereign with a Y. And check out that website. Like I always say, that is one of the best designed websites in the crypto game. It is. The aesthetic is quite good. Well, we had a busy podcast week. So you had Larry and Mike on from the block talking about their recent report on stable coins. Stable coins get a lot of attention on these airwaves. Yeah, I feel like they're kind of weirdly underrated. There's something north of $60 billion worth of stable coins floating around now, but people don't talk about it.

Why don't people talk about it? We talk about it. Yeah. Well, the block. talks about it. They put out a really good report and that was a good episode. And then later in the week, I sat down with Dimitri Takarov. He's the founder of copper. Copper is the trading and custody platform and they're doing great work onboarding just tons of institutions and have this MPC custody and trading trade execution platform that is really great. So enjoyed that episode as well. Yeah, it just shows how far the tooling and infrastructure has come in this industry that we have providers like copper, fire blocks, another really big name of the MPC space, just making it more

frictionless and secure in order to use these assets at scale. Well, let's hop into some deals and some fundraising. We'll talk about Coinbase a little bit later. That was not a fundraise since it was direct listing. But consensus is the first up. This is the Ethereum-based studio launched by Joe Lubin. they raised $65 million. This was from an investor group that actually included JPMorgan, MasterCard, and UBS, amongst others.

So congratulations to the consensus team. Next up, we have Virtue Poker, which is kind of in the name because it's a poker platform. On Ethereum, they raised $5 million via an initial decentralized exchange offering. That is an IDO, an IDEO. so we've moved on here. If you didn't like ICOs, you're going to love IDOs. Yeah, new ICO format just dropped the IDO. Next one up is step finance.

This is a trading dashboard. It's built for the Solana blockchain. They raised $2 million from Alameda research in three commas capital. Three commas capital. What a name. Trace commas. In this market, it's going to be four comments soon. for trace commas i think um there's a infamous scene in silicon valley regarding three commas

and the three comma club anyway moving on next up we have epic blockchain they are canada based asic manufacturer there is 7.5 million dollars in a series a so many financing's happening in the mining space these days mining is very hot right now um and the last one up is Gitcoin. This is a platform for public blockchains to launch bounty programs. They raised $11.3 million from Paradigm, IDO, and electric capital amongst others. All right. So there is the other listing event of the week. Everybody was talking about it. Very exciting. Coinbase, of course, ticker, coin. Great ticker. Apparently the ticker was the key reason they went with NASDAQ. of NICEC.

So NASDAQ was able to get it to them, right? I don't really understand how the Winklevoss twins gave this one up. Maybe they just didn't, because they filed for the ETF under coin. They were meant to have coin. Shouldn't you just be like Shamath and you shouldn't you just lock all this down like years ahead of time? There's actually going to be a fair amount of ticker chat today on this episode. There's some other ticker dynamics that we're going to be covering in this episode.

There's a lot going on with these tickers. kind of, it's like domain names. You need to just buy them. They're just real estate. Original NFTs, the tickers. Well, at the time of this recording, I think this is trading at about $64 billion market cap. I believe if these market cap figures are right, they're kind of broken yesterday. And there's, I guess there's a lot to talk about on Coinbase. I guess my first takeaway is that just what a watershed moment for the industry. It's been a long, run. Coinbase is one of the oldest companies in the industry. And I think it is just a defining moment for this industry. Certainly puts it on a global stage that is very relevant. And I think

you're going to see a lot of institutional interest in Bitcoin and crypto assets. A lot of pools of of capital that previously were dismissive of this will now be forced to have an opinion and forced to pay attention to this company. And so I do think that this is a big watershed moment. Yeah, that's my big takeaway too. There's a lot of firms and analysts out there that don't trust Bitcoin because it has no cash flows. But Coinbase has cash flows in abundance. So you can value it. It's a stock.

There's discounted cash flows. So it's like a Trojan horse, I think, almost to start to understand Bitcoin better because to understand Coinbase, you've to understand Bitcoin. And so now you're going to see a lot of these analysts start to try and grok. Coinbase and by extension, Bitcoin. So I do think it is a payload through which an understanding of Bitcoin will be attained by a lot of these firms that have never had any Bitcoin exposure before. It's just a very convenient package to start to understand the asset class. Yeah, I totally agree. The other thing is I think a lot of credit here to Brian Armstrong. Certainly this has been a controversial guy, you know, a lot of Bitcoin people,

don't like him because of some of his posture during the block size wars. But think about the things that Brian Armstrong has been through as the CEO of this and founder of this company. I mean, he's had some very, very high profile senior management team departures, co-founder, departure, CTO, you know, head of institutional. He's had several 80% drawdowns in crypto prices. He's, you know, almost lost the bank account, which would have been a complete fatal blow to the company.

You know, he went through that block size war. which is crazy. Wrong side. Losing side of the block side. Yeah, I mean, but so were a lot of people. Uptime issues, like Coinbase going down, kind of fail well stuff. He's had those employee relations issues. He's had a lot of challenges.

And I think he's been through the fire way more than a lot of CEOs have been and has been doing this with tremendous amount of public scrutiny, you know, all along the way. And so this has to feel great for him just to kind of cross over. and to be one of the most celebrated public offerings of all time, really. This is good for him. Yeah, literally the biggest direct listing of all time. Given the market action, I wonder if people are going to reconsider the direct listing model after this and whether the theory would be that an investment bank would have priced the stock more efficiently.

But I really see no issue with just letting the market clear. and not declaring some sort of initial price. I'm a big fan of the direct listing. I mean, you're giving up, you know, if you can do the direct listing, if you can pull it off. And with a company with the recognition of Coinbase, what do you need the investment banker to run a formal IPO process? And, you know, they're not working for you as much as they are,

working for the large allocators that are trying to get, you know, IPO shares and experience that first day pop. So I think they played this exactly right. And yet you really have to zoom out here, I think, in terms of what this could look like a couple years from now. Coinbase has actually been really strong in terms of making some acquisitions that have benefited the core business. So think about Earn.com, think about Tagomi, think about Bison Trails. And you'd have to think that this is just going to be the beginning now that they have this public currency. They can go out and acquire people, not to mention the fact that they're quite profitable to begin with.

And so, you know, this could end up being a really interesting company as it relates to entering adjacent markets where they could really be dominant as well. Yeah, there's this interesting literature on whether it's even worth it to go and be public anymore because capital is so abundant that there doesn't seem to be much of a scarcity of capital, especially not at the growth stage, late stage venture. but despite all that, I think it is still easier. You do get more leverage in terms of acquisitions if you're publicly traded and you can offer liquid public stock in an acquisition. I think they'll just have more ability to go out and buy things now. I mean, just think about how many different things they could go and do here. I mean, this is a, so this is a dominant franchise, but it's very much a retail and institutional trade. based revenue profile.

But think about all the different pockets of this industry where Coinbase doesn't play now where they could play. Some of those are going to be trading based revenues, you know, could be derivatives. They could make stronger moves into asset management, stronger moves into custody. They could make stronger moves into Prime, stronger moves into Defi. I mean, there's really endless possibilities here. So be a fun job to be over at Coinbase writing checks right now. Yeah, I mean, they're going to have to diversify their revenue profile.

It really is largely retail, retail trading volume related at present, even though they've got high institutional trading volumes, that they don't have a high take rate on those. What do you make of the possibility here that we're going to see a lot of capital flowing into the startup and crypto asset ecosystem on the back of this? Oh, yeah. I mean, you always see this. This is why people talk about Mafias is once there's an acquisition, people that had early equity have enough capital to go ahead and become investors or to capitalize their own ideas.

So there is an interesting middle ground with Mafias. You don't want the outcome to be too good because then the early founders, the early investors or the early employees make too, not that, you know, this. I'm going to sound silly saying this. They make too much money such that they're sort of complacent. They don't have the drive to go out and build something new. I'm not saying that's universally applicable. But in the literature around mafias, there's definitely a Goldilocks size of the exit such that it's conducive to the best mafia. The weird confounding factor is that this is crypto.

And anyone that's been active in this industry for a long time, certainly all of the coinvace or early employees will just have had exposure to, Bitcoin and Ethereum. So in some sense, this exit is actually almost less momentous, I would say, because early employees are already presumably crypto wealthy. And so they were already, we'd already seen so many Coinbase alums go on and start their own businesses and start funds, precisely because they had that financial freedom due to Bitcoin and Ethereum. Yeah, yeah. Well, I definitely think you're going to start to see a lot of capital flowing here. I mean, there are some unbelievable gains here from early investors and early employees. So we'll expect to see it. And that'll be a great thing.

Now, I guess my last thought on Coinbase is I continue to think that the big narrative here that not a lot of people are talking about is, like, how did the retail brokerages in the wirehouse banks completely whiff on this? will there be board meetings where the topic is how the hell did we miss this look at the size of this business look at how many customers they have look at the quality of the customers and the types of assets that they have on these platforms and how did we not make a move here why did we ignore bitcoin and ethereum for so long well they're not moving they're still not moving i mean maybe they are behind the scenes but um 54 million id verified customers up from 42 million a quarter ago. $200 billion of assets on the platform,

half of which are retail. Those are staggering numbers. Staggering. It's, you know, it's really criminal for some of these legacy financial firms to have just whiffed on this, but they did. Here's my favorite thing about Coinbase doing public.

The quarterly disclosures, yes. I love the square disclosures, the Silver Gate. quarterly earnings. I put them on my calendar. I'm sure a lot of people do. Maybe it's just me. I love publicly traded companies that work in the crypto space because you get such good high quality information on a quarterly basis. You can track adoption, uptake, trends, generally. It's a totally abundant source of information. And now Coinbase, the largest brokerage in the whole industry is going to be producing quarterly disclosures. Yeah, that's a great point. I'm looking

forward to reading those too. So Gary Gensler was finally confirmed slim margin to be the chairman of the SEC. So congrats to Gary. I mean, that takes forever, huh? Yeah, I was pretty shocked by that. I didn't realize. I mean, we're in April. Come on. Like, what were they doing? I don't understand the machine rule of politics at all. This was something I thought that was just sort of snap your fingers and it happens, but there's a whole process. We still don't have a new CFTC commissioner either. What was Gensler doing for the past few months? Was he hanging out? Browsing crypto Twitter, possibly. But yeah, we don't have a new Comptroller either. There's actually a very pitched battle happening for the Comptroller seat. That's an exciting narrative to follow. Well, I'd love to see

some crypto-friendly people at the CFTC and the OCC because those are important posts? Yes, they are. Well, Gary, I don't know if we can call him crypto-friendly, but he's certainly extremely erudite and learned when it comes to crypto-taught class on it. Obviously, understands the full asset class very well. I am pretty optimistic for his tenure. But that said, it also means that he's going to have a very trenchant, you know, and piercing view into the industry. It's unlike that he'll dismiss it altogether. I'm sure a lot of people

hope that the SEC continues to sort of not pay attention to crypto. I don't know how likely that is. Well, so the two places they have to pay attention. One is the Bitcoin ETF because you have some really strong applications. And the second, I think, is the status of token projects. And so that gets us to the other news of the week from the SEC. So SEC Commissioner Hester Purse has released a modified version of her proposed safe harbor for token projects. And she did this on GitHub, which I think is so cool. So it's Safe Harbor 2.0 and it runs through the time limited exemption for token projects. What do you think?

Yeah, I mean, talk about a regulator that understands how to speak the language of crypto using version control, using GitHub to disseminate this. Hester took feedback from a bunch of crypto folks. I remember seeing Gabrielle Shapiro wrote some reactions to her first version of this. And I believe she took some of that into account. I mean, it's very cool to see this iterative process playing out. I honestly have no sense of the odds of this proposal actually becoming SEC policy. That's hard for me to sort of triangulate.

But it's very, very encouraging to see this happening in the overall. I mean, it's clear that something is going to have to happen one way or the other on tokens, either an enforcement of current rules, which would be super onerous if done by the letter of the law, or path of least resistance, which creates some pathway to a safe harbor for these tokens to become, to bring them in line with how capital markets work in this country with disclosures and investor protections. I don't know how we get from there to there from here, but this seems like one sort of plausible pathway. I don't know that I see another pathway, to be honest with you,

because if you read the strict interpretation of Howie, I think a lot of these things would be considered to be securities at the token distribution event, and there's no way that they can get to the point where they're sufficiently decentralized unless they were just dropped on the world pseudonymously and people started mining them or something, which obviously is not possible anymore.

So without a safe harbor, I'm not sure you can get it. And this one seems pretty sensible. And like you, I have no idea what the politics are in terms of getting something like this past. But what's proposed here is a three-year exemption for projects to prove that they're no longer securities, basically. And so there would be a pretty significant disclosure regime. So it would be, you know, who's involved in the project.

it would be the investors source code, a transaction history, a narrative description of the token economics is something she's asking for, talk about how governance work, how changes to the protocol can happen. A block explorer is explicitly asked for, which I think is really cool. And I'd like to explicitly ask for more block explorers because I think we need better ones. Development plans, details on the team, details on the relevant token holders. So this is some really detailed disclosures, related party transactions. And at the end of the three years, there's basically this idea of an exit report.

And actually, I should have said along the way, you're filing updates to the SEC, I think, every six months. And then you have this exit report, which talks about network maturity, talks about quantitative measures for decentralization, which, you know, who knows, those will be interesting. people will try to game those. And then you basically have a readout here, and they decide whether or not you're a security or not. And if you are a security, then you need to register as a security. And there's some language in there about trading platforms

would have a six-month grace period to delist you, which I think makes a ton of sense, which tells me that trading platforms will be very active here in listing tokens that are going through this safe harbor if it does get passed. So I read this, and I think it makes a lot of sense. Yeah, it's really fascinating to think about, I mean, it's weird because

letter of the law says the vast, vast majority of these tokens are securities, people buy them not for consumption purposes. They don't intend to use the token, you know, either as intended or as, you know, some application token for the most part. They are, you know, buying these things for investment purposes with the expectation that some sort of effectively centralized team will, you know, add value to the token. And they'll make a return. I mean, that's just a fact. But then the question is how do we, you know, make that reality consistent with the body of laws or at least the interpretation of those laws by the SEC?

this is one interesting model. The thing is that we have all these pseudo equity tokens. If you remember in 2017, every token called itself a utility token because they didn't want to bake in cash flows, dividends, any notion of capital return. They didn't want to bake in any notion of governance either. So they stripped out all the things that made equity good and useful. And so there's this horrible weird tightrope block where they pulled out all the things that basically make a token worth owning or a stock worth owning, right?

Governance and rights over cash flows, that's the reason people buy equity, ultimately. They rip those things out, and then you're left with this husk, the utility token. And there was just sort of no purpose for it. I mean, people still made money on them, but, you know, they didn't have any, they didn't offer any rights or assurances or cash flows of really, any sort. Then over time, things changed. And there wasn't really any specific, you know, regulatory decision that triggered this, but we've seen it now. There are a lot more tokens offering explicit cash flows, whether it's a buy and burn program, a literal dividend, other types of

capital fees occurring to specific pools, other types of capital return. And obviously, explicit governance rights. I mean, half of these things are called governance tokens to today. So they've come to mirror the properties of equity in a sort of Ersatz way. I mean, equity gives you a lot more and you have much better and well-understood rights than the rights you're getting from these tokens. So we've had this convergence with equity. And so no longer these projects like pretending that they're not offering you explicit rights. I mean, the whole point is that when you buy a token, you're getting some right or ability to

influence the system and you're getting some financial rent from owning that thing. So we've converged to equity. And so if anything, I think it's a harder sell to say, oh, this is a new breed of thing that's totally distinct from equity because it looks like it's come to resemble equity more and more. So I mean, one solution I proposed would be a distinct set of disclosures. I mean, I think Hester is getting at it here, but a distinct set of disclosures that takes notice of the fact that there's just a different set of informational disseminations they need to make that, you know, are idiosyncratic to crypto. But honestly, treat these things a bit like equity. I don't know how you square that circle, but there's clearly

a lot of pseudo equity floating around in the crypto space today. I guess this, the way I read the safe harbor is that's kind of what this would be. It wouldn't be calling it equity. but it would be a there would be a disclosure regime here, and then there would be a decision whether or not it actually is equity, and then that would be deemed to be a security. And if not, it would be this decentralized project theoretically at the end of the three years. So maybe that's where it gets to. I will say if something like this doesn't happen,

I have a real question on the viability of a number of these things. I mean, I don't see a world where you can thread the needle without having this safe harbor. Token distribution events are really difficult to imagine under the existing securities law. Yeah, I guess the point I was making is that, you know, I don't know if decentralization should be that delineation between, hey, this project is valid to pursue under U.S. securities laws or it's not valid. because what I'm seeing in market is a bunch of projects that are effectively centralized, but they exist sort of on-chain. I mean, they've got a team administering a contract, and that contract accumulates fees. It has to remain centralized because you're talking about maintaining some critical application,

making sure it stays bug-free and reacting to crises and managing oracles. You need a team to administer that without question. very few of these have gone the sort of full decentralization route and so i kind of want to bite that bullet and say well there's a valid approach here which is a pretty centralized team administering you know a set of contracts on chain which are profitable and you know you can extract rents from those things i don't know how that would fit into this template though yeah and i guess where i struggle is if you did that route where you, you know, you had these things actually become securities and you said just disclose and do, you know, just treat them as if they're equities or something,

it just doesn't work in terms of how these functions, these networks work, right? Like if a SIA coin transaction was a securities transaction, every time you provisioned file storage, you're like making a securities transaction. It would never work. Well, we'll see what happens here. but Hester continues to really impress and went on bankless actually this week and talked about D5, which just you don't see that from a lot of SEC commissioners. Yeah, I mean, the definition of good faith engagement, always, always impressive from her.

Did you see this other story this week? This was actually, so the Crypto Council for Innovation, which was formed with Fidelity and Coinbase and Square and a bunch of others. It's a independent research group. They put out a paper. It was actually authored by Michael Morel, who used to be the acting director of the CIA. And it really called into question a lot of what Janet Yellen's been talking about and what the FADF has been talking about.

So basically he wrote this paper and he concluded that the broad generalizations of Bitcoin being used at scale and illicit finance are very overstated. And he also called out. that blockchain forensic analysis has actually been a very highly effective tool for crime fighting. And so I thought that this was a great take, not surprisingly, I thought that. But I'm glad that people like Michael Morel, who has tremendous stature and the intelligence and political community was able to express these views. Yeah. We're gaining political allies that I would have never expected. I mean, the interesting thing is that what he's saying is just grounded in fact.

And what Janet Yellen said was not factual, factual. I mean, that's just all there is to it. We have data on this. That's the nature of blockchains. Chainalysis has done some good work. They've showed that the share of Bitcoin that's involved in illicit activity declines over time. as Bitcoin commerce has just become more rich and generalized. It's less niche and less index to stuff like the Silk Road. We're talking low single digit percent, you know, usage of Bitcoin for illicit purposes. So you can find estimates on how much the dollar and other major fiat currencies

are used for illicit purposes. the interesting conclusion is that those sovereign currencies are used more for illicit finance or money laundering on a relative and an absolute basis than Bitcoin. Definitely more on an absolute basis, obviously, but also more on a relative basis. So again, the data is there. The data is there. This isn't an argument of opinions. There's no normative debate here. It's simply the facts. that's it for the week are you doing any more headshots this weekend i actually did do two professional photos shoots last week so yes i have more headshots why did you do two i wanted to diversify so one was casual one was more professional it's uh you're getting a lot of uptick on twitter

with those headshots yeah i don't know if i want to be the main character on crypto twitter maybe someone else can take that from me now um next week we have Casa. So we will be talking to Nick Newman. They're doing very well. Unsurprisingly, people's wealth goes up. They want to manage their keys. And I don't know if we have any others in the pipeline right now, actually. We've got a couple more in the pipeline. We're adding more to the pipeline every day. Well, we will see you on Monday.