The Breakdown - Crypto Can’t Accept That It’s a Subculture | The Breakdown | Full Interview

Episode Date: February 12, 2026

Paul Dylan-Ennis joins David Canellis to discuss decentralization theater, public goods, and the growing tension between crypto’s ideological roots and market-driven reality. – Follow Blockworks Research: https://x.com/blockworksres Follow Paul: https://x.com/post_polar_ Follow David: https://x.com/dcanellis — Get top market insights and the latest in crypto news. Subscribe to Blockworks Daily Newsletter: https://blockworks.co/newsletter/ —-- Timestamps: (02:04) Token Economy and WEF Essay Comparison (08:15) The Gap Between Usage and Price (17:45) Public Goods and Market Incentives (26:57) Future of Crypto and Final Thoughts - - Disclaimer: Nothing said on The Breakdown is a recommendation to buy or sell securities or tokens. This podcast is for informational purposes only, and any views expressed by anyone on the show are solely our opinions, not financial advice. Host and guests may hold positions in the companies, funds, or projects discussed.

Crypto is a subculture that cannot accept that it's a subculture. The message has always been that we're just on the precipice of the cusp of mainstream adoption. It's very hard to convince other people to be users when you yourself don't use the product. It's like, yeah, you should use crypto while you can use decentralized social. Do you use decentralized social? No, I use centralized social. I'm talking about crypto quite a bit. There's like a lot of metacometry about crypto, but at what point am I using it?

And the true today is that if I am using it, it's almost certainly in a defy capacity. Welcome to The Breakdown. I'm your host David Canellis. The following conversation flows on from a recent episode revolving around the value proposition of tokens and how the market is demanding more as the Clarity Act works its way through US Congress. For the best of your experience, it's probably worth going back and checking it out if you missed it and don't forget to hit like and subscribe so you don't miss anymore. And with that out of the way, let's start the show. Nothing said on the breakdown is a recommendation to buy or sell securities or tokens.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and any views expressed by anyone on the show are opinions, not financial advice. Host and guests may hold positions in the company's, funds, or pro, projects discussed. Welcome everybody to The Breakdown. I'm your host, David Canales. With me is my very special guest, Paul Dylan Ennis. Thank you so much for joining us, Paul. Very happy to be here. Cool. Yeah, I've wanted to kind of, I really wanted to get you on because, you know, in my head, you kind of represent the solar punk community in a way, at least, at least in the crypto context. So like, I wonder like how you responded to this framing of aligning the token

economy or even like a theory and with the world economic forum thing about like Ida Orkin's essay of you'll learn nothing and you'll be happy. Like how do you feel about that kind of comparison? It's an unexpected comparison. That essay is a it's a fascinating one because it's lived memetically through this conspiratorial life. And it was fascinating to hear what the actual origin of the story is. When it comes to. to crypto itself, I tend to think about, one of the things I think is really interesting in your discussion is this distinction between the asset, like what I would call the native asset or what I think you call the network asset. So we're talking about layer one blockchains

like Bitcoin, Ethereum and Salada. And we have this token. It has a purpose within the system. And also we've got the associated bearer rights there as well, which is I think is also important to mention this is something people overlook, that the public key cryptography securing of assets is an intrinsic part of what we do. That is philosophically essential to the autonomy, sovereignty aspect and gets overlooked, I think, quite often. But at the same time, it doesn't give you, I guess, what you're extending into, which is this question of, okay, it gives you positive freedoms at a philosophical level or political level. But at this point in the industry's history,

people are interested in more. They're demanding more. They want to share in the revenue. They want to have a sense that holding a token isn't simply a bet on the overall performance of that asset. So the fortunes of Bitcoin, Ether, and Solana. And you follow along as a spectator, or spectator participants, you're just watching,

and then you don't really have a say in what's going on. You're just observing. And as we've seen over the last, say, a little while, that effectively puts you in a very passive position relative to the market, and that's not a good position to be in in crypto. It's a very topsy-turvy, volatile world. And then that world I would almost segment away, because for me, that's the realm of true decentralization.

So when we talk about decentralization proper, as in the foundations of crypto culture, let's say, then the question of decentralization should generally be unquestioned, I think. And the asset that's associated with it clearly has an important role in this, because the incentivization of the entire security consensus mechanism is also related to that asset. So a native asset has all these different roles and properties that make them very distinct and also unique. And they don't really have a correlate in what came before. They're not as easily. You kind of make an easy analogy as you can with, say, if we move down the decentralization, centralization spectrum,

and we begin talking about the other types of tokens. So you also talk about governance tokens. This very interesting triad, we love the triads, like the blockchain, Trilema. And then this more recent version of the labs being the entity that does the shipping and the code, we've got the doubt itself, the token holders, who may or may not have whales who can sway governance votes, very usually do. And then also the foundation, which is the forward-facing entity, the legal entity, which pays people, interfaces legally, etc., etc. And when it comes to that aspect of the world, I think we have reached a point where people are happy not to lean so heavily into the decentralization aspect. Or at least they've been so blackpilled on decentralization theater that they've switched over and said, well, if we're just going to be effectively like companies, then we should just more or less lean into that as much as possible.

So most DALs that I look at today are more decentralized autonomous corporations. They feel like that original term, so the term DAC came before Dow. So that was the Larimer's original introduction. In fact, he was talking in relationship to Bitcoin itself and the security budget. So yeah, so I think that that's in that context. So if we're talking about a governance token and a Dow, then you're less of a, like, you're not talking about something as vast, the market cap of Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana, where maybe you can justify talking about some kind of economic activity which justifies

the blockchain itself. The experience is closer to following a company, being a stakeholder in a company. And so I think there is justification in people making it demand that as a token holder where the, let's say, the long-term story isn't as dramatic and large scale and political and social, that maybe we need some other kind of mechanism, which rewards me for being somebody who has remained loyal to your particular project. And the loyalty part is important here as well, because if you're a Bitcoin-Silana Ethereum holder,

you're usually a believer in some way. There's some more, like often, well, you might just be a pure D-GEM, But I think to be interested in those decentralized, highly decentralized chains, then you probably have some ideological aspect to you. It may be small, it may be blurry, it may be vague, but I think there's something to that. Loyalty to the blockchain itself, to layer one is usually stronger. But loyalty to AVE or loyalty to Uniswap is more fickle.

And I can imagine, like if you're a token holder, they're switching between those two tokens, you know, won't feel as devastating. Like you're not, you know, an AVE loyalist or a uniswap loyalist. And I think, yeah, so if I was leading a contemporary decentralized autonomous organization, moving in this direction, I would take seriously this incentivization, revenue sharing structure. It's so difficult because, like, you know, instinctively, and it's just like a product of like such high market caps for all of these chains and stuff like that, that we instinctively want giant valuations and, you know, really good looking charts that go all the way up and to the right to say that these chains or even these projects are worthwhile.

But in effect, you could have a situation where you do have these public good networks that have all of these smaller public goods or communities rallying around them that are inherently so small. a niche that they don't attract a lot of cash flow and they don't attract a lot of revenue, but they are still incredibly worthwhile and they do need some kind of larger decentralized chain ecosystem to really exist how they want to exist. But what is the incentivization there apart from that these communities can exist and they do exist? And like I think that's kind of where a lot of it is stuck because you do, it happens with say like decentralized social media and creator coins and stuff like that, that you do want to incentivize participation in communities

with something monetary, but that injects all these sorts of problems that kind of bastardize what the community was meant to be in the first place. And a lot of instances that those communities outright reject anything to do with those kind of financializations. Like, how do you swear all of those things while still maintaining like an ideological connection to what crypto is actually right now. This is a difficult one because from my perspective, the DGEN culture,

for let's say during the meme coin era, was on the ascendant. And effectively, if you look at crypto as a concentric circle, cyphur punk and solar punk and regent would be sort of a little circle. and then surrounded by the DGents. And they took over for a while and they effectively argued for this pure financialization of crypto, that actually, when you really look at it, it is just a casino

that we built this outrageously complicated casino. And this casino is even more excessive than the one that we were birth from. Now, the interesting thing is that we were, we originate from this reaction to a failed financial crisis of 2008, but not. Nonetheless, at the end of it, and I guess this would be almost a Greek tragedy that we become much worse than the people. We became the sit over time.

And that seemed for a while to be the direction. Like that that's how things are going to go. And at least in Ethereum, which I can speak the most on, this also came with this idea that we should try to corporatize more. we should lean into the more business energy, we should see itself more and more as an industry as opposed to a movement. So the movement, the radicalization part, the self-sovereignty,

the core values of decentralization, permissionlessness, credible neutrality would go in there as well. All of these values were seen as in the way of efficiency. So this would also have come from the threat of Salana. So Salana is the younger, cooler version of it. Ethereum, it's doing tricks on a skateboard and embarrassing the old Ethereum's. And it gets things done faster. It's like move faster, the kind of classic Silicon Valley, effective accelerationist

way of seeing things today. And like one of the reactions in the Ethereum community was, well, we'll do that, right? We'll become more pragmatic. So the Ethereum Foundation adopts this more pragmatic mindset. So the cypherpunks are on one side, so like Shaway and Vitalik, etc. And then we get more pragmatists in. So Tamash comes in, he's the figure ahead of the Ethereum Foundation that represents this more pragmatic strain, which is effectively the strain, which says that we should be more, let's say, favorable to institutionalization. We should understand the market forces more, and we should also focus on ETH, the asset. The real message of that whole populist revolt was that ETH is underperforming. It's also under threat from Solana. And, the real message,

we need to imbibe this more, yeah, this more pragmatic mindset. And then I think what you've seen over the last year is that when you do that, right, that's something that has been done. It's been incorporated into like the Ethereum world and crypto more broadly. And in a way like DGEN has slipped away, DGEN has actually been overtaken by a more mature mindset. So people begin talking in the terminology of the business school. So from my perspective, I see people adopting this language that is familiar to me from, say, people in the management department, the economics department, but I never heard crypto people use them before. So revenue is a good example. And even like token value accrual is a kind of word that, say, an economics professor would be like, oh, that's the kind of thing I want. Why haven't you mentioned that before? That sounds like something we could work with. And like all of this has been brought in, but we haven't seen the, the, the,

the explosion, the effects, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the outcomes that would have been expected by becoming more pragmatic. So, I think one of the things that's worth stating about this, becoming more institutional, becoming more pragmatic is that we should no longer be looking to say the cypherpunks and the solar pumps to explain why is Ethereum not performing or why is Solana not performing. And now the question should be turned more the business people, the more the pragmatic people and say, like, now that we've become more like the traditional business world and we're talking in this kind of language, why has this not managed to make Eath go to 10K? So that's at least one perspective that I think is worse.

There's a certain point where you have to, you're no longer the person pushing against the elite, but you are actually the message. It's like the way Trump still talks about the elites, even though he's the president of the United States, for example. And so that's, that's one aspect of it that I think is important. And then one interesting element of this is that you see recently, at least in Ethereum core development, that the cypherpunks, during that quiet phase, so while everybody is focused on the market for the last year, the pragmatist, the token element of it, that they were still focused on public goods, that the protocol gills still spent.

It spends its time, funding developers. That Vitalik is focused on things that are maybe not that exciting, like a fossil and different ZK EVM long-term kind of goals. But that depends on the goodwill of, that depends on having a certain, what I consider like the inalimitable core of cypherpunk, that there is always a group of people who are disinterested in markets, which is now seen as almost like a character flaw, that you're not interested in that, that kind of thing.

But those are the people who keep the enterprise running under the hood. They're the meme, the classic meme of the internet being run on different things. And it's like one guy made some open source project back in 1980 or something. Like that, that's what public goods in Ethereum and Solana tend to be. How they get funded? That's a sad story. I think that there was a growing interest for a long time. in Ethereum culture of this like regent public goods mindset.

And this, they used the language of Eleanor Ostrom. So they were talking about philosophers and sociologists. Now I was fascinated by this because this was native to the Ethereum community. It came from people like Kevin Awaki, et cetera. And the, like the experiment that they engaged in with projects like Gekhorn, retroactive public goods funding in optimism. My view of this is that, like the way people talk about, them as failures because that, you know, they were abused. So they were abused to some extent.

But I tend to see this emphasis that we do this in crypto all the time is we look at the worst part, like the worst people, and we only emphasize them and we ignore all of the good parts. And that's actually what other people do to us as well from the outside externally. They look at the San Bankman-Fried and they don't know who Vitalik or Kevin O'Walky are, for example. And so we, like, I feel like abandoning public goods was to punish all the people who built legitimate things with that public goods funding because there were some actors, a small amount of those actors who are misbehaving. So, yeah, so I think it's to our detriment to have lost this aspect of funding. We're at the point where it's, Vitalik isn't personally interested, then the public good is probably going to go unfunded. Quick break before we continue, Blockworks's flagship institutional conference,

Digital Assets Summit is back in New York City this March 24th through 26th. Das brings together allocators, asset managers, policy makers and the builders actually shaping crypto's next phase. Not the hype cycle, but the infrastructure and capital behind it. This year's summit represents over $4 trillion in assets under management, with more than 150 speakers and 750 institutions in attendance. Speakers include leaders from firms like BlackRock and Franklin Templeton, senior policymakers and regulators.

Don Wilson of DRW will be there, alongside core crypto infrastructure teams across Bitcoin, Ethereum and stable coins. If you're looking for a serious institutional grade view of where digital assets are headed in 2026, this is where that conversation happens. Use code breakdown 200 for $200 for $200 off. Learn more at blockwurst.co slash events. Now, back to the show. Yeah, it's so difficult because I know exactly what you're talking about.

There are almost endless stories of not even just in Ethereum, but all these tiny, not tiny, but all of these smaller satellite chains and networks that all have backstories in their own histories and all have subplots and there has been really good things happen even in chains that have failed or, you know, I mean, and just to go back to like, you know, decentralized social, like it's also like steam it was so long ago. Like there's a whole history of that, you know, and so it's, there doesn't seem to be like, to me personally, that seems like some of the most work, like especially about these public goods, funny, like maybe you're referencing like

Gitcoin and like all of the great things that Bitcoin had done that seems to be like as most pure and honest to the idealist of what blockchains could do and even just more even specifically crypto but there is no real way

to see how the market even cares about that stuff which is it's just so difficult because like I mean you know I don't really want to go on about price but, you know, it's, you know, things have turned. And at some point, we're looking around wondering where are all the new investors coming from. And that's, it's not a new thought, but that's not the right way of looking at it, because you need users that aren't really interested in whether they make money or not,

which that in itself is a privilege to be able to spend time and energy doing something if you're not going to get anything in return. So it's very difficult to wade through this because you do want, you know, for the example about Dow's and communities and those kind of initiatives, like you do want people interacting with those things honestly to the point that public goods all of a sudden make more economic sense for the Ethereum network to focus on. Because if you do have a lot more users, there might not be financial use cases, but at least they're interacting. with the chain. They're paying fees. So you need to be able to inspire real usage without having that usage depend on whether or not they're going to be financially benefited from that usage. And I feel like we're stuck. I don't know how to get through that, apart from wait for the pendulum to swing and, you know, more time to pass before the people who lost money in 2018 to

2021, they're really old now. And now we have you young people to come along and try it all over again. Like, are you thinking about stuff like? Yeah, I definitely think about it. It's, I mean, there's a few things that I think are worth mentioning here. One is this, like a little phrase that I like to show out is that crypto is a subculture that cannot accept that it's a subculture. So one of the little flaws that we have is we've always had this promise.

And I remember this promise going all the way back to Bitcoin, early days, going to blockchain, not Bitcoin, DELs, DFI, NFTs, all these various ICOs as well. And the message has always been that we're just on the precipice or the cusp of mainstream adoption. So there is always this mainstream adoption that that's out there for us to finally land on. And I think that that did happen. I believe like the FDX era was when you. your parents suddenly knew what you were talking about. So you said Bitcoin to your parents, they know it's not some mystical thing that they've never heard about. They may struggle with

Ethereum. Actually, they're more likely to know those other chains. They're more likely to know about XRP or Algarand because somebody maybe told them to buy it and then like this didn't work out for them or they forgot about it. So that that's one aspect. I do believe that there is probably, yeah, an unpalatable truth that there is arguably a cap. to the amount of potential users that we have and that we should try to think more about that idea of market segments who are more likely to adopt,

like the kinds of users that would use crypto, that would be a more realistic perspective on what we do, which would mean being a bit more calculated about our outreach, like going to different, instead of having so many conferences, trying to go to other conferences, maybe, you know, trying to,

more of a presence at, say, tech conferences, etc. And yeah, so, I mean, that's something I just want to throw out there about the, like, yeah, we wanted the world, but perhaps now is where we begin thinking about the actual segments that would be attractive. Because we have a track record of what people are and aren't interested in. It's quite clear that they were kind of interested in NFTEs, but not really, certainly not enough to keep them around. They were interested in, they were maybe, they might have been interested in Farcaster and, you know, length, but not really that interested. In fact, those two are probably the biggest stain on us as a community because we created decentralized social media

that are effectively exact clones of, I don't mean that disparagingly, there are clones in the UI experience. I think there's no qualitative difference between me being on Farcaster and X, you know, minus the algorithm, I guess. But the experience is more or less the same. I'm on there talking about Twitter,

or sorry, talking about Ethereum and so forth. and it doesn't require a huge amount for me as an Ethereum user to switch over or a Solani user but we didn't use those protocols we effectively we lightly use them we joined them for a little bit and then we went back to X

and it's very hard to convince other people to be users when you yourself don't use the product so we don't really it's like you should use crypto while you can use decentralized social do you use decentralized social no I use centralized social And it's always an embarrassing thing, I think, for me, when I'm lecturing with my students to introduce them to crypto and then tell them, like, spend so much time on Twitter.

They begin to see this contradiction very, very early. That when am I doing the crypto part? I'm talking about crypto quite a bit. There's like a lot of metacometry about crypto, but at what point am I using it? And the true today is that if I am using it, it's almost certainly in a defy capacity. So arguably, the one thing we can say for sure is that there is some audits. for decentralized finance. Now, most of that audience is ourselves,

but it's also the story that's easiest to translate to other people. But I do think there is a danger to that. There's a narrowing of vision. So effectively what you are saying by leading into decentralized finance, even Vitalik does this, right? Low-Risque,

which was for, like, Vitalik, like a big thing to do, because, you know, him to even mention defy was considered a sacrilege thing. Like, he never mentioned it. was the big, big critique that they had of him. And even Vitalik himself says Defi. So we, but yeah, but the problem is, each time we do this, we narrow the context and effectively say that the public goods, the experiments in decentralized finance experiments in NFTs, all of these are failed applications of Ethereum and that ultimately we are just a financial, a financial, a financial, a financial. alternative to the inherited financial system.

But at the same time, the flip side of this is if you begin to look into the structure of it, like this counter financial system that we build itself has so many different centralized elements. So even if you look at the protocol level, if we're talking about MEV, you know, if you tell someone about searchers and builders and relayers, there's a kind of moment in their head where they're like, okay, that's how it really works under the hood. and then to talk about things like oracles. And you know, you begin to see that there is this huge infrastructure behind our own seemingly decentralized infrastructure that undermines itself.

So that's a bit of a black pill kind of rant that I've had there. But yeah, my main worry would be the narrowing of vision is pretty profound. And yeah, in times like this where the markets aren't reacting well to that, We decided to lean into institutional, financial, et cetera, and we're doing away with the public goods. That's naive. Like the market decides everything. What a fool that you have beliefs and so forth is that it leaves you a little bit hollow.

It's hard to be excited about what you've built when it looks so similar to what you were supposed to be opposed to. And especially if the price isn't also going up. Exactly. So not even the market agrees, you know, that's a bad side. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, and it's hard. We've only got time to chat for a little bit more, but, you know, and just something that's come to mind throughout all of that,

because in this narrowing of visions, like, and maybe I'm just like a boomer in crypto terms, you know, that like I still, like, you know, in terms of like the properties of blockchain that could be applied to other things on the internet, like to me it is still just like censorship resistance, I mean, really, the biggest one is censorship resistance to me. And then so it's like, okay, if you are doing public goods, like we're talking about social

media networks then, but we're seeing in real time the effects of standing up against censorship or just ignoring censorship on centralized web two companies, like, you know, the stuff with X and France now. and also just like 4chan in the UK and everything. So it's like you can see how difficult it is to have these properties about your technology. So if you are looking to truly make like a blockchain-based censorship-resistant video network, you are going to probably suffer the same fate as everyone else, has tried that before you. So in a sense that is also narrowing. Like we have this big backlog of

experiences of people having to come to terms with the fact that they do have to be regulated in all these different ways. So like if it's a pendulum, then it seems like we are swinging back to only focus about the financial stuff again. And I do wonder like, I'm guessing the next evolution of this is like personal finance. I'm like, Maybe that is like the real culture that we need to get into to really understand how to communicate the benefits of defy. If that's all that we really have left, and it is a big something to have left. But it does take a realization that that is where we need to go in order to bring in enough users that all of these goods start to make more sense. because in effect you do have to subsidize public goods

that don't have a lot of revenue and on-chain usage with public goods that do have a lot of on-chain revenue. So it becomes quite important for the health of the whole ecosystem that you have a balance there. I wonder how long it is until we find that balance. It has to be quite some time from here. Yeah. How would you see that?

It requires breakdown. So all the fancy philosophers that I would be into as an academic, so the academic part of my brain, almost all of them have this shared feature around an interest in the media we use. So like Neil Postman says, you know, if you want to understand the culture, look to the media that they use. So in our case, that would be like crypto, Twitter. But also the things like coin, gecko, all of these things I think have an effect, you know,

of what we're supposed to be paying attention to, what we can see. that are important. So if you spend all of your day, more or less looking at a coin gecko or avoiding it, even that's a kind of interesting relationship at the moment. Yeah, and then you're on crypto, Twitter, looking at news. And then you're also interacting with defy protocols, but probably in this relationship of what benefit can you personally get from it. It's a very individualized experience that you're engaging in. It's not very communal. And even if you need to go to conferences, you're probably there more as a social, that's a social experience, but you're probably not that interested in talking about the, let's say, the big picture of public goods

ideas. The people who are in a small room and there's 20 of them and it's been the same people for, you know, four or five years trying to push something. So I think that that's an element of this story. And yeah, and then the other thing that they're always interested in these, these fancy thinkers is the idea that you really can't see the essence of something until it breaks down. So this would be Heidegger's big view. You're working in your workshop, you have a hammer. You don't really notice the hammer unless the hammer breaks. So the hammer breaks, all of a sudden, your dependence on it and like the nature of the world that you're in is suddenly revealed.

So a similar thing is when you lose your keys. All of a sudden, the keys become this the most important thing in the world. And your setting, your living room suddenly becomes this very different looking world. So the way when it comes with crypto, I think, is that a lot of people haven't seen the blockchain at its most extreme and important use cases. So it's been a little while since Ukraine Dow started or Sange Dow or, of course, the very earliest WikiLeaks blockade example. These are very, very rare cases that pop up. But when they do pop up, those are the moments where you realize what it is that we've actually built. that you can send while Russia is invading Ukraine,

that the defense minister can go on Twitter, of course. But just post an address. We could all send them money, and then they've got a huge bundle of ETH. That to me is like the most beautiful. Or Nelvani being sent Bitcoin as well after having his bank accounts closed. So we haven't had something like that for a while.

Another thing that we haven't had for a while is a negative or adversarial, that's a governance, or social split. Now, Bitcoiners have sort of had this recently. They've had a little bit of a... Interestingly, they've had this idea of the Bitcoin core developers are an elite,

and then the rest of the Bitcoiners are this like proletarian group who see a conspiracy at the top of Bitcoin. So it's an interesting dynamic that they've gone on. Bitcoin is always the most fascinating people to drop in on. So... But even then, even in the Bitcoin governance debate, the threat of a fork came up,

but it didn't go true. people are aware that, you know, let's not push it that far. But I do think that it's only when people, let's say, who are passively using blockchains in this way, actually saw that what is at stake, like how dependent that economy is on this, like, that it is literally a software project, that the core developers are people who are aligned in different factions of the social layer. All of this is currently invisible and only really can become invisible in a time of crisis. So in a way, maybe my evil accelerationist perspective on this would be we need a crisis.

Like something has to go wrong for us to realize what exactly is at stake here. A famous example that people always bring up is what would happen if Ethereum Forked or Solana Fork for that matter. And then, you know, how would the stable coin issuers react? Which chain would they follow? So that would be a very negative thing. And people always talk about it that way. But for me, that would be the most fast as a researcher of the social error. nothing could be more exciting, but I think it would also clarify the stakes around, like,

whether these things are actually true or not, or like, which side would win, the cypherpunks or the pragmatists? Or would they even form against, would they form an alliance against some kind of institutional takeover of Ethereum? So, yeah, so in a way, I think it's, we, we're a bit complacent and we need a little bit of, the boat needs to be rocked a bit. Yeah, that's kind of what I always come to as well. And it's like it's, it's like the, the, uh, the value proposition of crypto as like a financial hedge. That's kind of, we're not so sure about that anymore. But as a technological hedge, um, that's kind of what it is seemingly meant to be. So I do agree with you. I want, it's very hard to, to want that to happen. But it would be very revealing. Um, so, but I think, I think

That's a really good, really good thing to end on there, I think, as grim as it might be. But thank you so much for your time, Paul. And, yeah, hopefully we'll have you back on the breakdown again soon. Thank you so much. Yep. Thank you for, Emily.