The Breakdown - The Crypto-TradFi Convergence | Inflection Point

Episode Date: March 31, 2026

While The Breakdown is between seasons, we’re sharing a panel from Digital Assets Summit featuring the team behind Inflection Point. The conversation explores how investors should think about crypto valuations, what gives L1s value, and why there’s still no shared framework for pricing blockchain networks. – Follow Blockworks Research: https://x.com/blockworksres Follow Inflection Point: inflectionpoint.carrd.co Follow Matt: https://x.com/Matt_Hougan David: https://x.com/dlawant Michael: https://x.com/marcryptonio Marc: https://x.com/marcarjoon Follow David: https://x.com/dcanellis — Nexo is the premier digital wealth platform. Receive interest on your crypto, borrow against it without selling, and trade a range of assets. Now available in the U.S with 30 days of exclusive privileges. Get started at http://nexo.com/breakdown Get top market insights and the latest in crypto news. Subscribe to Blockworks Daily Newsletter: https://blockworks.co/newsletter/ — Timestamps: (00:00) Introduction (04:46) Crypto Valuation Models Are Broken (10:01) Nexo Ad (10:42) Revenue Isn’t the Answer (16:23) One Asset Class or Many? (18:43) Nexo Ad and Blockworks IR Promo (20:23) Network Effects Need Revenue (26:03) Blockspace Isn’t A Commodity (31:20) Institutions Need Intellectual Permission — 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.

If L1 Blockspace is a commodity, then I don't care how big the network is. The valuation trends towards zero. Blockspace is not a commodity. Saying Blockspace is a commodity is like saying corporations are a commodity because anyone can form a corporation. Valuations and value accrual, I feel like this is the last box that we need until crypto becomes an asset class at par with like all the other established ones. Right now in crypto, we do not have a shared model. networks are more complex than companies. The early work in ascribing value to stocks and things like commodities sort of settled on two laws of physics of valuation,

which is either cash flow or scarcity. It's too early to expect to value these things on revenue. There will be a few winners of the L-1s, and those winners will distinguish themselves by... Hello, breakdown listener. We're still getting ready to roll out a new season, which starts next week. So in the meantime, we have a crossover edition with the new Inflection Point podcast recorded live at Das New York last week, all about crypto's forever long quest for better valuation metrics. See you soon. This episode is brought to you by Nexto.

Step into a new era of digital wealth. Earn interest on your digital assets. Borrow against them without selling and trade all in one platform. Get started at nexo.com slash breakdown. 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 projects discussed.

So, Das, thank you for being here. This is Day 3 final of the conference, and I'm excited to introduce you all to Inflection Point, which is a new podcast that we launched this month, three weeks ago. This is our first live podcast. Actually, it's the first time all three of us have met each other in person, so it's exciting for us as well. Before we kick off, let's just start with some quick introes. So David, you?

Yeah, hello everyone. Very excited to be here. My name is David Lawan. I'm head of research at Anchorage Digital. Before working at Anchorage, I had positions in other crypto shops, both on the sell side and on the buy side. I had the pleasure of working with Matt Hogan at BitWise. And before that, I used to work in TreadFI doing cell side equity research.

Amazing. Matt Hogan, Chief Investment Officer at BitWise. I've been there for eight years, from dollar one to about $15 billion in assets. Before Bitwise, I spend more than a decade in the ETF industry as the CEO of ETF.com, helping build the first data and analytics effort in that space. Hey, go ahead. Hey, everyone, Michael Mark Antonio. I'm the head of Defi at Galaxy Digital.

We focus on all things trading and market making on decentralized networks. Before being the head of Defy at Galaxy, I spent most of my career as a corporate lawyer focused on M&A. Okay, awesome. And I'm Mark Arjun. I'm senior research analyst at Blockworks, but now my proud title is host of Disinflection Point Podcasts, Institutional Focus Podcasts. But today we're going to talk about L1 valuations. It's a little bit more crypto-native than our usual topics. It's a difficult topic, but I wanted to share. something very exciting with the audience. None of this information discuss constitutes investment advice or an offer or recommendation or solicitation by blockworks, galaxy, bitwise, anchorage, or any of their affiliates to buy or sell any securities. Okay, that out of the way, let's kick it off. Matt, backstage we were talking and this is your third city in three days. You've

been traveling along a while, so yeah, any insights? Yeah, I was in St. Louis two days ago, giving a speech to a CFA society and visiting a major national account firm. And then in Phoenix yesterday at the Barron's top advisor summit, I tweeted about it a little bit and someone responded that there is not a crypto winner in institutional crypto. There's a crypto winner in vaporware and a crypto bull market in institutional crypto. I think that is true. I'll give you a specific piece on the Barron's conference. I've been going there for four years.

is the largest RAA gathering of the top RIAs. Four years ago, I was in a breakout session pre-conference, and this year I was the keynote lunch speaker. And I'm not saying that, like, for me, I'm just saying that for crypto, it's moved from offstage to literally the keynote of the whole event possibly, and I think that's a sign of how far we've come

and how much the interest is. I mean, you mentioned something at what you VEPA, where I think that's kind of tying in, to, you know, this is an institutional conference, podcast, blockchain, not Bitcoin, kind of narrative that we saw in 2022 and even before that. So let's just, let's just get into the evaluations, right? Like, and specifically, like L-1s. I'm going to give my take first, and then you'll please disagree with me where you think I go

wrong. So coming from a Trad Phi background, this is how I kind of view it. I like the DCF model to begin with. I like the fact that these chains have fees. I see them as GMV, and then certain chains have burned. Some of the tokens that are used to process fees on the network are burnt. So I see that as the chains take rate.

And that's basically the revenue. And it just happens that the blockchain uses all of its revenue for a share buyback. At Blockworks, we promote something called REV, real economic value. and it's proxy for the demand of transactions on the network. And so even if you don't like the DCF model, then if the burn outweighs the token emission, then you have a deflationary asset. I think that may be also important

if you were valuing it as a commodity or even as store value. And I know we don't like to use that terminology often here. People disagree with me all the time. What do you guys think? Yeah, I disagree. So before we look at valuing blockchains, we should first think about how other instruments have been valued in the past and the history of them. So if you look at the history of how stocks were valued, before 1934, so we could say between 1,600 with the East India Company and

1920s, there was no formal methodology for valuing stocks. There was no agreement among stock purchasers about how a stock should be valued. And then in 1934, two guys, Graham and Bell, wrote a seminal paper called Security Analysis. And they came up with a formal methodology for how to value a stock. And that methodology looked at cash flows, it looked at financial statements, looked at book value and dividends. And it's not to say that they got it 100% right. They didn't. But what they did was they built a methodology,

but that methodology was more important than just figuring out how to value the stock. It was presenting the conditions on which you could ascribe value to something. And once everyone adopted it, two important things happen. First, the securities laws reflected that methodology. It is no surprise that the Securities Act

and the Securities Exchange Act really focus on disclosure, financial statements, right? This is effectively channeling what Bell and Graham put out. So then we had in 1938, we had the dividend discount model and that was proffered by

a guy named Bell Williams. And what he did was, he said, the net present value of the dividend of a company, that is how you value a company. Both of those methods had a very novel interpretation. It was that a stock has intrinsic value apart from the market value. Then, of course, we had the discounted of cash flow model,

which basically just generalizes the discounted dividend model, and it looks at the future cash flows of a company and the CAPM model. but all of these models were critical for institutions to center around how to value these things. Right now in crypto, we do not have a shared model. And the reason is actually pretty obvious. Networks, let's talk about L1s, networks are more complex than companies. Companies are complex, right? I'm not going to tell you it's easy to.

value a company, it's not. But networks are a degree of complexity above companies. And so what we've seen is a bunch of attempts to value a network. And those networks, those valuation methodologies are, they lack two critical features. One, they're not complete. They don't cover the entire range of the things that we want out of evaluation methodology. And two, no one agrees with what they are. And until we get both of those things, we're not going to be able to, we're not going to be able to really ascribe value in a shared way. And you're not going to see as much growth in tokens. But that is coming. And so Blockworks does a great, great bit here because you're at least advocating for a model, right?

That's important. Step into a new era of digital wealth with Nexo, the premier digital assets wealth platform. Earn interest on your digital assets. Borrow against them without selling. trade a wide range of cryptocurrencies all in one place. Nexo is now available again in the U.S. with an evolved product suite tailored to today's market. For a limited time, new U.S. clients can unlock 30 days of exclusive

wealth club premier benefits, including enhanced interest rates, reduce borrowing costs, and up to 0.5% crypto cashback on trades. Get started today at nexo.com slash breakdown. As always, investments in blockchain technology involve risk. Terms and conditions apply. Do your own research. I'm going to split the difference and say you're both half right and half wrong. So I think, Mike, to your point, I agree that we don't yet have the model.

I agree that will be hugely valuable. I think the early work in ascribing value to stocks and things like commodities sort of settled on two laws of physics of valuation, which is either cash flow or scarcity, right? And I wonder if the model were constructing has to build on those two laws of physics. Those are like, you know, like the gravity of financial assets. And I agree we don't yet have the right mix, and you can see people debating which of those two laws of physics apply to this new thing. And the answer is probably a combination of both. I think the tweak I would put on what you said is that I think the issue with revenue right now is that it's too early to expect to value these things on revenue.

By which I mean, imagine you were the CEO of Ethereum and you were in charge of setting prices. would you set prices today to maximize today's revenue or would you set prices today to maximize market share on the view that you can optimize revenue in the future once you're embedded? You would do the latter. If you did the former, you'd be insane. No one wants an average ETH transaction today to be $30. It would completely lose the market to everyone else. And so focus exclusively on revenue today is like focusing on revenue for a seed stage startup.

So I think it may be part of sort of the en boss solution of how to value these things, along with other aspects like this commodity aspect. But I think we don't actually want chains maximizing for revenue today because they should be maximizing for market share and embeddedness. The cool thing about valuations is that if you ask four people, we're probably going to have four different answers. And that's what we might get here. I think it shows how early we are in this topic.

Just before we get there, there's one thing I want to say, this is probably, and we're talking a little bit about this in the backstage, this is probably the last foundational topic that we need to solve for crypto as an asset class. And here I'm talking about crypto beyond Bitcoin and beyond the hundreds of billion dollars assets like Ethereum. I think this is what we need for us to see crypto as a much broader asset class. We solved blockchain scalability. we survived a very hostile regulatory environment. We found a multitude of use cases with product market fit. I think there's still some things to figure out on those fields. In the last episode, we talked about the SEC guidance

and that for some assets I feel like there's a few unanswered questions there. But now valuations and value accrual, I feel like this is the last boss that we need until crypto becomes an asset class at par with all the other established ones. And I agree with a lot of what you said, but the one thing I would say, and this comes from my background as an equity research analyst. I mean, doing DCFs for a long time, huge fan of all the current methodologies. But if you ask to a lot of the equity investors, the DCF is a tool they use, but usually it's not the main tool.

For a lot of folks, it's actually not even a tool. I'm a huge fan of George Soros, the investor, maybe not the other stuff. But George Soros says he never used it, and he is probably the best performing investors of all time. He just has a different background and a different way of thinking of things. GCFs are more art than science,

especially for early stage assets. And I think that's getting to your point a little bit, Matt. Like a venture capitalist can probably do a DCF of an early stage startup. But do you think anyone invested in Google Series A because they did a DCF of Google or Amazon or Uber? No. You are looking at the team. You're still looking at the market.

You're still looking at some disruptive technology that you think will overtake some sort of mainstream investment or mainstream sleeve of the economy. So I think DCFs are very important, but I would say they might not be, and for some companies, maybe they're already in this stage where you can just justify your valuation

from the DCF side of things. Maybe some of the more advanced crypto debts are already here, but I don't think it can be the only tool. So it's a very important one, Because having revenue shows that the market is willing to pay for whatever service you want to provide. So I want to see DCFs as a tool. And I think that the commodity environment actually will play a role.

Crypto is a blend between commodity and like a cash flow generating a business. And we have to understand for each asset, how big is the commodity side? how big is the cash flow side, even in L1, right? Ethereum is commodity-based, I would say hyperliquid, which is an L1, it's probably very heavy cash flow-based. So it's going to be very asset-basket. Yeah, I actually think that's a really good point. We talk about it as an asset class.

It may not be an asset class in the sense that you can apply the same valuation metric to each different piece. You may need very different valuation metric for different parts of the stack, from DAPs all the way up to Bitcoin. Yeah, I mean, valuing networks is more. complex. I agree. DCF is not particularly the most appropriate model for valuing a network. It's a part of the equation, but it's not the full thing. I would think, and just spitballing here, the core intuition we are trying to solve for a value on a network is what? I think it is network

effects and network activity. Now, DCF might matter as a proxy for network activity. If it has revenues, it has activity, right? But it's not the only thing that matters. There's a bunch of other things that will matter. So there was a debate last year between Solana and Ethereum. Ethereum said the most important thing is TVL. Salana said the most important thing is revenue. I think they're both right. I'm not just saying that to split the baby. I think they're both right. Revenue matters because it is a proxy for activity. TVL matters because it's a proxy for security. And if you care about the token valuation, you have to care about how valuable the network is. And that can only be understood in terms of, well, the primary way it could be understood is

how valuable are the assets that sit on that network, right? Just as a thought experiment here, right now, Salana is about a $50 billion network by market cap. So you could take over the network with $25 billion. I'm sure there's people here that have that much money and we could, you guys could take over Salana theoretically. You would never put more than $25 to $50 billion of value on a network that could be taken over for half that, right? And so if you think about it, the more valuable assets that sit on a network, almost inherently

the higher the price for the native asset must be because the higher that price, offers greater security properties. So it's a complex topic, but I think the best proxy is how to look at networks as economies. And these are their own economies. And they're very complex. I think we have to take a page out of macro, honestly, and how macro economists look at value in economies. Let's take a moment to talk about NXO. NXO delivers a premier digital assets wealth platform designed to help clients build, manage, and preserve their wealth,

earn interests on your digital assets, access crypto-backed credit without selling your holdings, trade with advanced tools, all supported by 24-7 client care. Now back in the US, NXO offers new clients 30 days of exclusive World Club Premier Access. That means enhanced interest rates, reduce borrowing costs, and up to 0.5% crypto cashback on trades. Benefits typically reserve for wealth club members and private clients. Nexo is also expanding its global presence, becoming the official crypto partner of Tennis Australia, the organisation behind the Australian Open, and the digital asset partner of the Audi Revolut Formula One team. If you're ready to approach digital assets with a more structured wealth

strategy, visit nex0.com slash breakdown to get started. As always, investments in blockchain technology involve risk. Terms and conditions apply. Do your own research. Hey all, Blockworks co-founder Michael Apolito here. Quick break to talk about something we've just launched, Blockworks investor relations. As the market shifts toward institutional capital, investors want more transparency, more standardization, and a higher level of professionalism. But the traditional IR model is slow, manual, and not built for how crypto works. If you're building on chain, your data is already live, your business is already transparent. The challenge is turning that into a clear, credible story for investors.

That's exactly what we're solving with Blockworks IR. It's a single platform that brings together real-time analytics, branded investor portals, and hands-on advisory support so you can communicate what matters. If you're an on-chain business looking to level up your investor strategy, check out Blockworks Investor Relations at blockworks.com slash investor-dash relations. All right, back to the episode. I think you can't really just take over a network of $25 billion.

It's not you can buy it outright. It will push up the price. I do agree with the networks, because like network effects, you can use something like Metclaff's law to judge something and it grows with the square root of the number of users and connectedness. And I think it's more of a correlation. The more users who want the network, the more they trust the network, the more they'll put value on the network.

So I think it's more of that kind of causality relationship. And the other thing we talked about like, yeah, okay, maybe revenue can be seen as a way of network effects. But one of the reasons, and if you want to eliminate monetary premium from the conversation, one of the reasons why Ethereum could be seen as more valuable is because of the diversification of the revenue streams and the sustainability of those revenue streams. For instance, a software as a SaaS company, they have our recurring revenue models. So they're going to be assigned a higher multiple premium than a bricks and motorshop. On revenue, the revenue streams come from DFI, from NFTs, from stable coins, from tokenization.

It's very diverse. Whereas on Solana, it's a little bit more on the trading side and a little bit on the speculative side where it might be a little bit more ephemeral. So I think maybe the market gives a higher multiple premium to Ethereum because of that more diversified and sustainable revenue and fees coming from that. I think I just I think the Metcalf Law thing, just to sit on that for a moment, is only a useful metric as a precursor to revenue. If there is no revenue at the end of that rainbow, it's a useless metric. The internet is the largest network in the world. The valuation is zero because it's not a precursor to revenue. I think that's a tool that people have used to value networks before we get to revenue.

So I wouldn't use that as the end boss. I think the reason it's useful, or rather it is only useful as what you're describing is true. which is that ultimately L1 Blockspace is not a commodity. If L1 Blockspace is a commodity, then I don't care how big the network is, the valuation trends towards zero. If L1 Blockspace is differentiated in more like nation state GDPs and more valued on security, brand, moat, et cetera, then Network Effect is a useful proxy for how we eventually end up at revenue.

So I think that's probably like a key question. And I actually agree with the point you were pointing towards Mark, which is it is differentiated, and therefore I do not think it is a pure commodity, and that is one of the reasons I'm optimistic long-term on L1 valuations. I agree with that, and I think that gets to a very important point that I think speaks about the stage where you are in the industry right now.

Blockworks is doing God's work, showing like all sorts of fundamental metrics you can see. They're research dashboards. It's really amazing. But if you use, you use, Again, let's discuss like the quote-a-quote, the revenue metrics and DCF metrics. Let's use multiples as a simplification of a DCF, right? You're not going to do a 10-year DCF, discount the cash flows.

Usually just going to do a revenue multiple or a net income or kind of profit multiple, something like that. Like in traditional markets, the first thing about multiples is that they're forward-looking. So like no one is looking at, let's say, Apple's or Microsoft's, price to earnings ratio of the last 12 months. Everybody's looking at there in the next 12 months or what 2027 is going to look like, or 2028 if you want to push forward. In crypto, I feel like we are still like annualizing

the current revenue rate, and that's the multiple we talk about. Also, like in TradFi, if you go to Bloomberg Terminal, you're going to find 25 analysts who cover Apple for or any big stock, for a very long time, and they're gonna have estimates for every single important financial metric for the next three to five years.

And you can just see pretty much where values are. And I think we still need to develop that. And I think block works is being a very big pioneer in that space, but I think we still need to develop this quote-unquote cell side future estimate industry. It's hard to do because these things are still very early, But I'm pretty confident that in a few, I don't know, maybe year or two, we're going to start to be able to start thinking about estimates.

And you're going to see where the market is. And I think, let's say, my opinion is higher or lower than that, and that will help me to underwrite an investment decision. So there's still certain, like, things that need to come over time as the industry evolves, that allow us to look forward, which I think is what Matt was getting to, and then you can use the MetPal reasoning to project the future with a little bit more searching.

Yeah, I strongly agree with that. I think it's a really strong point, and I would note one of the reasons people are thinking these valuations are really high on these metrics is that they're all backward-looking. If you did that on equities, you'd be like have the same sort of view. everything would be overvalued.

So I think that's an important point. So, you know, I was just going to say, I think it's worth noting that when we're talking about valuations and the uncertainty there, I'm talking about, and I think we're all talking about L1 valuations. I think for apps, decentralized apps, let's say uniswap or morpho, a more standard DCF analysis actually makes a lot of sense because they are more like companies. Now, they have network properties, of course, but they're more like companies. I also agree with you, Matt, about how block space is not a commodity.

Saying block space is a commodity is like saying corporations are a commodity because anyone can form a corporation. There's just infinite supply of corporate charters that you can get out of Delaware or any other state. What matters is whether that corporation has other properties that people want to want to invest in. And so I agree completely. There will be a few winners of the L-1s. I don't think there will be one. I don't think there will be a hundred. There will be a few winners. And those winners will distinguish themselves by generating the most activity and being useful to the global economy. I mean, I agree with that. I love the revenue generating apps from us. sell side equity research background, I can just do a DCF, slap on a price of sales, price

earnings ratio. So I mean, that's what I love writing about. But I wanted to ask, you know, we're talking about this very abstract valuation stuff. Like when it comes to your, maybe your PA or maybe for clients, like what, what are you actually looking at? Like if you, maybe it's one metric, maybe it's a combination of some like for me, for instance, something I track is a historical price to dex volume because dex volumes have been highly correlated with price and it shows you activity, it shows your network effects. It kind of is a proxy that bundles a lot into one. So I do, maybe I'd make a mistake with the 30-day annualized. I know, I don't really have power-looking estimates, but like I track price to Dex

volumes, only different L-1s to kind of give me a gauge of where we are in the cycle and which is over or undervalued. What are you all looking at? Don't get me wrong. I also look at the current revenue annualized. I'm just saying how I would like the future to be. I don't think we're there yet. But yeah, I mean, I think for me, if it's, and then again, I think there is this distinction between commodity crypto assets and cash flow generating crypto assets. And some L1 assets can be kind of both, right? Again, hype is A1 and they're very cash flow heavy. Ethereum is an L1 and they're very, I would say, commodity kind of valuation heavy. So, so that's the first distinction, but all network utilization metrics, I think, are very helpful. And I think

this one you just mentioned is actually super interesting, Mark. I honestly haven't thought about it. The other thing that for me is very helpful is to, because we are now at a stage where you usually have a couple of competitors, either within the same chain or cross-chain. So you can probably compare assets as well. So relative valuations, I feel like, are relatively interesting, not to necessarily do long-short positions. These are, I think, still hard to do in crypto, but at least you give you a sense of who is cheap or expensive on a relative basis. So I think for me, that's kind of interesting.

That's where Ethereum looks hard, because like if you compare, I fully agree with you. Ethereum is more diversified. Ethereum has a very strong foothold, maybe in the more institutional tokenization side. but the Ethereum's network value is, I don't even know the number in up ahead, but it's what four times higher than Solanas, right? So that's where things start to get complicated. For me, when you start to compare them with one another.

Yeah, I agree with all of that. I think often from a 30,000 foot view and sort of early stage VC model, when I think about most, but not all of these assets, which means that I value growth more than currently, revenue and I value market share in important niches as an extraordinary thing because I'm betting on that niche growing and revenue network activity, transaction activity, wallets, etc. All of that contribute to the growth question. So those are all really important features.

But I would rather have something growing fast with small revenue than high revenue and growing slowly because I'm optimistic on the scale of the opportunity. And similarly, I would rather have something with a large and growing lead from a market share perspective in an area that I think will expand rather than a shrinking market cap or a small piece of a market that I think will grow. Just because I think most of these categories have 100x growth, right? tokenization could a thousand X in terms of assets. So you really just want to own that space in a fast growing area. Yeah, I'm often disappointed in relative value.

because it doesn't make a lot of sense how, well, there's two things. One, if you're looking just at revenues, then hyperliquid in Solana should be valued roughly the same as Ethereum, right? Or it should be valued closer to Ethereum. And then you have to ask yourself, is Solana undervalued or is Ethereum overvalued? And that is a tough one. The other thing is on DAPS even, like, when I'm looking at Uniswap's volume, and it has his best day ever, best month ever in volume, and the price barely moves, you start to say, am I right about the price or is the market right?

This is what leads me back to a shared methodology. It's not to say that everyone uses that methodology, but at least everyone agrees that that's the foundation of some basis. Obviously, if everyone use the same methodology to value stocks, then no one would make any money because there's no edge in using. the public methodology. But, you know, just having a shared sort of vocabulary about what a value system looks like for a L1 blockchain, I think it's incredibly important and we need to get there.

I don't know if it's going to come from blockworks or I don't know if it's going to come from academics. No, historically, it's come from academics, right? And I think institutions need two things to really enter crypto fully. The first they've gotten, I think, now, or getting, which is regulatory permission. But the second is intellectual permission. And that comes from the academics, that comes from universities, that comes from the economists, who say these things have value and here's why.

I would just add in, because Mark won't, that the closest we have is the work that Blockworks is doing on investor relations and on the revenue stuff, at least from my particular. perspective, especially what Mark's doing. I love my panelists. So I wanted to do it. I'm doing some market research here. This is the morning. So if you think that L1 assets with small inflation is okay, then stay silent and make me look like a fool.

If you think that you would like to invest in an asset that is deflationary and supply is decreasing over time, let me get a round of applause. Okay. That's pretty split there. Okay, love it. I appreciate the commodity. What's your position? Deflationary asset. Deflationary.

I would love to invest in something that decreasing supply over time. I don't think betrothed fine markets have anything like it. But one quick point. We'll have to do another episode. There you go. But if I am correct that a blockchain should be modeled more like an economy than a business, then you would have to say that you favor economies that are in deflationary, right, in a

deflationary spiral. I think that's trying to put it in a box. It can be both, Mike. It can be both. Well, it had to be in a box because we've got 14 seconds. Well, I agree. You all have to tune in for the next episode of Infliction Points. Thank you very much for your time.

And thank you. Thanks, everybody.