The Breakdown - The Most Important Story In Crypto Last Week

Episode Date: January 13, 2024

Recorded live with Scott Melker on Friday Jan 12, 2024. Enjoying this content? SUBSCRIBE to the Podcast: https://pod.link/1438693620 Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/nathanielwhittemorecrypto Subscribe to the newsletter: https://breakdown.beehiiv.com/ Join the discussion: https://discord.gg/VrKRrfKCz8 Follow on Twitter: NLW: https://twitter.com/nlw Breakdown: https://twitter.com/BreakdownNLW

Welcome back to The Breakdown with me, NLW. It's a daily podcast on macro, Bitcoin, and the big picture power shifts remaking our world. What's going on, guys? It is Saturday, January 13th, and that means it's time for the weekly recap. Before we get into that, however, if you are enjoying the breakdown, please go subscribe to it. Give it a rating, give it a review, or if you want to dive deeper into the conversation, come join us on the Breakers Discord. You can find a link in the show notes or go to bit.ly slash breakdown pod. All right, hello, friends, it was ETF Weekend. That means the weekly recap is all about summarizing what should be the last time we have to cover this particular topic in quite as much depth as we have.

On this episode, Scott Melker and I break down everything relevant about the first day of trading of the ETF, plus the week leading up to it, and where it leaves the industry. It should be a pretty good summarization and bow-tying so that we can move on with our lives and move into other topics. What a week. We said last week. Hopefully we're talking about this as a high thing. Thank goodness. Not a future thing and we did it.

Yeah. We made it. Barely, though. Barely. It was close there for a minute. I got to give extreme credit to Balchunis and Safer and all the other experts and analysts who literally said January 10th, guys, chill. The whole time, we wasted. When's it going to happen?

Is it going to happen? Could it happen today? Last Friday, we thought it could happen on the show. We just had to listen to those guys and it happened to the day, right? They nailed it. I mean, I think that the drama of the hack the day before was just wild, but I'm sure we're going to get into all of that. Yeah, we are.

So let's talk about the process. First, I think we should just say that there's some bad takes out there, some of them from my close friends. I know Rand Nooner is doing a show today about what an epic failure this was as a launch and said to tweet about that. But Bitcoin ATFs take Wall Street by storm with historic debut. right this 4.6 billion of shares changing hands there were records that were set gray scale bitcoin trust on the largest ever first day turnover for an etf with 2.3 billion so the about 50% of what

we saw was gvtc to be fair a lot of that could be outflows uh and it appears that when you really dig into the numbers and with t plus one settlements and all that's very hard to know the actual inflows but about 720 million in inflows in the first day it's going to get to a billion today this is be the most successful, at least as a whole launch ever surpassing the ITO, it looks like. So seemingly all good things here. I don't really understand necessarily the bad takes. Here it actually is. Ran it said the Bitcoin.

If you have first day was terribly unsuccessful, claiming basically there's no inflows. Belchunis quickly correcting him. I don't know your thoughts on it, but seems that this is really great. Yeah, I understand that take. That take is the, we need a new narrative take. just calling a spade of spade. Sorry, Rand. That's what it is.

It's not based on reality. Look, the argument that it's somehow underperformed is based on a thing that everyone anticipated happening, which is some amount of value that was locked up in GBTC forever leaving that product. That was always going to happen. Like, that doesn't make it an unsuccessful day. Secondly, to your point in terms of the actual sort of fund flows, we had talked last week about sort of what bar it needed to clear to be seen as really successful

or not. And, you know, I think that sort of, you know, there was no broad consensus on this, but what you and I had talked about at least is in the range of the BITO, right, the pro-share's futures. Now, that had going for it that it was the very top of the bull market, not the catalytic event for the start of a bull market, right? So it's a very different period in there. And so I think that to some extent we were always going to probably, as long as it didn't look like a total flop, forgive if it wasn't exactly there. But right, that was sort of the benchmark-ish. We've seen, it looks like it's going to be in that range. Now, on top of that, we also saw that it wasn't smooth sailing. In some ways, it was actually more contentious than we would have thought. Vanguard's

putting their foot down and saying they're not going to offer it. Merrill being very sort of, you know, circumspect about it and not being really sure. This wasn't like everyone came out all guns blazing. Obviously, all these issuers did, but it's still not a product that is uncontroversial, right? And on top of all of that is a thing that you and I have been talking about for weeks now, and we're far from the only people to, which is that the value of this thing ultimately. There will be an exciting pop and some set of things that happen right after it happens. But the point is going to be around the source.

slow dissipation over the next six to 12 months as advisors start to understand that this is available, they start to reconsider this asset class, they start to actually go do their due diligence, right? We just got statistics that showed how few advisors actually thought that this product was coming this year. It's not like on a dime they're going to turn and demand their clients get in. In fact, if they're even a little bit responsible, they're going to wait for the dust to settle a little bit before they start to make up their mind around when a good entry point is. So you take all of those things together and I think it makes it pretty clear that the negative takes are, like I said at the beginning, I think narrative driven and more media driven than anything

else. Yeah, I think it makes for a good conversation today to debate it. And totally, I've seen a lot of evidence to your point that RAs are not even offering this yet. They're waiting a couple days to even dig in, decide then do the due diligence. on which one of these 11 things they would want to even recommend to their clients, right? Because they have to see how well they do, go into the nuance of what the differences are, how they're being managed. And then they're going to even start having these conversations. So as you said, we have Vanguard, not even here, right?

You're talking about one of the platforms in the world. Schwab did it. Merrill, all of these. Vanguard, by the way, basically saying, no, never, right? Yeah, they came out hard. It wasn't like we're going to wait and see. So we have thousands and thousands of people who actually. tried to go buy these and couldn't, right? Which is meaningful. And I think we just need the dust

to settle, as you said. So the amount that we did do in all of that context, I think is actually astounding. So as we said, let's talk about Vanguard because they won't offer spot Bitcoin ETFs. Say high volatility is bad for generating long-term returns. They said this doesn't align with their ethos. They don't want their clients to be in things that can lose the money. Meanwhile, they always had availability of Bitto and GBTC, right? When GBTC swung from a 60% premium to a 50% discount, which made it many multiples more more volatile even than Bitcoin, but now when you get the better product, the Bitcoin spot ETF,

they're not going to offer them to their clients. I don't know if anyone saw, but I sort of jokingly started tweeting boycott Vanguard and asked to get it trending, and we did in fact get Boycott Vanguard trending, pretty proud of that very small accomplishment. I closed, I have two Fidelity accounts, a Vanguard account. I moved everything from Vanguard into Fidelity.

They're not going to tell me what to do with my money. But what is going on here? Because they offer more volatile products on the same asset class. Yeah, it's an interesting play because, look, it's much easier to understand political rhetoric than this is a business decision, right? So we got a tweet, for example, from Elizabeth Warren. and maybe I'm jumping ahead a little bit to something we were going to talk about, but we got the expected tweet, right, with Elizabeth Warren kind of saying, like, the SEC's wrong, basically now.

And that makes tons of sense. We were always going to get that tweet. And yes, we can rail and say, you know, you were for the SEC when it was against this. Now you're against the SEC. Where's the rule of law? You're against the courts, blah, blah, blah, blah. Like whatever sort of, you know, things we want to say. But that's so clearly not the point.

This is a political statement. With Vanguard, it's really. way more confusing because it's what does they have to gain from making a political statement. I guess maybe the business positioning is that they think that the counter reaction is going to be so strong to this that it will reinforce their bona fides as not risky for a certain set of clients. But it's very risky proposition to, in an American market, get into the game of telling people what they can and can't and what they should and shouldn't spend their money on. It's a bold strategy, cotton. Let's see how it works out.

for them. Both strategy. Let's see how it works out for that. I wish I had the like sound bite of that that we can play. But yeah, I mean, we all know that Gensler's in her pocket and now she's just outright criticizing the way that he handled it. And seemingly Elizabeth Warren doesn't really believe in the United States judicial system because this is a hundred percent reason that this got approved is that Grace Gale won. And Derry had to capitulate because he knew that epic lawsuits would becoming if he did not. He did this in the saltiest, most just least convicted manner of all time, basically said, yeah, I'm giving this to you, but I don't endorse Bitcoin. We still think this is risky. It's not as good as metals, ETFs, went home and cried deeply into his pillow. And now he has his

overlord criticizing him publicly for the decision. But this wasn't really the SEC's decision in the end. This was forced by the courts. Yeah. And I think it's, it's extremely, extremely notable that Gensler himself was the swing voter because basically then what you had was for commissioners voting their conscience and perspective, right? You add the two, Mark and Hester who have always been sort of, you know, on the pro this, it's insane that we don't have this kind of side of things, or at least have for some time. And then you have the other folks who are, you know, more intransigent, including Carolyn Crenshaw, who wrote sort of a, you know, the response letter. And Gensler being the swing vote makes it clear that for once he was assessing things

from the good of the SEC and what the SEC can do, it says to me that he knew that if he denied the next, the rest of this term was going to be spent fighting lawsuits from 11 different issuers, you know, and all of the parties involved. And that he just, there was no room left for that fight. I mean, given how nails on chalkboard, you know, clawing it was to get this thing out, it very clear it was a forced decision for him. Yeah, and it's basically just hilarious to see that this vote ends up a vote on party lines with him as the quote unquote swing voter, as you said.

You can tell how conceived and pre-planned this basically was on his side to make it look like it wasn't consensus. And you got the opinion, as you said, from Crenshaw that was so scathing. But then on the flip side, we get the very favorable opinion that we all love from Hester Purse. I don't know that we should get into all of the amazing quotes. Maybe I should say a few of them

because it's just incredible how much she criticizes your own agency. Yeah. I'm just going to read through these fast. This is from Laura Shin, who just summarized it. Today marks the end of an unnecessary but consequential saga for reasons I have explained many times before. The logic of the long string of denials is perplexing.

The commission has driven retail investors to less efficient means of attaining Bitcoin exposure in the securities markets until the court reminded us that our unexplained discounting of the obvious financial and mathematical relationship between the spot and futures market falls short of a standard for reasoned decision making. We persisted in denying a spot Bitcoin ETP. The commission, rather than admitting error, offers a weak explanation for its change of heart. Gary, we squandered a decade of opportunities to do our job. And guys, it actually gets crazier.

Today's order does not undo the many harms created by the disparate treatment of spot Bitcoin products. First, our arbitrary and capricious treatment of applications in this area will continue to harm our reputation far beyond crypto. Diminished trust from the public will inhibit our ability to regulate the markets effectively. Second, our disproportionate attention on these filings has diverted limited staff resources away from other mission critical work. Over 10 years, likely millions of dollars of staff time has gone towards blocking these applications. Third, our actions have muddy people's understanding of what the SEC's role is. Fourth, by failing to follow our normal standards and processes and considering Bitcoin spot ETPs, we have created an artificial frenzy

around them. Such an important point here, guys. Have these products come to market in the way other comparable products typically have, we would have avoided the circus atmosphere in which we now find ourselves. Fifth, we have alienated a generation of product innovators within our space. So powerful. That fourth one, I think, is not being discussed. But if they had just approved these in the order that they had been filed, we wouldn't have, as she said, this circus of 11 filers competing for the AUM, basically putting themselves out of business with this fee war.

I mean, Franklin Templeton's down to 0.19% today. I don't know if you saw that because they had a poor launch and have reduced it. This was, it ends up good for retail with the fees, but this was bad in every single way possible to have this Kentucky Derby in this race where they approved everyone. It should have just never happened this way. And everybody hates the SEC at this point. Yeah, I mean, one, it is absolutely the case that they have increased the excitement and drama around this dramatically through their actions.

Two, I think that one of the points that she makes, which is a point that others in the space have made, although it's always been sort of secondary because, you know, when you're in crypto, it's so much lower down the totem pole than other things that are meeting. but this idea that the SEC as an institution has lost some amount of trust and credibility as a sort of merit-neutral regulator, for people who are in crypto who have long viewed the SEC as an opponent, that may not resonate super strongly because screw them, they've always sucked kind of a feel. But I think that it has at this point meaningfully drifted into other areas of credibility, where the SEC's view, the view of markets of the SEC is dramatically diminished. And I think that there are lots of reasons to be concerned with that in the world that we're

headed into. One of them, just by way of sort of observation, is they have a few times tried to make statements around artificial intelligence and AI and markets and what that's going to look like. And no one is listening to them. Markets aren't interested in what they have to say. Regulators aren't even really interested in what. what they have to say. And there are going to be questions of how AI power trading should work and all these sort of, you know, things where, you know, the orderly function of markets could be changed

based on a new technology. But the regulator has no more credibility to talk about technology because it's been seen now for a half decade or more, and especially the last few years, as just completely against a thing that it decides it's against. So no one wants to care. And, you know, unfortunately, the reality is that we live in a world where the government has a role to play in these markets. And if it has no credibility, it doesn't even get to exert the right role. So they've really hurt themselves here in ways that I think will be manifest far beyond just, you know, juicing the numbers on day one of trading over here. Yeah, I mean, speaking of SEC credibility, it's literally their job to protect investors.

And they couldn't even protect their own ex account, as everyone saw. We can't have a conversation about this week in ETF madness without talking about the fact that the SEC's ex account was hijacked to post a fake approval of Bitcoin ETFs. As they dug in, we found out they did not even have two-factor authorization on their account. The most basic form of protection you can put, they literally ended up manipulating the market massively because we actually saw the price action that we probably should have seen yesterday on the launch happened on Wednesday with the fake news really crazy. And I think, to be honest, a big part of the story here, for me, at least, was that Bitcoin was volatile up and down, but kind of ended up trading sideways.

But much to Gary's depression, I would imagine here, Ethereum is where the flows came. Right? We saw on the fake news, the second it happened, Ethereum absolutely pumped out of control against Bitcoin. and it has only continued since then, which I think is a function, obviously, of the rotation trade, a bunch of crypto degenerates. We can always count on them to do that. But we can also see BlackRock CEO Larry Fink backs Ether ETH. It took all of one day after the approval for Larry Fink to get out in the streets and start talking about the imminent approval of the Ethereum Spot ETF already putting the pressure on the SEC, didn't even give them 24 hours saying that It's deserved that I see value in having an Ethereum ETF.

These are just stepping stones towards tokenization. And I really do believe this is where we're going to be going. One of the most powerful men in the world, he's now out there specifically talking about his own filing for an Ethereum spot ETF. So we have the SEC hack and the flows into Ethereum. Yeah. I mean, Genser tried so hard to use his statement to basically say, no, we're not going to do an Ethereum ETF. and Larry Fink is just completely ignoring it and bulldozing that down, you know.

And again, when it comes to sort of institutions that lose credibility, he's, Gensers are not going to be able to hold the line on this for as long as he might otherwise have, right? It's just once again, the same issues are going to come up, especially because they balked themselves in in the same way by approving a futures ETF. You know, what, they don't really have any recourse here. Yeah. Yeah, it's really crazy to see this sort of credibility slide and to see, as you said,

it's slipping between their fingers because if you really go back to the beginning of this year, when the SEC was seemingly in control of everything, they went after Coinbase one day, finance the next day, maybe it was actually in flipped order. We saw all these lawsuits. There seemed to be nothing to stop them. Now, literally nobody is afraid to oppose the SEC. We've seen them lose repeatedly in court. We see legislators attacking them very vocally.

And we see generally the media just being dismissive of their actions. I just don't think they're taken seriously anymore. And that is only going to continue. Just really looking at the sort of just crazy bipolarity of how this industry felt at the beginning of the year as a result of the SEC versus at the end of the year in the beginning of 2024 of the SEC was really not on my bingo card. Yeah. I mean, listen, I think a great indication.

of what you're talking about is we watched a little clip of that Jim Kramer conversion interview last week. And Andrew Ross Sorkin says, you know, Gary Genser did a lot of job boning and Kramer says it didn't work. And I think there are so many people who are not the crypto faithful by any stretch of the imagination who are having that exact same conversation, jawboning, and it didn't work. And neither of those things is a good thing for it to not have worked or for it to jawbone. All of a sudden, you relook at all of that. those lawsuits and you're kind of thinking to yourself, did they just file all those things to soak chaos with no real intention of actually following them through? Are they just kind of

looking to bully and get concessions because they assumed that people didn't have the appetite and it's easier to settle with the SEC than to fight them? And now all of a sudden they're staring down the barrel of a bagillion lawsuits that they don't really have the resources to fight on all those fronts all at the same time. It's just, you know, it's a tough spot to be in. I want to go back to this tweet from Baltunis in the chart that shows what the day one flows were because I haven't seen anyone talk about the fact that Black Rock came in third. We have actually Bitwise being the most successful, I guess Fidelity second, I bit, which is BlackRock being third and then Arc in fourth. And Black Rock actually is a very, very distant third here doing about half the flows.

Now, of course, these flows haven't been totally calculated, again, based on T plus one. But bitwise, the native crypto company that was really the dark horse here coming in first. I find this to be shocking and nobody's talking about it. How did Bitwise win this battle on the first day? So there's two possible interpretations. Either one, the crypto bona fides were a meaningful credential for consumers who are getting into this market. Or what we saw in the first day is people upping their allocation, people who already have crypto allocations, upping their exposure through this product and choosing more crypto-native institutions. You know, Fidelity and second, Fidelity, while obviously a traditional asset manager,

has undeniably the most established bona fides when it comes to the crypto industry and the Bitcoin space of any of the big institutional managers. They, you know, they're earliest to start being involved in the game. You know, they've got leadership that's been broadly supportive for a very long time. And so bitwise and fidelity at the sort of top of the heap makes sense if you've got a more crypto-native buying audience, you know, whereas BlackRock is more potentially of the converts from the traditional space who are getting their first exposure. Obviously, we have no way of knowing, but what I'd be really interested in from a statistical

perspective is which, you know, percentage of these fund flows are first-time buyers as opposed to, you know, kind of existing hoddlers upping their, upping their exposure. I still think it's awesome. I think that it creates momentum. It makes a crypto-native player really sort of at the top of the heap as those other new buyers come in. Black Rock's always going to be fine. There's going to be no shortage of AUM for them to access.

So I think it's nothing but a good thing. I just think it probably expresses more about the buying audience and where demand came from in the first day than where sort of new buyers are thinking. I agree, but we did have consensus based on Matthew Siegel's comments. last week from Vanek and then others confirming it that BlackRock had up to $2 billion effectively lined up for the launch. Maybe that means we're going to see some serious fireworks today. Yeah, that'd be interesting.

That'll be interesting to say. Yeah, I do think that you are correct generally, though, that when we talk about RIAs waiting to see how the dust settles, not having the conversations yet with their clients, really wanting to see which one of these are the winners, my feeling is that BlackRock will be the winner down the road because it will be the most familiar name to all of them when they do decide to come into the space. Right. And so I think actually the vanguard's being shut down and the Merrill Lynch's and all of those

not offering this on the first day probably actually doused a bit of the Black Rock fire and favored a crypto native like Bitwise because the crypto natives were the ones who were going to go in and find a way. Right. Bitwise was already running their marketing campaign and has been out on every podcast. I mean, I talked yesterday to Hunter Horsley, the CEO here. than we were on spaces and we had Matt Hogan and Ryan, their researcher. They're everywhere.

I mean, on the road show. It's amazing. If you don't see BlackRock on Twitter spaces talking about their Bitcoin ETF. No, 100%. I mean, if you look at any podcast app, every episode has either Balconus or someone from Bitwise, right? It's, I think it's a really good thing. And kind of what you're starting to see is an interesting, you know, you're calling the a little bit to some fairly clear brand positioning. So if you look at this sort of the

Quintucky Derby or whatever you want to call it, you got Black Rock, which is like, you know, whatever. It's the empire in Star Wars. They're always going to be there. There's no way they're not going to do well. But there's some folks who even if they're in traditional markets, BlackRock really does have that empire feel to them, right? Well, for people who are more traditional but who, you know, still want something that's not Black Rock, you got fidelity, right? Fidelity, kind of split in the difference between fully crypto-native and traditional. They've been around for a while. You can get sort of excited about them because they're a known entity, but maybe they feel a little bit more sort of Bitcoin credible. Then you have the crypto-native group in Bitwise, which I think the fact

that they are out at the top does more for them long-term than any of these other players in the sense that had they been lower, they would be just for those crypto-natives, right, potentially. By being sort of at the top of the heat by starting to get some momentum, they're going to be able to peel off some amount of the folks that might have gone with a fidelity or a Black Rock because, you know, they're open to looking at them and then they dig in and they, you know, hear them talk based on all the media. They see that they're supporting, you know, Bitcoin developers, whatever it is that gets people excited and, you know, sort of it leads to more fun flows. You have Arc as this sort of fourth contender who are always up in the innovation space. They're always doing cool things. 21 shares is a

great company. And so, you know, our arc probably wasn't anyone's pick for going to be the number one, but they're all having meaningful flows because it makes sense as a part of arc's overall thing. You know, Kathy's been, you know, the longest sort of duration person in Wall Street in many ways. And so I think in some ways you see the race shaping up around those four. And they each have kind of a slightly different market positioning that frankly really does fill in for a pretty wide swath of who might be an interested buyer in a way that I think, you know, one product couldn't. I think that there's actually a lot of value here for, you know, sort of market exposure for people being able to find an issuer that fits where they are in their, you know, investment journey.

Apparently, just so you know, Jim Kramer is back at it as we speak. I'm seeing it in the comments and sort of looked and he's on CNBC selling it, saying that now Bitcoin is going to roll over. So, by the way, he said that it was going to be a sell-the-news event. Then he said that he said that it was resilient. Then he said he doesn't think it's going to be a sell-the-news event that it could just keep going up. And now he's saying that you should sell it. And he's now poo-pooing, apparently, on the ETF, saying it's not really an ETF, that it's an ETP. And oh, my God, it's unbelievable to watch generally the flip-flopping in the media on a day-to-day basis with no new information and nothing changing, just looking for something to talk about. And B, the fact that

this trust versus ETF-ETP thing has been debated. and litigated and settled multiple times by the Bloomberg guys over the years. My goodness. I think that it's a reasonable time for everyone to put their fingers in their ears, turn off their screens, enjoy a weekend of success. You know, listen, you can't even be mad at the media or individual content creators at this point. Got to cover it. The relentless need for a new narrative is an extremely powerful force.

Listen, if you find content creators who can avoid that, stick with them because it's powerful, but it's always going to be the case as soon as this thing went live, especially because it's sort of become a little bit more of a darling over the last couple weeks that we were going to have the counterreaction. And it's sort of, I think, pretty inevitable. I know we're going to wrap it up soon, but I do want to point out once again, for those who are saying it's not a success, for it's a failure, I get it. There's ways to look at it that way.

But when you look at this chart, here's how Spot Bitcoin. ETFs compared to the big dogs, SPY and QQQQQ. Of course, that's SBY's Spider QQQQ is NASDAQ, SPX and NASDAQ, excuse me. In volumes yesterday, really held their own, especially a number of trades and shares. Even notionally, they got their respectable slice of pie via a note this morning. And you look at this chart, I mean, you know, it was traded. The spot Bitcoin ETFs were traded as much as SPY. You know, the SMP 500 ETF trust.

They got their slice of notional, as he said. And when you look at volume of shares, it actually crushed QQQ and SPVR. A lot of this, obviously, is GBT and people exiting as we know and outflows. But this was just, it's exceptionally successful even that there was this much volume. And he's pointed out, you know, that volume is really what matters because that's what's going to attract the flows. And the volume is there. And that's where traders on Wall Street and beyond want to be. You want to be where there's volume.

I think when I think about this sort of week in this period, one of the most representative documents is going to be, where does this sound, an op-ed in the Financial Times last week. I think we covered it last week, actually. It's this op-ed from a random contributor at FTs, not an editor or anything like that. The FT is the easily the most antagonistic media outlet when it comes to Bitcoin. It has been for some time. Alphaville is just, you know, sort of the Lex Luthor to Bitcoin Superman. And the whole point of the article, the op-ed, is that if the ZETF comes, he's going to put some in Bitcoin.

And it's basically about his conversion experience that he had on this run, you know, somewhere, somewhere on the cliffs in the UK. And effectively what it is is just sort of a point-by-point look at all of the different things that have been said about Bitcoin, that it doesn't, you know, have cash flows. And then he says to himself, well, but a huge portion of the S&P 500. didn't return cash last year either in the form of dividends. And we don't even care about dividends. So why do I care about that?

And then he goes into the next critique and the next critique and the next critique. And ultimately where he lands is these things don't actually look all that different. And we've spent so much time sort of trying to otherwise Bitcoin and, you know, and view it as some crazy thing. And it just doesn't seem all that crazy anymore. I think that that sort of shift, this, you know, not some radical new revolutionary sort of idea, infiltrating markets, but just this broad normalization, acceptance, reconsideration is what this moment is going to be. This is going to be a mass moment for reconsideration of Bitcoin from a bunch of different

angles because this thing exists now. As we've said, over and over and over again, it's not something that's going to play out in the form of days or even weeks. It's going to be months and years. But the thing existing is the point. It's supposed to exist. It should have existed for some time. And now it does.

I have nothing left to add to that summary. I think we can move on and do that thing you described earlier where we don't pay attention to ETFs anymore and go touch grass and hang out with our families and spend the weekend. Guys follow NLW. Check out, obviously, the breakdown. You had some great coverage of this, obviously, this entire week. And we're going to hopefully have five fresh.

topics next Friday, all the amazing Friday 5 and news that happened next week that hopefully has nothing to do with this. Maybe it'll be one of them. Yeah, well, at least have an honorable mention for the check-in. Absolutely. All right, guys, thank you so much. See you next week.