The Wolf Of All Streets - BTC & ETH Futures on Robinhood: Manipulation Ahead? | Crypto Town Hall

Episode Date: October 17, 2024

Crypto Town Hall is a daily X Spaces hosted by Scott Melker, Ran Neuner & Mario Nawfal. Every day we discuss the latest news in crypto and bring the biggest names in the space to share their insight. ►►TRADING ALPHA READY TO TRADE LIKE THE PROS? THE BEST TRADERS IN CRYPTO ARE RELYING ON THESE INDICATORS TO MAKE TRADES. USE CODE ‘2MONTHSOFF’ WHEN VISITING MY LINK.  👉 https://tradingalpha.io/?via=scottmelker  ►► JOIN THE FREE WOLF DEN NEWSLETTER, DELIVERED EVERY WEEK DAY! 👉https://thewolfden.substack.com/    ►► OKX Sign up for an OKX Trading Account then deposit & trade to unlock mystery box rewards of up to $10,000!  👉  https://www.okx.com/join/SCOTTMELKER ►►NGRAVE This is the coldest hardware wallet in the world and the only one that I personally use. 👉https://www.ngrave.io/?sca_ref=4531319.pgXuTYJlYd ►►THE DAILY CLOSE BRAND NEW NEWSLETTER! INSTITUTIONAL GRADE INDICATORS AND DATA DELIVERED DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX, EVERY DAY AT THE DAILY CLOSE. TRADE LIKE THE BIG BOYS. 👉 https://www.thedailyclose.io/   ►►NORD VPN  GET EXCLUSIVE NORDVPN DEAL  - 40% DISCOUNT! IT’S RISK-FREE WITH NORD’S 30-DAY MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE. PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY! 👉 https://nordvpn.com/WolfOfAllStreets    Follow Scott Melker: Twitter: https://twitter.com/scottmelker   Web: https://www.thewolfofallstreets.io   Spotify: https://spoti.fi/30N5FDe   Apple podcast: https://apple.co/3FASB2c   #Bitcoin #Crypto #Trading The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own and should in no way be interpreted as financial advice. This video was created for entertainment. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision. I am not a financial advisor.  Nothing contained in this video constitutes or shall be construed as an offering of financial instruments or as investment advice or recommendations of an investment strategy or whether or not to "Buy," "Sell," or "Hold" an investment.

Morning, everyone. Get the music off. Happy Thursday, October 17. Yet another daily edition of crypto town hall with our crack panel of crypto specialists and analysts here to unpack everything happening in the crypto world. I had the pleasure of speaking with John Deaton this morning on my YouTube show. Most of you, I'm hoping, have either watched the debate from two nights ago or have watched the clips. He eviscerated her objectively. It was embarrassing. And more importantly, there is another debate tonight, their second debate, Elizabeth Warren and John Deaton for the Senate seat in Massachusetts at 7pm. If you go to John's socials, you can find the link. It's being broadcast on C-SPAN, I know, as well as I think on some local channels. And otherwise,

I was very, very surprised, as was he. He said that they didn't prep them at all with talking points, that the moderator two nights ago, deadpan, asked Elizabeth Warren about her anti-crypto army. And so crypto was very much on the docket as a discussion piece and was another opportunity for him to make her look like a complete fool. I don't know if you guys watched it, but Elizabeth Warren literally said when asked about the anti-crypto army that she believed that everybody should be able to trade crypto back and forth, no problem, buy and sell. All she cares about is that it follows the same rules as everything else. This is the same woman who sat on the Senate floor and her and Jamie Dimon said that Bitcoin should be banned by the United States government. Nobody

should be able to touch it. She's a bold-faced liar lying through her teeth. Maybe at least this means that she realizes that she has to back off on the rhetoric, but she needs to be held accountable. And so do all others who have participated in that anti-crypto army rhetoric. Just was incredible to me to see her try to pretend that she had never said it. Really, really astounding. But you can, I think it's John Deaton for senate.com. If you want to contribute to his campaign, I still make the argument that this is the most important election happening in the United States, even more important than the presidency, because Elizabeth Warren has been definitively the head of the snake of that anti crypto army that she coined. She's the one who

gave us Gary Gensler and friends and she just has to go it's a really uh tough slog uphill battle in massachusetts the only way to win is with money so i just highly suggest that you send some because it really really really matters all right i'm off my uh soapbox for the moment i'm assuming actually you know what i'm gonna get back on my soapbox. Just going to allow the guests to join me. Carlo, Dave, Fred, literally, we've all been to fundraisers for Deaton, right? In Austin, we were all collectively there. What did you think of the performance? Were you surprised they asked about crypto?

And, you know, how big of an issue do you think this can continue to be? I love that they asked about crypto. And I love that John showed up with the receipts uh he was he demonstrated that he's just such a eloquent and approachable person his skill as a litigator came through his grasp of the facts and the issues and i think she's in trouble i think she's drawn a candidate in this race that's really going to give her a run for her money. And I was very impressed with John's performance in that debate. Yeah, Dave. or undecided voters in Massachusetts other than the vote blue no matter who crowd. In Massachusetts, by the way, just so people know, John has pointed this out to me many times, has an actual majority of people are independents. That's how Trump is. Sixty-something percent.

Right. So if those people watch the debate, the polls are going to change, and they're going to change fast. The problem is that they're not, it doesn't get that many people watching it. And so to put a fine print on it, it's not money in the sense of John needs money for some noble cause. He needs to get a message in front of people. And the framing that John did, which I thought was brilliant on your show this morning, and I've seen a few more about it, is the choice isn't crypto or not crypto. I mean, yeah, we care about that. And there are voters who will care about it in Massachusetts.

The framing is freedom versus government control. Elizabeth Warren's anti-crypto army is so she could get a central bank digital currency and literally control what people can spend their money on. But that process, that division pervades every single issue she wants government control john stands for freedom with compassion that is the the framing and if he can get that framing in front of massachusetts he can pull off an upset and to do that people like the those those good folks who run a fair shake and stand with crypto. Fair shake has him blocked. I'm aware.

I'm aware. I am aware. Which could only be, there's no good reason for it. I understand that there's probably, you know, something that they don't like XRP or they don't like Ripple, whatever. I don't think it matters. But John literally stands for freedom with government, with a compassionate government. That's what he stands for. Every single one of his policy stances is far away from how Elizabeth Warren characterizes him. But he needs to get that

message to the people of Massachusetts before they get in the voting booth, right? And that's what takes the money. And I think people just need to understand that, because that literally is the key. If they get the message, if they recognize his name he will win if they don't he will lose and it really i i hate to be so doubtful about it but it is that simple yeah that's where the money matters fred yeah i have a slightly different take uh but it dovetails right with dave said at the very end which is if he gets the recognition and the visibility, he will win. So that's 100% right. I mean, money always helps. But I think if you have, I think that can be offset by publicity. I've been doing my best to try and reach out to everybody

that does, you know, the podcast, the political stuff. And I'm just a lowly guy on x i don't have the pull on that and i know you had him on your show earlier and that was great scott i think if we collectively pressure mario to do whatever he can with his contacts to get john on some of the shows that he's been on um i think that would be one of the best things that could do what John needs, which is getting out in front of everybody. Yeah, he'd be great on Joe Rogan. That would do it, but I don't know anyone who knows him. That would be the key, something like that.

So he would be great on Rogan. Patrick Bet-David was on Rogan. John Deaton was on Patrick Bet-David. John would be great on Tim Kass. Mario was just on Timcast, and he did great. So anybody who has these connections, anybody that's listening, if you reach out to those people, if all of a sudden a bunch of these bookers are getting these requests, they might look into it. I mean, Rogan is a tall order, but some of these others aren't. Yeah. I mean, people forget that John was just a regular here on

Crypto Town Hall long before he was a candidate for senator, right? I mean, John's been a kind of a friend of the show, a friend of the crypto industry, of course, for a long time. And he was just one of our, you know, crap squad of lawyers alongside you guys here. And it was, you know, in the time when the XRP decision had not come down and we were constantly checking up on the Ripple and XRP news that John was always here, always advocating for the industry. And then we just got lucky and the guy we love so much decided to run against the woman that we kindly do not love so much. And it's been nice to see some industry support coming around of late, but I'm actually surprised

that more crypto billionaires or companies have not supported him in a larger way. But Fred, to your point, I think that the best we can do is just to continue to get the word out. I mean, I think he's still pretty far behind, that the best we can do is just to continue to get the word out and stuff. I mean, I think he's still pretty far behind,

but that can change very quickly. She's not popular. I mean, she's just not. Yeah, real quick. I'll just say the polling that you see, like from UMass and Amherst and that stuff, I mean, that's essentially like, it's not literally Warren polling,

but it's as close as you're going to get. Some more accurate polls have them down by about nine, which is still formidable. But that's a lot closer than the 12, 13, 14 percent, 15 percent you're seeing in the most of the public polling. Doable. I mean, you know, speaking politics, we could talk Deaton all day, but we also obviously have to talk about the election. It's been pretty astounding to see at least on betting markets, and we talk about it daily, but it's worth updating 62% now, I think, I think he was high as 63% for Trump versus Harris right now. At this point, that gap is almost becoming suspect. It's so large, to be quite honest. I think anecdotally living in the United States, you'd be hard-pressed if you're out in the streets of most places to think that he's got a 25-point lead right now.

I mean, I think almost half the panel this year are in the US. I mean, do you get the feeling that he's really that far ahead? I mean, personally, absolutely not. And I think the largest confounding variable with these betting markets, especially if we're looking at the more crypto native ones is there is a bias in the user base, you know, trending towards wanting more crypto friendly politics. So I think as a US person living here, yeah, to me, it honestly feels 5050. But I'm in in San Francisco right now, which is, you know, leans the other way. So hard to tell. Yeah, I would put it at maybe a slight edge, depending on the day and who does what interview and what criticism comes from the media. But it feels like there's a very, very small amount of people who are, you know, undecided still and will probably end up deciding the election.

Iago? Yeah, I think the way you framed it is interesting because a lot of people I hear framing it that way. And that's, I think, an inaccurate way of framing it. So let's say you knew for certain that Trump would get exactly one more vote than Kamala. Then what the prediction market would show you is a hundred percent chance of Trump winning, right? Not a 50.0001 difference, right? So it's not the prediction market is not predicting that he is 19 points ahead. The prediction market is predicting that he's just ahead enough that if you were

to run this a million times in parallel universes, he would win in 60% of them. And so that's, it's a big difference between what the prediction market is showing you and the polls are showing you. A slight edge in the polls should produce a much larger edge in the prediction market. The other thing I hear about the prediction market is really interesting, which is a lot of people think it's being manipulated. Now, currently, there's over a billion dollars that have gone into the main Trump-Kamala prediction, and then a couple of hundred million more into the various states predictions that's a very very large market and the whole theory of prediction markets is

that it's almost impossible if they have deep liquidity to manipulate them and the reason is that anyone who's trying to manipulate them is effectively creating a profit opportunity for someone else. So if he should only be two points at 52% chance and someone's trying to manipulate it up to 60%, then anyone with money and knowledge who recognizes that those numbers are wrong basically is printed. It's like playing different spreads on betting sites for football games. Exactly. And so the election is an interesting thing in and of itself, but perhaps the most interesting thing that's going on here from a long-term perspective is this is the first real test

that we're getting anywhere in human history of the theory behind prediction markets at scale and it's and and it's going to now obviously we won't know because even even right now in one third of all parallel universes kamala wins right but this is a really really interesting experiment in aggregating human knowledge through the market to try and make predictions about the future um and if it works if it turns out that it can't be or it's very difficult to manipulate which is what i i suspect is is the case then that opens up a way for us to to increase you know or improve decisionmaking by humans by a lot.

So prediction markets in and of themselves are potentially a very important way forward for doing empirical analysis of the future. And so besides the whole election thing, there's an interesting experiment just being run by having such a big prediction market. Hey, Iago, you said that it can't be manipulated because it creates arbitrage opportunity.

What if the person manipulating it takes advantage of those arbitrage opportunities? Well, that wouldn't be a manipulation. That would be merely bringing it back to where it needs to be. And actually, there's one last point that I'll... Well, no, no, no. I'm saying if you're Russia and you want to make it look like Trump is winning and you put money in,

and now if it's 50-50, now you put money on the other side and you're getting much better than 50-50, you know, that they pushed it. And my guess is if it gets closer, there will be more volume. Right. So you can push it to the other side, manipulate it, push it down, and then come in at the end and get, you know, basically create arbitrage for yourself if you think that there's a 50-50 chance. I mean, Lou, that's what people do by, you know, or have done with crypto or markets, right? You can trigger leverage. Exactly. Could I take this one, Scott?

Exactly. That's why I don't, I think it's ridiculous to say that it can't be manipulated. No, no. You're wrong. Look, it's very important to understand the mechanics here. I hate to be the market structure geek, but in a market where there are liquidations and margins and auto liquidations, you get that liquidation cascade in crypto. That's how the manipulation. And the reason is because something that we in the business call liquidity arbitrage. And that's because you have a spot market that is determining the price of a crypto market where the spot market is, you know, may, you know, has different liquidity.

There's more in the derivative side. And so you can push it up, cause a cascade and benefit. That's why, by the way, the SEC has a title for this that they coined called momentum ignition. It does not work if it's not a derivative. The reason is because there's nothing to push. So if you push on, if you push the market in one direction, your average price of buying, if you're, let's say you're Russia and you wanted to push Trump from 50 to 57, your average price is going to be somewhere around 53. If you then try to sell and capture that spread from 57, your average price is on the way back down to 50 is going to be 53.

In fact, most of the time. Not if there's greater liquidity coming in. If more and more betting happens, then if you put in the same amount, it doesn't move it up as much. And the amount being bet is growing. And it will continue to grow until... It's funny because over the course of two different weeks, I happened to sit and watch the CEO of Polymarket and then had a long conversation at a different conference with the CEO of CalSheet. And we actually talked about this. And neither one of them thinks that that is

seeing the kind of momentum building kind of strategies that would indicate that. So I actually will call bullshit on that one. I think that it's very unlikely. But, but, here's a big but, there are people out there who have real businesses that will make money or lose money based on the output of the election and may very well be hedging. And that would be a countervailing indicator. And nobody knows how much that is. Right? other direction broadly speaking because if you assume that the crypto industry is more interested in this prediction market than anyone else right the vast majority of people are assuming that a kamala win is going to hurt their bags if it does anything and so it makes sense to buy kamala and so if anything, the hedging direction should be in the opposite direction. It should be that

we're seeing people who are hedging their crypto positions, buying Kamala and selling Trump. You could be hedging a short position. You could be hedging a short position and buying the other side.

Again, I hear what you're saying. The only point I'm making is the statement was made saying it's impossible, and I find that very hard to believe. I think Russia and others who want to manipulate our markets have deep pockets and are incredibly smart. I mean, yes. If anyone's listening for any length of time knows that never, always, impossible are not words that I tend to use for exactly that reason, right? There's always a possibility of anything, but it's not as easy as you think. It's much easier to manipulate the price of crypto derivatives when there's a spot market. I completely agree.

I just want to make that point because we talk about that from a market dynamic point, and a lot of our listeners actually are in these markets and want to understand. So I did want to dovetail there. I also want to make one other point, which is interesting, which is that a couple of weeks ago, Calci, which is, for those who don't know, was the first CFTC approved over there. They weren't happy about it, but well, two of the CFTC commissioners are happy about it, but the courts effectively granted them the legal status in the U.S. was diverging fairly significantly from polymarket. That doesn't exist anymore. That divergence is more or less gone. I mean, Calciata's check was 57 to 43 for Trump. And maybe

there's a tiny arbitrage there, but it's really small. But it was substantial about a week and a half, two weeks ago. And so clearly, the market is getting more and more efficient, which kind of backs up what Iago is saying. Yeah, makes sense. But Kalshi is still reflecting a pretty sizable gap. I haven't checked it, Dave. Do you know exactly what it is right now? When it was like 54.46, it was very close, but I haven't checked since. I checked. Right now, I'm staring at it. It's 57.43. It's still a pretty sizable gap considering, mean i think to a very large degree that eliminates the bulk of the it's just crypto people who are pro-trump argument right for polymarket uh i know it's a you know 61 to 57 but i think that's a normal standard deviation wouldn't you say

yeah that is kind of my point i mean it there is the fact that that it's moved as much as it is on a site that isn't really a crypto based site uh i think is relevant i mean look who knows why or what and you know it's there's been so much commentary about the brett mayor interview and the the the the view and the other stuff and everything that's been going on, it's just not worth talking about. It is just going to be empirical at some point, and we'll see where it is. The other anecdotal point that I will make, because someone talked about the San Francisco bubble. I've been in New York a bunch recently, and all I could say is I've had a half dozen conversations with very deep blue people who a month ago were convinced that they were going to win and now are convinced they're going to lose.

Does that mean anything? I have no idea. But some certain people that I've actually stunned that they're acting and saying it that way, at least in private. I don't know what they're saying publicly, and it doesn't really matter. But there's definitely a tone shift. But look, there's still weeks to go, and we'll see what happens. Fales. Hey, guys.

Yeah, I just wanted to mention, just looking at Polymarket here myself, it's something I've been doing a bit of research on the last few days. So, yeah, it's sitting on 62.2 percent in favor of trump now versus 37.8 for kamala i just think it's interesting um first of all i almost think the the point that a previous mentor speaker mentioned about hedging your crypto with kamala i actually think it's fascinating i think there's a there's a trade there almost if you think that Kamala is cheap or if you think she's being oversold and maybe Trump is being overbought. I think two things lend themselves to my read of that. The first being the user base for Polymarket.

Overwhelmingly young, white, male crypto users, right? Guys who are typically going to be voting for Trump in favor of Trump. Maybe the social media that they're most active on or the one that they're surrounded on the most is Twitter, which is a massive echo chamber, actually. And I'm not saying that disparagingly. Every social media is its massive echo chamber, actually. And I'm not saying that disparagingly. Every social media is its own echo chamber. Reddit is terribly, terribly left-leaning, its own kind of echo chamber.

But Twitter is very far from being impartial as well. So I think there's a skew there. There's a big skew. Now, Scott, you mentioned that the lead is so big. It's not just on Polymarket. The lead is so big now across betting sites as that, you know, the lead is so big. It's not just on Polymarket. The lead is so big now across betting sites as well, bookies, that there must be something more there than just a user base skew. And I completely agree with that.

But I think as well, the bookies are factoring in that they had underestimated Trump. Polls have underestimated Trump the last two elections. And he ended up being much more popular in the actual vote than what had been predicted, at least by the by the bookmakers. I think that bookmakers this election are accounting for that and correcting themselves before the vote this time in a way that they hadn't done before so i think those two factors probably combine in addition to you know the other elements uh let's say her underperformance recently maybe trump actually getting a tangible lead here but i do not think someone told me this morning in discord that they they said you know it's crazy that kamala only has uh you know a one-third

chance of winning i said no she doesn't absolutely not there is no way that trump has a one-third chance of winning. I said, no, she doesn't. Absolutely not. There is no way that Trump has an actual, in reality, grounded in reality, 63% or 62-point-something percent chance of winning at this very moment. I think it's much less than that. And if you think that that's an opportunity,

if you think that that's a trade, I think that's a very interesting one to take. Something that a previous speaker mentioned, which I think is fascinating, is that this is not representative of the actual chances, the percentage chances of those candidates winning, but rather the amount of people, the amount of basically gamblers, the amount of people betting money on that, who think that a smaller edge is enough to win right so as the previous speaker mentioned if if trump in reality maybe has a 10 actual a greater chance of winning than camel or a five percent or three percent whatever it is then that's going to skew

greatly when it comes to people putting money on that chance to win to the effect where you might get 62 63 65 percent of people putting money on that bet because it's the better bet but that's not reflective of the fact that there that he actually has a 65 chance of winning which i think is fascinating and the last point i'll mention i've seen so much talk about whether or not poly market is being manipulated potentially uh you know guys like elon i don't know it's all very tinfoil hat uh type type uh type uh speculation that elon or some uh some gop uh elites are are manipulating these polls in favor of the the in favor of trump i think that's that makes zero sense to me because i think if you manipulate a poll to show Trump winning, it's going to cause a more lackadaisical approach for the GOP side and probably spur the Dems on to vote in greater numbers, to show up in greater numbers. So I really don't see the logic in that argument.

I think that's one I've completely discarded, although I'm sure there are still people out there who believe it. election. He said that it's that the key point here is, is that higher the percentage turnout from each side is going to matter. It's more about enthusiasm than about who people actually support. And the proximate cause for the decrease or the people, the data that got gamblers saying that Trump was going to win more. Dave, we just lost you. Dave, you there? It sounds like you're eating Rice Krispies and your mic keeps going out. Oh, I'm sorry. I said, well, anyway, Scott Rasmussen made two points. He said, pull the turnout is the key and that watch early voting. And the data came out last week, late at the end of last week, that early voting is down substantively from what people expected. And so people are looking at that as a sign that obviously there's, once again, that can also change, but it's important to

understand that. So I think the last speaker was making the point that, you know, enthusiasm matters. I don't imagine, I think that both sides know that enthusiasm is important. They're not going to do anything that's going to decrease the enthusiasm of their bases. Well, isn't I think a lot of people looked at what the mail in rate was in the last election, which was during covid. And so it's not surprising that it would be down relative to mail-in ballots during COVID. No, it's down relative to the expectations that were obviously lower than during COVID. So it's just lower than what was expected. It's just full stop. It was like 20 some odd percent below. But as I said, it's early. So, you know, this early data is it's not I don't think it's statistically significant, but if you're

a gambler, you're going to look at it and say, ah, this is telling me something. I think that's part of the explanation. Zago. Yeah, just three quick things, which I think are interesting. One, with regards to Kalshi and the other betting sites, I actually don't think they're a very good indicator because Polymarket is so dominant in terms of its volume that anything that Kalshi or other betting sites or bookies are showing is going to be dominated by arbitraging against Polymarket.

So if you're a bookie, it's much, much safer for you to provide lower spread on Trump winning because you can hedge that out on poly markets and you probably are. So that's the sports betting side, I'll go just like, you know, to put it in a way, a lot of people here probably understand if you see a team favored by 16 on one side and favored by 14 on one side, there's an obvious bet to be made. Exactly. So I don't think there are strong indicators. However, there are many other prediction markets that that doesn't work for. So the other prediction markets tend to be pretty geeky and very focused on prediction

accuracy. And they have much smaller user bases. What we've seen there is a shift towards Trump as well. Much smaller, so typically in the vicinity of 53 or 54% advantage to Trump. But that's an interesting indicator. The second thing is, I think the turnout argument here is interesting, not so much for this election. Right now, Polymarket has about 100,000 users over the course of the last month. But imagine next cycle, right?

We're going to have way more prediction markets. We're going to have way more participants. You could imagine the number of participants being in the millions. Now, at that point, you are now creating a mechanism, which I think no one intended to create, but could be created anyway, where a large number of people are incentivized to go to the election and vote merely because their bags depend on it. And so if a candidate breaks out with a lead, they have potentially millions of people who are going to be highly encouraged to go and vote for that candidate so their prediction wins. So there's this interesting interaction that's happening.

Right now with 100,000 people mostly who are not U.S., probably not a factor but something to watch for in two years for the Senate and Congress or in four years for the next presidential election. And then the third thing, just one clarification, the point I was trying to make is not that um we would expect to see a larger so like if trump has a small lead you would expect to see that over represented in the prediction markets that's how it works um what the prediction market should be representing at least you know from the game theory economic, is that if you run this in an

infinite number of parallel universes, in 60% of those cases, Trump wins. And actually, that's believable. Even a small advantage in the polls could lead to a very significant statistical advantage in terms of, you know, parallel universe or the statistics of winning. This is one of the most interesting conversations we've had in a long time, honestly. Completely unintended and outside of the wheelhouse of topics, but I think it really is compelling. I mean, Dave, listen, you're effectively a professional poker player, right? I mean, how do you... the way you're hearing Iago describe this,

how do you frame that as someone who sits at a poker player and calculates pot odds and decides what to do, you know, on any given hand? Yeah, hardly professional. Oh, come on. You know, but you know, I'm sure there are people on here who would school me pretty good. But Iago's point is extremely important. Basically, what he's saying, just to make this easy for people to get, is it has nothing to do with the popular vote. At the end of the day, it's kind of known that unless Kamala wins the popular vote by 3% or more, then in all likelihood, based on the dispersion of the way the swing states, the electoral college are, she's toast. Moreover, Trump wins if they get, if he wins Pennsylvania and Michigan, right? And so you don't need for a landslide, doesn't have to be a Reagan landslide. What Iago was saying is if it becomes clear that Trump is

going to win Michigan and Pennsylvania, even if his electoral college majority ends up being, you know, like 10 or 15, you know, votes in the electoral college majority ends up being, you know, like 10 or 15 votes in the electoral college, which is nothing. But the betting markets could go to 90%, which doesn't take like a Reagan-style landslide to happen. What he's saying is it's certainty, not size of win. It's kind of like in a football game when you go up by nine points with 30 seconds to go. The certainty of win probability is now at 99%, right? Which is, it doesn't matter. It's 99% whether it's nine-point lead or a 50-point lead.

It's the same. That's what Iago is basically saying. Yeah, and Lou, actually, if you go and look at Polymarket, Polymarket is predicting a 73% last time I checked, or something along those lines, a 73% chance that Kamala wins the popular vote, but she loses the election. Sure, and that's what most pollsters think. You know, it's there. I don't know why, what randomly, I've talked to three professional pollsters over the last week and a half, and they all agree on a bunch of things. They certainly agree on that.

Everyone is looking at the fact, like what Fetterman came out this morning saying, how Elon is swinging Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is exceedingly important. I mean, it's kind of crazy that the rest of the country almost doesn't matter, but it is the way it is. It's just the uniqueness of our system. Pennsylvania, it's actually funny that it's called the Keystone State. Are you saying that my vote in Florida does not matter, Dave? How dare you? Yours and my vote in Florida, it matters because we have to go to the polls because if people start thinking it doesn't matter, then really bad things could happen.

I'm more worried about the local elections than I am about the national election in Florida, to be honest with you. But that's a that's a different story. In any case, the simple fact is that this election is going to turn on, you know, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and, you know, the other swing states to some degree, but there is no path to victory for the Democrats if they lose both Michigan and Pennsylvania. And so what Iago is basically saying is if the certainty there goes up high enough, the certainty in the betting market will go high, but it doesn't mean it's gonna be a landslide. That's really a point because the likelihood, this is still a coin flip election. It's close enough to a coin flip that, you know, with, with three weeks to go, we will see what happens because there's lots of time

for an October or a late surprise. I'm mostly just surprised that, you know, quote unquote, three professional pollsters. I didn't say I know. Well, I know one that was introduced to at a wedding. I didn't even know that was a thing. It seems like an oxymoron. But yeah, go ahead. Well, no. You'd be surprised how much. Look, when you have billions of dollars going into politics, why would anyone be surprised that there are professionals capitalizing on those billions of dollars?

I mean, come on. Of course. Yeah. I'm not really just, you know, being snarky, but it's pretty funny. Go ahead, Hannah. Oh, sorry.'s pretty funny. Granted, we don't know, you know, how deeply anyone would lean into monitoring the CBDC, but, you know, growing up in America, land of the free, that seems kind of crazy, but now we do have the tech to do it. If something

like that happened, I'm just curious hearing, especially from this group, what would you do? How many assets would you kind of start to manage in a more decentralized way versus keep around? I mean, hard numbers are hard to say, but I'm just curious if we saw kind of that worst case, what some of you guys would be thinking about. Could I start with this one? Because the funniest comment came from my wife, who I never would have expected. And she is far from a crypto bro. Obviously, you know, she knows she's involved. You know, my son and I started a business in crypto seven years ago. One of the reasons she wants us to look into and travel over the next few months and years is to look at

places like Buenos Aires to see if we need to get the hell out of the country and a government that is left-leaning ie oriented to a government control with a CBDC would literally be that pillar I all I can say is that I can't believe we're the only ones who are having that thought because it would be very very dystopian and by the way it would be dystopian with a right-leaning, you know, totalitarian style person too. I mean, the fact is the CBDC gives an enormous amount of control that is, it goes against everything that I think this country stands for, but you know, I guess we'll see. I mean, personally, I feel that they already have that control, right? Where is your money? Your money is in the bank. They want to get your money in the bank, get your money in the more used currency, the more people buy Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Sorry, Lou, that's just just not true. I mean, yes, you can do things. I mean, Elizabeth Warren took out a gun and shot Silvergate in the head. Yes, she did that. But that was that was a particular thing. You still have this thing called the Fourth Amendment. You cannot see someone's bank accounts without a court order. You can do it. Sure. The IRS does it. So, by the way, how does that change with the CBDC? Because it is. Are you saying the Fourth Amendment goes away if there's a CBDC? I'm saying that if you give government control to a programmable currency, that they decide it's in the public good for the average person not, you know, to buy no more than a certain amount of beef each week because it's creating climate change. And they can do that without passing a law in Congress. The executive branch has the power to do that.

They will do it. What you've seen this year without getting into lawfare is you've seen to the extent that a system can be weaponized, they will weaponize it. It's just way, way harder right now because while it's not decentralized, the fact is there's hundreds of community banks. You can still use cash in this country. And by the way- But you can use cash in a world of CBDCs. They're not saying they're going to eliminate all cash. Actually, no, that's not true. The whole point is to go cashless and have a CBDC. That is literally what has been talked about by Elizabeth Warren and her. Well.

OK, but again, what are they going to do? Go house to house and put a gun to everybody's head and say, hey, give me your cash. I mean, again, I think if there's a Fourth Amendment, then they can't just seize your CBDC either. And by the way, if they want to seize your money in your bank, they can seize your money in the bank. So, again, I see at the margin, sure, it's additionally more dystopic, but I completely believe that we already live in a massively dystopic place where the government can do basically whatever it wants. Fourth Amendment or not. And I guess that's a salute. Does that sound like you'd be essentially taking more of your assets into self-custody where there isn't necessarily a government? I already have 100% of my assets in self-custody. Gotcha. Yeah.

Because the government came and took all my money. So that experience was a real experience that I had. And by the way, so the Fourth Amendment did not protect me from the government money oh lou i want to i want to be really clear i don't disagree with you that we are marching towards dystopia we are on the same page there uh what i'm saying is it will provide a level of control that goes to the ultimate level i.e you know it's like you saw was a Klaus. I mean, again, I think we're at ninety nine. You know, if you say this, this turns it up to eleven. OK. OK, well, I mean, it's a matter of degree. I think I think they can do whatever they want already.

You know, and I've seen a not just with me, but with plenty of other people as well. So for me, the upside of a CBDC and people for the first time using crypto, hundreds of millions of people for the first time using crypto, I think that would be the greatest thing to happen in the history of crypto. I think that would have a far better future. People that haven't experienced what Lou's talking about, he's not just talking about the federal government having access to seizing your assets, but the states can do the same. Different regulatory agencies can do the same. Even smaller regulatory agencies interdispersed between both state and federal can do the same. So when he talks about 99% associated with the government, in quotes, having access to your assets and seizing those assets,

and at best you are fighting an uphill battle legally to get those assets returned to you. Oh, by the way, how difficult is it to fight that battle when you have no assets to hire attorneys to fight that battle on your behalf? Nearly impossible. So, you know, the reality is, is that it's not just the federal government that we're talking about here. It's also states and regulatory agencies that have the ability to dramatically disrupt your life financially and otherwise. Here's an example. If anybody's ever been behind on taxes with a particular state, that state not only can take action against your assets, but they can do things like suspend your driver's license, you know, and you have no recourse other than you have to then go work with said agency and separate agencies to deal with that particular

problem. And they're going to do that without having a conversation with you beforehand. It will just happen. So Lou isn't out of sorts here. These are real things. This stuff happens. And it's not just the federal government or it's not just the IRS. It's a litany of three and four letter organizations that exist at all different levels. I agree. I'm not, I just want to be really clear about this. Putting me in the sense of putting me of defending the government is just, it's wild because I'm not. What I'm saying is the CBDC control by the government is it will increase this. It's just scaling. Instead of going after people that they want to go after, they can programmatically go after literally everybody. And so you voted this way. You said this on, this AI said you're leaning this way on social media. Okay, we're going to do this to you. It is, it's just another level beyond what

it is, as opposed to getting people into crypto by allowing stable coins to operate and let them drive economies of scale and money transmission and paying bills and taking all that extra waste out of the economy. I have no illusions that if USDC, for example, becomes the government's favorite stable coin, that if they don't like somebody, that they're going to go to Jeremy and say, dude, you need to lock this for this account down. And I don't think he's going to say no. I just can't imagine. Maybe he would.

I don't know. It would be interesting to hear what he would say about that. He can, Dave. It's already allowed if you look at the terms of service. I know. Tether works. Right. But my point is that when the government has it and they can do the programming, it's just an extra level of scale.

And maybe, maybe, you know, it doesn't matter because it's already bad enough. But, you know, I keep thinking I can't help but thinking that if you give someone a tool that, you know, power will always get used and it will always get used for the basest reasons. Yeah. So then guys, what do you put your off-chain or on-chain money in? Like if USDC, USDT, centralized stables, even Athena centralized stables, if it's touching the centralized rails, what do you put it in? Do you have a favorite? Where do you kind of lean on that? Yeah. But what if you want dollar denomination? Is it feasible to assume that everyone will think in terms of denominating their assets in Bitcoin? No, I'm not going to put it like that. We have people who come up like Simon Dixon, who are deep believers who denominate their lives in Bitcoin.

I'm not saying that I can or will do that. But I think that in context of the conversation here on stable coins, there's still that risk and Bitcoin is one step, I think, more anonymous and safe. But yeah, eventually you got to pay your bills, right? Yeah, I think one thing that I've noticed, at least in the stable coin game is the high the high yield opportunities tend to seem to be so closely related to actual like bond markets and things like that on stables um so that's always kind of been a tricky thing i think the asymmetry account might have some might have some i know they're building a solution around this, helping build that, but I can essentially pass it off if you want to give a quick description. I mean, yeah, guys, the idea, I think, is it really ties into what y'all were just talking about. I mean, everyone has to pay their bills at some point. Scott, to your point, right? Like, people don't necessarily think in terms of Bitcoin denomination yet, maybe one day, hopefully. And then Lou, hearing your story about,

you know, government taking all your assets. I mean, it's a very real problem, very possible. And so then you open up this kind of can of worms where if they can take everything, if you're in a centralized stable, but if you're in a decentralized stable, you don't earn anything on it, or you're just getting eaten up by inflation. It's kind of the worst of both worlds, perhaps. And so the idea behind a lot of what kind of looking at this and saying, how do we build something that kind of fits this gap and fills this niche of how do you beat inflation, but also stay fully decentralized and away from all kind of centralized

touch points exchanges. And then how can you also have some, some yield on that? And so that's a big piece of kind of the ecosystem and what we're building here. And I, I, I think it ties perfectly into this conversation given that the idea is of course, stay away from those centralized rails so that you can't get your assets seized, but that you actually are not, of course, stay away from those centralized rails so that you can't get your assets seized, but that you actually are not getting eaten alive by the government just printing money to no end. Officially, probably the smoothest transition.

I was just going to say the same thing. It was completely accidental. I'm going to put that in whole history. But yeah, congrats to whoever just did that transition. Mario, I have to say, though, you would have loved, I know you've been busy, you would have absolutely loved today's conversation. You should go back and listen to it. Why would I have loved it? What was the TLDR for people that joined late?

We just ended up going deep on effectively the predictive markets, which I know you love talking about, polymarket. And you just got to listen to it. I can't even unpack it as well as Yago and Dave and everybody did. So I just really, you'll love it but mario i gotta interrupt and just say it since you're here it would be awesome if you could

reach out to whoever you were dealing with to get you on timcast to get john deaton on there asap oh yeah mario we we need you i'll ping tim um i think i spoke to tim about john i think i did i can't remember but i'll i'll tell him. You know, John has another debate tonight, Mario, and I think in context of the one two days ago, now I think he would get a lot more interest. Yeah, at 7pm, but I think there's clips from two days ago

that I think would attract the attention of the biggest podcasters. Elon, I know it's not public anymore, but Elon liked a couple of the videos I posted of John. I saw one, well, I think one, maybe two, that popped in. Yeah. But yeah, so. I think like, you know, we think we, as Fred was saying earlier, when you look at the realistic polling, sorry to interrupt, he's going to sponsor.

But he could be within 10 points here and literally like a Musk type endorsement or going on one of those or Rogan type thing. I mean, it could literally end Elizabeth Warren. When is the election? It's unbelievable. In three weeks. Still time. All right.

I'll bring Tim. in terms of Joe Rogan, that could be interesting. Um, I can ask, but I think just starting with Tim would be good. Anyone else? Let me,

hit me up. Whoever you think is good. And I'll just bring him for you as a favor or bring him for, for John as a favor. I, um, yeah, I remember the interview we had and how, how much of an underdog he was to where he is now.

It's just nice to see him. But in terms of just, sorry, I know, you know, I'm not the only one that joined late. Other people joined late, but I took the predictive markets. Like how could you go deep?

Like what, what gets discussed with any, any, we talking about the shortfall, the centralization aspects of it. To some degree, but it got deeper into actually kind of the fundamentals of how the betting would work

and what you're actually betting on. It's not, you know, it's, God, I would almost rather Iago and Dave explain it. But effectively, just saying that he's 62%, obviously now on poly market is saying that basically, there's a one third chance he'd win two third he'd win, or more plainly saying, like, even if he wins by one vote, you would take the bet that Trump's going to win. So it's not saying that he's going to win by a certain margin. It's more of a binary vote on who

will or won't win. And then we got much deeper into kind of how that plays into other predictive markets, and poker and other things. And we got much deeper into kind of how that plays into other predictive markets and poker and other things. And then that transitioned into the CBDC conversation that you kind of showed up for the tail end of, which was a really natural sort of segue into the top. I want to listen to the betting one.

I really, yeah, I'll do so. I'll probably retweet it for my account and pin it if I enjoy it as well. Let's go to the discussion. So actually actually it's going to be a good one. So this is a space I don't know too well. Who's using the asymmetry account? What's your name? Hey guys, I'm Justin. Justin. Yeah. So it's going to be an interesting conversation. Cause like it's very important to break it down.

Even the basics of any project, especially the technical ones, because not everyone on people on stage are a lot more technical than most people in the audience and most people in general. So, and I'm going to enjoy this because that's a space i'm not too familiar with um so if you had to explain what's asymmetry or first you started talking about the decentralized versus centralized stable coins can you can maybe go through because i know that's been a discussion and we've invested in a few that's been a discussion for a very long time and a lot of solutions that have tried to really achieve this. But, you know, there's a lot of difficulties, technical difficulties in making it happen. Can you tell, like, maybe break down on what those difficulties are and then we'll break down on how you guys solve them?

Yeah, absolutely. It's such an important problem that needs solving, but it also seems such a difficult one to solve as well. Totally. It's, I think, one of the largest problems facing this kind of thought about onboarding the next 100 million users. And how do you simultaneously get away from a little bit of some of this government control at the same time as how do you kind of shield yourself from having your purchasing power eroded over time. And it's kind of looking at the combination of those two and saying, how do you have a decentralized stable place to park your money? But yet, how do you also make sure that you are not essentially getting eaten alive by government printing, which I think a lot of agreement here, nothing stops that train. So it's kind of bringing these two pieces together and creating something that is designed

to be as simple as something that my mom can use while also being really, really powerful and kind of away from those centralized rails. Okay. So there's like two main problems you guys or decentralized stablecoin solve. The first one is the decentralized stablecoin aspect of it all. Just having a medium of exchange within the industry that is not centralized and they're stable. I think it's one of the biggest weaknesses of crypto stablecoins and has been since the beginning.

And then the second one is being able to beat inflation, especially in today's money printing age. So let's dig into, back to my question though, is that, okay, but why is it so difficult to create a decentralized stable coin? Yeah. I mean, you have, you've seen a lot of iterations and a lot of people trying from everything from die to Luna, to Rai, to everything in between the stability of a decentralized stablecoin is obviously really difficult.

The world runs on US treasuries. And when you can back everything by the US government's word, then life gets easier theoretically, right? Assuming that that will maintain all the way into the future. The US government is a military. Yes, exactly.

So it's, you know, you have F-14s and F-22 Raptors backing up the money. So it's a whole different ballgame. But when you talk about from a decentralized standing, you need to be able to have conditions, edge cases, where it doesn't break. And that's obviously been the downfall of a lot of decentralized stable coins thus far. And really, what is being built now is take like Athena, for example, everything they do yield generation is off chain. It's a great stable coin, kind of a synthetic dollar more so. But all the yield generation is off chain, touching centralized exchanges. So it is like USDC kind of yields a little bit, but you don't get any of the protection that you get with the decentralized stable.

So you beat your inflation, but you don't have any, you could still essentially have them say, hey, this accounts money. Yeah, I think that the problem of beating inflation, it's less of a problem, in my opinion, because there's multiple ways of doing that, none of them are perfect. But I think the problem of just having a decentralized stable coin in the first place is the difficult one, keeping it stable. How's DAI doing right now? DAI is doing well. Obviously, it's down from off its highs.

The hard part with DAI is that it's kind of, in my opinion, a power users product in that you have to be really, really mindful. There's kind of this trade-off. There's a trade-off between efficiency and set it and forget it, right? So the more efficient you get, okay, the higher you kind of push your LTV. So you borrow against your Bitcoin or your ETH or whatever. The higher you push your efficiency and your LTV and basically the percentage of which you're borrowing against, the more you have to probably be plugged in all the time, watching the charts, keeping your eye on Twitter,

making sure that prices don't dump. Because if they do, you need to go add more collateral or you need to top up or lower your LTV, pay some back, whatever it is. And so it's really not built, I don't think, for the next 100 million users of people who are not always on crypto Twitter like we all are and watching the charts all the time. Yeah, the solutions they have from a technical perspective is just not built for scale, yeah? 100%. I think that's a really great way to sum it up. And so the idea is, can you also create something that my mom can use easily and they don't have to worry about

okay prices prices down here comes a cascading liquidation i gotta be careful a lot of people don't even know what cascading liquidation is for good reason exactly exactly just for the audience like this is a very for anyone that's not too deep in defy so it's a it's a it sounds confusing but it's so fucking important for the space because the whole concept of crypto and blockchain is decentralization. Yet, everyone listening right now, most people, most of you have USDT. Well, USDT, USDC, etc.

are centralized stablecoins. So the long arms of the government could reach those stablecoins, and they have already. So that's a big choke point for crypto. And we saw that back during the Silicon Valley bank collapse, among other incidents. So having a decentralized version of a stablecoin is what the person, the company or person that manages to solve that at scale, probably be the most important step that crypto takes

more than all the regulatory and political discussions that we have. So just going back to the discussion, Justin, before asking the question of linking it to asymmetry and how you guys are different. So if you want to simplify it for the audience, what on a more general level, not just with DAI, just all the different decentralized stable coins that are out there. Why is it so difficult to decentralize the stability of a stable coin if you had to i know it's a very difficult question to simplify but if you can give it a shot totally i think there's a couple of things mario the biggest one being the stability of it right what do you back it against so from a technical aspect um you have to find a collateral that

doesn't already touch the financial rails the trad five financial rails so there's only a couple that really do that effectively um eth bitcoin um and then ample spot a few other ones that i think are maybe a little less well known but there's not that many and then really the bigger piece what's ample spot yeah ample and spot it's uh our friends over at Ampleforth. They built this idea that you can have a decentralized asset that tries to track the purchasing power of a dollar from 2019. So over time, so over time, it's designed to go up in price to reflect kind of the protection of of a purchase of your purchasing power as in what is one dollar from 2019 worth in today's dollars interesting okay that's fascinating

it's a great invention and it's actually what um usdaf asymmetry's new stablecoin is actually built on top of um because it's, trying to protect users purchasing power, but it's fully decentralized. And another big piece of that is the governance aspect too, of if one team or one very small subset of people control the governance of a protocol, then it's not truly decentralized. If a small subset of people can make decisions about how it should work or shouldn't work. And so that's a big point of emphasis for asymmetry as well trying to get the governance token out into the hands of as many people as possible and there's a a public sale happening in a week to do exactly that symmetry yeah exactly and trying to do it at a, at a lower price actually, um, in order to

get as many people involved as possible, because the idea is you have to sufficiently decentralize in order to, uh, really scale into the millions and hundreds of millions, uh, and have a chance at being kind of the rails, the next financial system are built on. So governance has to be decentralized as well as the underlying technology as well especially i want to give a big shout out to my fucking team for bringing us all the best projects i was going through your your various backers and stuff um and i'm i'm really impressed i'm like really happy to be on your cap table so thank you for for allowing us to come in um and well done to my team if they're listening um all right man

so just going back to it before digging into into your public sale and who your backers are and how much you've raised, et cetera, for people that are listening saying, why is Ace and she going to be the one to hopefully solve that problem? But so my last question is, you're kind of answering to why and we link to Ample and the various, so how would you back a stable coin you can't back it with a centralized asset um it's highly back it was something that's decentralized as well and you said you know there's not many solutions as bitcoin eth and then he said ample and which is kind of it's an algorithmic way of um keeping the value of the

us dollar in 2019 again Again, pretty cool invention. So I want you to continue with that thought. So that was the first problem was what do you back it with? What are other problems? And then my next question will be how do you guys solve it? You already answered on what asset to back it with. Maybe see how do you build the algorithmic strategy of being able to back it? Is that a difficult problem to solve as well? Or from a technical perspective, that's not the difficult one?

It really is. And that's, I think you're asking the right question there. It's all about stability, right? At the end of the day, like if people are putting money into a stable coin, they want it to be stable, right? And so the Ample token and Spot is a derivative of Ample. So it's kind of built,

it's a senior tranche is the technical term. But basically, it's just a more stable version of Ample. It just has a little bit less volatility. But if you take Dai's example, right, it's kind of the largest, I think, decentralized stablecoin. Is it fully decentralized? That's a question, right? But the model itself theoretically works right if you allow users to deposit an asset that is sufficiently decentralized and borrow against it

then the asset that comes out is sufficiently decentralized it's as decentralized as the asset that goes in so taking that again sorry yeah so if the asset that goes in is sufficiently decentralized and you borrow against it, and get a stable coin that is a part of that value or percentage of that value, then the asset that goes in is decentralized, the asset that comes out is as decentralized as the original asset itself. And so that's the idea. The most important thing is what asset backs it. Bingo. So use a decentralized asset to back it allow people to borrow against it and really

try and put the stable in stable coin how long has the ample been around for uh they've been building man they're ogs uh i would say i don't know off the top of my head five years six years oh wow yeah they're a couple cycles old so their their founder was actually roommates with brian armstrong so they're they're very og oh nice wow okay cool um and by the way questions any questions i'm asking hannah as for you and justin um so just jump in anytime um but now i want to dig into you know you guys what makes you guys um the ones to solve this problem like go through your back and we're going through your website but anyone in the audience that's on the move in the toilet in the shower in the car that can't go on the website

who are your backers how much have you raised what valuation and and when's the listing and and where oh gosh we have i can jump in here so well first of all my a very brief background on myself i came from traditional finance where i was an actuary, so actually measuring risk. And then I worked at a few different DeFi startups measuring risk until I was at Genesis Global Trading. I was managing their DeFi portfolio of about a billion dollars. And I actually saved all that from the UST collapse because I submitted a risk report a few weeks before then saying this is not sound. So I have a history of defending, you know, assets from stable coin death spirals. But beyond that, so and Justin has a degree in computer science.

And then, you know, he built a computer when he was like 10, had a Bitcoin wallet by the time he was 13 um lost it all in mango yeah and he has a history in cyber security so we do really emphasize security um and we come from kind of i come from tradfi he's from more traditional computer engineering but our backers are amazing um magnus you've got comma three you've got uh republic you've got pentago uh who else frax is there uh fidelity's there you got fidelity yeah so basically the so fidelity has an affiliated token fund called f prime they use for crypto deals and they are one of our backers so basically i mean just let me put my name in please polychain layer zero is there as well convex um magnus i've said i think curve is there as well that's a good curve how did curve get involved you might be asking just briefly

yeah absolutely so a lot of the d5 protocols have reached out to us and then either founders or team members have angled in um so like founder of Frax is in there founders of Convex so yeah we have an amazing network nice at first yeah congratulations I mean this uh genuinely mean this I think you guys are doing the right backers you've got the right background as well and they're going through the solution I know we've just barely touched on the uh kind of high level overview um but um um yeah it looks like it's the right solution but how much have you raised and what valuation if you want me asking absolutely so our we raised 33 mil in our pre-seed um around 20 mil fdv and then we raised another million at 45. So we have lockups on our private rounds. You've only raised 4 million.

Why is that? You just didn't need more or market conditions? So I'm so happy you asked. Actually, we wanted to save a huge chunk of tokens to get out to the community on day one because we're talking about these decentralized solutions like yes you're not decentralized if eight people have 51 of your governance power which is die eight wallets at least this was true last i checked but eight

wallets had over 51 of governance power so it's not decentralized, you know, but, and you see these crypto companies selling too many tokens in our, in our opinion to private investors, you should get strong investors. That's what we did. But we told investors no at the same time, because we wanted to save those tokens for the community. The other thing we think most projects are doing wrong is launching at the highest possible FDV they can out the gate to the community. The other thing we think most projects are doing wrong is launching at the highest possible FDV they can out the gate to the community. And you're just going to see these tokens bleeding value. And your community is going to hate you.

They're not going to be happy. What FDV are you guys listing at? So we actually just created our Fjord Foundry sale. We found it's the most permissionless and fair way for people to get access to a token at 30 mil FDV. So we're actually dropping it to a more affordable price for the community because we want to get as many people in as possible. if you do not have decentralized governance, you are at risk of any centralized entity coming to you and saying, hey, we can see that 15 people control this thing. It's not decentralized. We're going to tell you to stop. But if the DAO is actually governing, if you have 5,000 holders, 10,000 holders, and also if you get them in early and they can grow with the protocol and actually help it grow and govern it,

it's a much more decentralized product. And for a project as big as ours, which is an inflation-resistant stablecoin, it will outpace inflation by at least a few percent. Out the gate, we're expecting 15% to 20% APY on it. That's a huge project and it needs to be decentralized to fully protect its potential. Cool. I know we went way over time, which I already got that much over time. It's already six minutes over time. But one last question is after the public sale, is there any exchanges you guys did a deal with to, to, to list or not yet?

So that is confidential, but you can follow our Twitter for the first announcement on it. Um, that will be coming soon. And it's just the Twitter in the space at asymmetry. I have a feeling if you only raise that much money, that means you didn't give us much. I'm sure my team tried to get the biggest allocation. Did we get a tiny allocation?

Didn't we? We didn't get much. Did we? You didn't get, I would say you didn't get, you know, we made the teamwork. I don't know.

I can see you've only raised $3 million. Oh yeah, we made the teamwork. Well, I'm glad to be on board. We made all of our, we vet our investors as much as they vet us. How many decades am I locked up for? No, I'm glad to be on board. Really excited. Love what you guys are building.

Love your background as well. Great cap table. You're approaching it right. I love the answer when you said how much did you raise? because i'm sure you could have raised a lot more based what you guys are building and who's backing you guys um now i love the discussion uh is it i love when i learned something new in those discussions but um yeah if anyone wants to find out more guys anyone listening asymmetry is on stage um and obviously you should go to their website check them out keep an eye out for them the public sales sales is six days on Fjord Foundry.

It's in six days. Yeah, Hannah? Yep, exactly. Cool. Check them out. Hey, Symmetry, we're on the cap table. Let's make this happen. And guys, good luck with your public sale,

with your listing. And hopefully you'll get some information on the exchanges, but it should be exciting. And it was a great discussion. Thank you so much, guys. Oh, Scott is online. Scott, eat your fucking heart out heart out and another one you're not on the cap table man how does it feel giving me shit about a whole vc back talkers i don't know i feel american i don't know how i feel it's secure i forgot the whole security thing yeah shit all right cool all right guys

thank you so much where are you guys based Hannah, which country you guys based the company? So the company is pretty global. Um, companies based in Panama. Yeah. Cool. All right. Love it. Love it.

Yep. And you're based in, where are you? I'm in San Francisco. Nice. All right, cool. And Justin?

Yep. Justin is in Texas. Oh, nice. I'll be in Texas in a few weeks. Um, just got a few interviews. Just go in Texas are basically the same.

Basically the exact same. All right, guys. See you soon. Good luck with your sale. Thank you so much, everyone. Scott,

I'll be listening to the recording and, and let you go and let you know my feedback. Thanks everyone. Thanks for having us. Bye everyone. Bye.