The Wolf Of All Streets - FTX Totally Destroyed | Crypto Collapses | What Should You Do? | Dave Weisberger, Edan Yago, Tom Dunleavy, Steven McClurg

Episode Date: November 9, 2022

FTX-Binance drama explained. Special guests: Dave Weisberger, Edan Yago, Tom Dunleavy, Steven McClurg.  Dave Weisberger: https://twitter.com/daveweisberger1 Edan Yago: https://twitter.com/EdanYago Tom Dunleavy: https://twitter.com/dunleavy89 Steven McClurg: https://twitter.com/stevenmcclurg ►► JOIN THE FREE WOLF DEN NEWSLETTER https://www.getrevue.co/profile/TheWolfDen  GET UP TO A $8,000 BONUS IN USDT AND TRADE ALL SPOT PAIRS ON BITGET FOR ZERO FEES! ►► https://thewolfofallstreets.info/bitget   Follow Scott Melker: Twitter: https://twitter.com/scottmelker  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/wolfofallstreets   Web: https://www.thewolfofallstreets.io  Spotify: https://spoti.fi/30N5FDe  Apple podcast: https://apple.co/3FASB2c  #FTX #Binance #Crypto 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.

FTX is totally destroyed. CZ from Binance is apparently coming in to offer a lifeline. And this is the last thing the crypto market needed right now. An absolutely massive black swan event, which you could argue is as big as Luna, 3AC, Celsius, and Voyager combined. I know I'm prone to hyperbole, but this is about as bad as it gets because it's the last person and the last company that we needed to see this happen to on a global stage. But since I am prone to hyperbole, maybe some of the guests can talk me down off the ledge and convince me that it's not as bad, or maybe they're going to convince me that it's worse. We're starting with Dave Weisberger from CoinRoute and Tom Dunleavy from Masari, but who

knows who may show up. We threw a few invites out there and we'll probably be talking about this all week. You guys definitely do not want to miss this one and neither do I, frankly. Let's go. What is up, everybody? I'm Scott Melker, also known as the Wolf of Wall Street. Before we get Let's go. Bitcoin thing, right? And once again, it's important to make that differentiation or even more importantly, to make the differentiation between the actual asset and the shit show of an infrastructure that we built around it, right? There's no argument here against Bitcoin. It's still decentralized. It will still be viewed as digital gold store of value. You can still transact easily without going to a centralized exchange but man if we didn't just pull a full-on lehman brothers and 2008 financial crisis

uh and completely self-inflicted we did it to ourselves but i don't even want to talk about it myself i'm going to go ahead right now and bring on tom dunleavy and dave weisberger tom from masari of course and d Dave from CoinRoutes. How are you guys doing this morning? Well, it's certainly what's the old Chinese proverb? May we live in interesting times. These are interesting times. There's no two ways about it.

And I think that there are some lessons here that really need to be discussed and some nuance to those lessons, which unfortunately, people in crypto who tend to get very tribal don't tend to discuss. So I'm hoping to be able to get into that around leverage and regulation and where there is value and where there isn't. I think all of those are really important lessons, but obviously very hard to have discussions when people are hurting. I mean, I'm old. I remember sitting on the desk in 1987 when the stock market crashed 25%. I remember what was going on at Lehman Brothers when that happened. This is a similar level of fear, and it comes in a very interesting backdrop at a very interesting time. So we can get into that. I'm really curious what Tom is seeing as well. So I don't want to dominate the conversation, but I do want to make sure that we talk about what this is and what this isn't. And the proof that no human being is incapable of hubris.

And that hubris has a tendency of smacking people in the face. And it's one of those things that all of this is worth talking about. Agreed. Tom, jump in. Yeah, we lost our Harvey Dent today, right? This was our white knight. And we saw him become Two-Face right in front of our eyes here, which is allegedly, which is all unfortunate but i think you bring up an interesting point uh off the bat dave you know a lot of this was or all of this was offshore entities if this was regulated and within

the us a lot of this would have been potentially not even able to happen so now we have you know offshore entities like the ftx bahamas division, and then we have Binance fighting, and the US really doesn't have a say. So we have regulators come in like the CFTC saying they're going to monitor the situation, but I mean, it doesn't really matter. We need to get better regulations here so we don't push this stuff offshore and then hurt onshore US customers because of these bad things that are happening because of leverage and because of all the things you're talking about. That's actually what Brian Armstrong said in his thread via Coinbase. He basically said, listen, we don't pander in this kind of activity. This is not what we do. We're backed one for one.

But it was literally number one and number nine in his thread. I remember, I'll bring it up maybe in a bit, where he said, but this should not be an excuse for regulators to over-regulate because this is basically all happening offshore. I mean, isn't the fact that FTX.us is still functioning, allowing withdrawal, I withdrew from there literally today. Isn't that a perfect illustration of what you're saying? FTX.us will obviously lose activity because of confidence, but but frankly the technology is still better arguably still less uh conflicted than uh than mr armstrong's company uh who does have a market maker that is is part an otc desk that is part of coinbase uh and the fact of the matter is ftx us doesn't have anything to do with leverage they've applied to uh use leverage and i think we need to talk about what that really means because one of

the biggest shames out of all this is a very major improvement uh to systematic risk uh will likely be delayed for a fairly significant amount of time over a piece of policy that is just, there's no word for it other than just flat dumb. The fact that collateral could be accepted, that is completely irrespective of its liquidity and to a lesser degree volatility, but liquidity is really the issue. That's stupid. It's sort of like at we had a clip a video that one of our guys took of of me and my co-founder Ian uh Ian Weisberger made the point

yesterday that his and he pointed to his watch and happened to be that it was a you know it's a gold Rolex that the gold Rolex is far better collateral than FTT because you could go to any jewelry store in the United States and sell it and you know exactly what the because you could go to any jewelry store in the united states and sell it and you know exactly what the haircut you're going to take on it is you could look it up online in a heartbeat you have no idea if you tried to sell a billion dollars worth of ftt where it would be sold because you don't know where the bid is and we found that out yesterday you know when it was traded when it traded down to 16 people were saying saying, oh, well, there must be a bid somewhere. Within a blink, it was at four.

And so the big fact here, the fact that nobody wants to talk about is the real-time risk engine of FTX should have meant that FTX had no hole in their balance sheet. There were two problems. Problem one, well, there are two potential potential problems and we don't know which one or what the combination are problem one is they accept as collateral instruments that are incredibly illiquid the fact that one of them happens to be their own token it makes it even worse from an optic point of view but that's not really the point the point is if they accepted i don't know you know i'll pick something that died, cannabis coin, it doesn't really matter. If you pick a coin that has a day's average trading volume of 100,000

and allow someone pledge a billion dollars of collateral with something that just doesn't trade, you're going to have exactly the same problem. Whoever issued it, it doesn't really matter. That's a big deal. And that something that that people should have known or appreciated and that's something that no regulator in their right mind would ever let happen so that's thing number one thing number two is okay despite that why did ftx uh effectively go against everything sam and his lieutenants have been saying for the last two years and socialize those losses. Why did they turn off the risk engine? So what if the people who had those positions had to be liquidated at a stupid price? So what? The exchange wouldn't have lost money. Someone who

didn't have leverage and had Bitcoin on the exchange wouldn't be at risk. The risk happened because we'll say a client A, whatever A happens to stand for, might have had been wiped out completely if the liquidation engine was allowed to run. But that wouldn't have wiped out everybody else. And the insurance fund might have lost some money. But the reality is, is they let it run. The irony here, and this is really delicious irony, is that the argument, the argument in favor of FTX's proposal to CFTC is that a real-time risk engine is better. Why? Because it doesn't let a risk go out of control. 40 people in that room when they had that hearing a few months ago all said, yeah, but when it does that, it usually bounces back.

And so we'd be liquidating people we didn't need to. Well, guess what? What did FTX do? We don't know that this is what happened, but it certainly seems that what happened was collateral value dropped precipitously. They paused the engine, hoping it would snap back. It didn't. And boom, there you go. And I think I find that extremely ironic. I don't know about you, Scott. I have to, I mean, ask hard questions. I hate to be like the speculator, but there's some pretty compelling evidence that Alameda was who they were offering FTT. Yeah, it seems like. Yeah. I mean, the question is like, who's taking FTT as collateral for a loan? Well, it's their own company, Alameda, right? And so did they turn off the risk engine effectively to stop themselves from getting

liquidated, even though it's the same company? I think it's pretty clear. Yeah, I think it's pretty clear Alameda held a large portion of FTT. I mean, they were using it all over DeFi as collateral. So I think they were trying to defend their own company. I guess my biggest question is how much did Sam know and how much was he controlling this versus how much were his other lieutenants at fault? And he was trying to sort of save the ship behind the scenes, or is he really the fall guy? Is he really the architect behind this whole thing? I'm not sure right now. It's, it's really tough.

And it seems like he's being locked down and from speaking, I know Caroline has had a few tweets out, but it doesn't seem like anyone from FTX is really able to say anything right now. I mean, to me, that's an interesting question, knowing Sam and actually. Dave, we've had probably twice. We've been in this very same triangle right here with Sam sitting in Tom's seat, right?

Right. So personally, right here with sam sitting in tom's seat right right so i mean personally i think that he would agree with the conceptually that there's no way this should have possibly been allowed to happen the question is to what degree is did hubris stop it from happening to what degree did the command and control in the system not work but whenever people and you just said something about tom that's really important all over twitter today there's people saying well this couldn't happen in d5 my answer sorry this isn't a family-friendly show but that is absurd the fact of the matter is if a d5 uh exchange had the rule that said that or DeFi platform had the rule that said they'll take FTT at full

collateral without a haircut, and they wanted 140 or 150% over collateralization, when it falls 75%, that platform is toast. And people need to understand that when I call for rules and I talk about and I say, because I've been saying it, that we need principles based regulation. One of them. Well, there are two that are really important that I talked about this morning. One is wall off spot cash account holders from margin accounts so that they are senior in the credit stack and you don't have to worry about losing anything. The second is collateral that you accept in a multi collateral institution needs to be haircut. It needs to be applied with quantitative rules based on its volatility and more importantly, its liquidity. And, you know, when you have regular regulators come in,

they don't tend to do that. They just tend to say they set it. The CME sometimes changes margin requirements based on what it what it sees and that so that's a good thing the truth of the matter is if you're going to allow a thousand different crypto assets to be used as collateral there should be a thousand different haircuts determined by formulas that are adjusting that's the only way to do it otherwise you need a smaller list of what could be collaterals which is more like things like stable coins or if you want to have bitcoin that's totally cool that's actually worked bitcoin as collateral very very well without any socialized losses on derivative platforms for years now same with ethereum the problem here is there's no liquidity in these other instruments and this

particular one caused it and i think it's really important for people to understand that principles based rules, not regulators stating what the collateral is, is what's required here. But you do. There is a reason why derivative exchanges and systems are segregated from from cash exchanges in every other in every other asset class in every other jurisdiction. Sorry for my rant, Scott. No, you're good. Also, I'm going to add Steve McClurg from Valkyrie who just showed up. It appears in his car.

It's a truck, actually, because I'm in Tennessee. We drive trucks here. Yeah. I don't know if you've been listening in. Maybe you'll catch up in a second but i think you know what topic we're obviously talking about at the moment i i don't so i was just at the gym if it was leg day i i would have kept going but uh i just got done and i saw that you're having you're talking about something i'm curious what's going on that's so special

yeah well it's not the election it's not a cpi print um which which are both happening but yeah basically we're trying to obviously parse how this happened what's happening here i mean listen you're heavily regulated in the united states right valkyrie obviously does any of this surprise you not Not at all. I mean, look, so here's the deal. We're risk managers at Valkyrie. There's a lot of different types of risks that we manage. One of them is counterparty risk. And when we took a look at all the different types of exchanges and custodians to work with,

we looked at Celsius, we looked at celsius we looked at voyager we looked at blockfi we looked at uh ftx and none of those four that i mentioned we could actually understand what was going on in the background or what kind of risk there was so if you can't understand risk you don't take the risk and uh so so luckily we've we've avoided all four of those because we took a look um but no fdx was always a mystery right because it kind of popped out of nowhere uh you had this this trading firm that then opened up a derivative shop and then it became an exchange but you literally don't know anybody that actually uses it except for, you know, I mean,

there's a lot of people that use it, but they all are in the U S using VPNs doing offshore stuff, right. Kind of like a bit max. And so, so, so when you see that happening and you see an exchange that's supposed to be outside of the U S that's letting us people in when they're not supposed to, that's also a red flag. Steve, did it feel like a smartest guys in the room situation where it just seemed like everyone thought that, you know, Sam and everyone else just knew something that we didn't and that, you know, sort of like the Madoff situation where everyone just said, oh, those guys are

just smarter than everyone else. They know something we don't and, you know, we just, we can't figure it out. Yeah. I mean, sometimes I felt that way too. I was like, wow, okay, this guy's a great trader. Like, what am I missing here? And so that's when you relate it to the person, but when you relate it to the actual platform itself, that's where all the red flags were, right? Not that we think that we're smarter than red flags were right um not that you know not that we think that we're smarter than anybody else but we just you know i just tend to avoid things that i don't understand you know um you know and i talk about you know some of the some of the counterparties we use right like whether it's you know coinbase or kraken or gemini you you get on

calls you do due diligence you you send your security officer to do actual work on the platform they come back and it's a you know it's pretty clean and plain vanilla that's that's typically who we like to work with when you get on calls and you don't understand what they're doing you know i remember getting on the call with kyle davies and asked like three questions that he answered completely different questions that i asked instead of answering the questions directly i'm like okay politics what are your thoughts on healthcare but that's not what you want to hear from from a trusted counterparty you know yeah but so then the question becomes i mean ste, Steve, you alluded to it, Tom, you said it like the Harvey Dent, right? We lost our white knight. But that goes beyond just the white knight for crypto. This was the guy talking to legislators and regulators and representing the industry. I mean, what could they possibly be thinking in Washington right now that this is the guy who blew up?

I mean, do we have a fighting chance of not getting absolutely hammered here by regulators at this point? Yes, but it's though it's the time, you know, the messenger and the message need to be parsed. The fact of the matter is politicians have very specific agendas. And if you look at yesterday, I think, you know, Tom, I'd be curious. I've seen a lot of what Ryan's been tweeting. It looks like we understand demographics and demographics are that the young are invested in crypto and that people who care about economic freedom are loud and did actually back candidates in both parties who supported that. The reality is politicians care about the next election cycle. By tomorrow, well, or whatever day it's called, the first job of every new congressman is to start campaigning for 2024. And so you need to

understand that. So yes, Sam is gone. Yes, Brett Harrison left FTX US and he was a good spokesman. You know, I know Ryan and the people that are there. The reality is their proposal with modifications is still actually a step forward. It will not get a fair hearing right now. But the work goes on. The fact of the matter is Sam has consistently said, amusingly, that principles-based regulation and regulation makes sense, and he welcomed it. The problem is that most of what a smart, intelligent regulatory regime would have said needs to be done would have literally prevented this from happening to him. Probably Alameda might very well have gone kerplooey, but FTX wouldn't have. And that's kind of important. And so if you're a regulator and you look at separation, like Larry Tabb and I were having this conversation on Twitter yesterday, separation of the brokers, the market makers,

and the exchanges, I don't believe there's anybody in the regulatory uh world either potential past or present that thinks that one firm with the market makers that take principal risk with the brokers who provide counterparty risk and take credit risk from their customers and the exchanges should be the same firm and that is something that's grown up in crypto uh one could make a very strong argument that a pure agency uh no leveraged crypto exchange that that deals with customers is fine but i don't think there's anybody who doesn't work for one of the exchanges who thinks that you should have a market maker that's directly affiliated that's taking principal risk with an exchange this incident is probably the final nail in the coffin and with all due respect to other exchange heads who say, well, the issue is collateral.

I don't think regulators are going to give a flying F anymore about what's real. I think they're just going to say, listen, you know, we took down Glass-Steagall and all sorts of shit happened. That's what led to Lehman. So then we got Sarbanes-Oxley, which was not really reintroducing walls, but did do a lot of stuff, right? Not Sarbanes-Oxley, you know what I mean. But anyway, new regulations to block it. The fact is, risk should be insulated from agency-style behaviors, period. And that's what people believe it's worked for literally since the crash and the one time we got rid of it we led to the lehman brothers that's why i specifically said this is the lehman a moment for crypto i don't only mean that it's going to trigger a bear market because actually i don't think that's going to be the case uh i think that's that's something we

should talk about your listeners will care also. We haven't talked about the market. The Lehman moment is, okay, what the fuck? Yeah, it's when the largest institution was bulletproof. How should that be structured? So you mentioned the elections. We haven't really talked about the elections, but it seemed like we actually got a lot of big wins last night. A lot of freshmen senators and congressmen who are pro-crypto

actually got into seats. I guess my concern is that a lot of their agenda is not going to be starting with crypto and starting to advocate for crypto, especially right after this just happened. How could you today? Yeah, how could you today? But that also might work in our favor. At the other side of the coin is the first thing you want to legislate when you get in after you made all these promises to your constituencies, oh, let's go after those crypto cowboys. Like probably not. You probably have other bigger fish to fry for a while. So perhaps we have a little bit of space until the new year

comes and then we get to look back at the DCCPA, which is completely dead at the moment. There's no appetite there. Perhaps we get a better 2023 with a fresh set of eyes if we can sort of figure out the situation if actually CZ does bail out FTX and the losses don't sort of mushroom out if if like if CZ doesn't bail out FTX what do we think happens here did the losses just um cascade out as they did in May? Well, I'll tell you what's the most interesting statistic that I keep watching. I keep looking at Coinglass's liquidation monitor. And the liquidations on FTX are tiny. Now, is that because they turned off their matching engine and there's huge unrealized losses that should be liquidated?

Or is it because the damage has already been done? You know, the fact is they were talking about $5 billion plus in a hole in the balance sheet when FTT was trading at $16. If FTT is still billions of collateral pledge and it's now trading at $4, that number should be quite a bit larger. And so we just don't know, you know, whether or not there's a hole in customer assets. If it's $5 billion, then to to be not to be flippant but my guess is customers on the spot side will be made whole that'd be my guess as i think that ft

ftx's franchise value uh considering where binance futures are and the tech stack and the customers and volumes etc i suspect that he could swallow that. I think that that will be interesting. But if it's $25 billion, no. Who owns the stadium naming rights? Literally the next question was, is it finance stadium? They're not allowing that, right? Or the umpire's chess thing. The World Series just ended.

Or Tom Brady or Mr. Wonderful or Shaquille O'Neal or Steph Curry or Giselle. I mean, this is not a short list. Yeah. No, it's look, no matter how you want to slice it, the size of the hole in the balance sheet and the valuation is what matters. If the size of the hole in the balance sheet is larger than the enterprise value of what exists uh we have a big problem if it's smaller then it will get resolved in some orderly manner one way or another uh and and i i personally have absolutely zero clue to the answer to that question yeah i don't know if you guys saw actually that uh i'm gonna bring it up here you probably won't be able to read it but cz just posted this on on Twitter and it was his letter to his team at Binance.

Officially, he said we didn't have a master plan. He didn't know what was going on until 24 hours ago when Sam called him. This is not good for the industry, so don't view it as a win for Binance. To everyone's point here, they're now leaning into headwinds. Regulators will be less willing to talk. They're certainly going to be less willing to talk to him. And I think maybe more importantly, very clearly to his staff, do not sell FTT. And we have ceased selling.

We're not going to sell any more of the token. Interesting. It's a pretty, pretty big U-turn from where we were at 48 hours ago, at least in that regard. I mean, if I owned FDT, which I don't or never have, I would certainly be selling it. Yeah. I mean, what's it worth? Zero? $4.67 right now. So get a little bit for it. It is $4.59.4.6.6 i mean we're watching it live uh the truth the truth is that cz obviously perceives the same thing we perceive this is literally a a moment that is going to

matter to regulators and the future of the industry and not just in the us i mean we're all sitting in the us so we care but if you think the european commission isn't looking at this if you think that the singapore monetary authority is looking at this hell if you don't think the hong kong monetary authority is looking at this and that that uh that that that the g isn't looking at this you'd be you'd be crazy obviously they are uh and you know it's it's it's understanding the issues and and and doing a deep dive into what caused a $30 billion company that everybody thought was rock solid to go poof. That is a very big deal. Right.

You know, it's like, you know, I'm reminded of something, you know, I had a we had a discussion on this program, Scott, with Caitlin Long. And she made a point which is really important, which is the danger of leveraging Bitcoin. That had nothing to do with this, nothing. But the danger of leverage and understanding leverage has everything to do with this. And the point here is FTX has, in every public statement, has said the exchange is not levered beyond our insurance fund and our liquidation engine. And they produce the statistics and all this other stuff that leads you to believe they don't have any implied leverage. Well, obviously that was

not true. And that's the essence of the problem. When you talk about what regulators care about, I mean, if someone blew up because they said, yeah, we're 20 some odd percent, we're 20 times levered to our own token. You know, we have 30 billion in reserves. But, you know, so you make your own choice. That will be one thing. I think a lot of people would have said, what the F? And you've gotten the hell out. If on the other hand, you say, we're not, we have no implied leverage or we're just subject to volatility, but we liquidate our clients when things go bad. And that's not the case. That's what people care about. It's that misunderstanding is probably the nicest word I could use. There are other words that have legal implications, and I'm not a lawyer that I don't want. Well, here's the area that, you know,

I think is really where the U.S. is going to attack, right? I mean, you've got FTX U.S., and then you've got FTX offshore, for a better word. And there's really no jurisdiction over non-U.S. However uh there's the massive amounts of people in the u.s that are ghosting vpns who use ftx offshore because you know you don't have the same tool because i i actually don't know anyone who was successfully able to do that at scale. FTX International, I know firms that have U.S. subsidiaries that have offshore subsidiaries that trade through their offshore subsidiary at FTX, plenty of those. Those are legal KYC firms.

I actually don't know of anybody who can trade at any scale whatsoever on FTX International from sitting in the US to the point where you know my firm is a software company we don't trade we have an account with them yet from referrals only we can't touch that money until we get our offshore subsidiary set up because it was on the understanding we can't trade it we can't do anything we literally could do nothing with it that's been the case we and they were very clear about that we couldn't do anything individually can't do anything like that way and you know my firm is pure software so you know we don't touch customer assets and in large measure because we want to make sure that there's a regulatory environment that makes sense before we would even ever consider that plus our business model doesn't do that. But I don't know anybody who,

this isn't like BitMEX where every one of us knew 10 people who were trading on a VPN with BitMEX back in the day. So I don't know that you're wrong. You might very well be right. No, I know a lot of people. There's a big TA community around us and we've heard from several in the community that they absolutely are on FTX. A lot of people that were on BitMEX before that aren't anymore, and now they've shifted over to FTX.

People that have been around for a long time. Now, you're right about some of the regulated firms that have offshore entities here. I mean, actually, an article just popped up about Galaxy having 75 million of assets on FTX that they can't get off. Yeah, that's obviously a huge problem. I mean, has anybody looked at the list of FTX investors as of late? People invest in the company whose equity is now arguably worth zero. I mean, Pantera, Sequoia, Tiger Global, BlackRock, Paradigm, Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, SoftBank. What does this mean for shareholders in the actual company? Once again, the answer depends on size of balance sheet hole vis-a-vis price value of

the company. If the balance sheet hole is smaller, there's still equity and a chance to grow out of it or be worth something, not nothing. If the balance sheet hole is larger, poof. We're not going to know that for days. I'm almost not concerned about the investors that we have today. Unfortunately, I think they'll be at least made whole in part, but I'm worried about the investors of the future pension funds and

endowments and foundations are not going to want to touch crypto for some time. And that is really unfortunate. You know, if we have one, two, three, four percent allocations for crypto for these guys, I mean, that moves the industry materially forward. And now every one of those, even the first movers, are actually really rethinking this. And I used to sit in that seat. I used to be a pension consultant back in the day. So even bringing up crypto in those rooms when it during the good times was challenging and now during the bad times, it's going to be almost impossible. I disagree with your assessment about whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing. I agree with you that this has set us back a long ways in terms of bringing in institutional money. But frankly, I think that institutional money here is the problem. We've, over the last six or

seven years, been going through what I see as an extremely frustrating process where more and more people from the finance space have been moving into crypto. People like Sam creating organizations like Alameda, like FTX and bringing in with them the culture and the DNA that we created Bitcoin and we created crypto in order to remove, innovative industry and social movement slowly morphing into the exact thing that we're trying to get rid of, being flooded by sociopaths, scammers, and the sheep who enable them. And so from my perspective, if we have fewer institutions for the coming years and more real use cases, more focus and investment going to real use cases, because it's not, because I mean, the same capital that funded FTX,

that's $2 billion, right? That's capital that would be chasing other opportunities in the space if it wasn't chasing the casino easy money. I think that's important. It's idealistic, but it's not realistic. We need people to actually come in in material terms and put money through

larger better capital allocators. You're not going to have an Ontario teacher just go and make defi allocations. What do you mean by better? allocators. I mean, you're not going to have an Ontario teacher just go and make defy allocations. What do you mean by better? Hold on, hold on. Yago, let me just ask you one question. If what you say is true, how do you explain the fact that over 95% of all the ICOs done in 2017 were scams? And how many of the crypto billionaires in Wales that created are people that you wouldn't trust to run 1% of your portfolio. Right. Right. And I'm thinking, I mean, I don't, I haven't met Brock Pierce. I know enough people like him, but when he is the avatar of, of, of,

of, of a Bitcoin or you, we have a problem, right know it's it's you're right i mean you and i talked about this i agree with you there are a ton of people who are in crypto for the wrong reason or who don't or who are have enormous hubris who are scammers who are trying to do take the silicon valley ethos of growth above everything and and stuff it down retail's throats. Yeah, I agree with all of that. But sober people who understand quantitative finance can help create rules that will make DeFi work and disrupt traditional finance. You're not getting that if you don't have institutional money behind them and people who are trusted, people who are the, you know, I feel like at CoinRoutes, we're the frigging turtle against the hares. We've been building for five years, slowly,

slowly, slowly. And everyone says, well, look at all these other people that are worth a billion and you guys are worth whatever you're worth, you know, but we're building and we're- There's two types of financial innovation. There's financial innovation that creates more and more complicated synthetics and more and more structured systems. These are not true innovations. They're moving risk around. They are obfuscating risk. And this is the type of thing that we've been referring to as financial innovation for the last 50 years there's a second kind of financial innovation which goes to the allocation of capital in more efficient and better ways right now in the crypto and the bitcoin space we're doing both that's right fortunately right it is and and the issue is and that we're not just doing both of those in the crypto space we've been doing both of those everywhere but these two types of innovation are competing with each other they're competing for

oxygen they're competing for capital they're competing for attention as we've seen greater and greater financialization of the space we've seen the wrong kind of innovation become dominant. So I don't think we need much more structured products. What we need is better ways for people who don't have access to borrowing and lending to have access to borrowing and lending. We need better ways to remove counterparty risk through self-custody. We need better control of self-sovereignty through controlling your own keys. These are the things that we should be focused on. And it's true to a degree that having this capital rush in has created the impetus for investment in the space. But I think

at this point, and I think you can look at where we are as an industry. The market cap of the industry has not grown in five years. We are going through a horrible situation now where instead of building a reputation, we're tearing down our reputation. We are going through a cleansing process now, but I think it's important, you know, not just that we go through the cleansing process, but the people who are suffering, right, who are ultimately the end users recognize why they're suffering, which is that we've built this phenomenal tool for self-custody and for transparency, and we turn around and we use it with systems that are not self-custody.

We're handing it over to these middlemen and there's no transparency. It's like if I was to send you a message, I would write an SMS, I'd write a text on my phone, take a picture of it, and then mail you that picture. It's moronic.

We're missing the point entirely. And until we use the technology for its purpose, we're going to keep on screwing ourselves over. And the people who suffer most are the users themselves who are using this technology improperly. I mean, I agree with a large swath of what you just said, as you know. I think that that is absolutely true, that there is definitely enormous numbers of self-inflicted wounds. My problem is that there is absolutely a need for certain rules that actually make sense in financial markets to be applied to crypto. Financialization is not one of them. And structured products are, in most cases, are not part of the solution. But understanding, for example, simple relationship we talked about before you got on between collateral and the volatility and liquidity of that collateral is extraordinarily important. And really, that relationship is at the core of both this incident as well as the Lunaterra incident. And the fact is that users, the users of what has grown up in crypto have

been getting screwed from the beginning. In equities, for example, retail trades for free inside the spread. In crypto, Coinbase you know famously most of their money was made by charging people one and a half one and a quarter percent 1.4 percent to trade crypto retail was getting screwed and you know he could say whatever he wants to say but that's the absolute reality the reason these things were worth so much more money than nasdaq cme etc certainly on a per revenue basis is because they had way bigger, fatter profit margins. And that was coming at the expense of someone. Meanwhile, DeFi, most DeFi exchanges are terrible from a cost perspective for the actual liquidity takers. The market makers do

phenomenally well. Right. And so, you know, these are things that this is plumbing that has to change in order for your dream to be realized. Now, does that plumbing require financialization? No, it doesn't. But it does require work. It does require concepts like safeguarding customer assets, like best execution, like anti-manipulation so that you know that what you're seeing is what's real. These are concepts that people need to feel confident. And, you know, how you get there in a capitalist society is for people to make money delivering that, which there's nothing wrong with. But what happens is people say, well, that's not enough.

I want more. And then they do things that violate those principles. And there you go. And we've seen this cycle, I mean, way too many times. Yeah. Look, I mean, I think... Please, Tom. You know, self-custody is the ideal. I self-custody my assets. I'm sure we all do here. But if we want crypto to get to 1 billion people, 2 billion people, the reality is most people are not going to self-custody their assets. They want the self-assurance that if they send the money to the wrong place, they're going to have some way to get it back or something like that. So we need some level of

security and baseline regulation to centralize some pieces of the stack. And that could be the custody level. It could be with folks like Coinbase. It could have been with someone like FTX, but apparently not. We need some regulation to kind of put some reins on all of the backend to make it safe for some of these entities to exist so we can get actual masses onto these platforms and using this technology. Because at the end of the day, I personally think the audience for self-custody hits a certain cap and that will cap crypto if we think everything has to be self-custody. I think another just brief issue worth noting there, and I agree with actually Iago's idealistic view.

I agree with all of you, actually, to some extent, I think. But if you're in the United States, the reality is at this point, you still need to be able to get dollars in and out. Right. So you can't live exclusively in Bitcoin that's in self-custody at this moment in time. So whether that means separating church and state of what these exchanges are allowed to do, there still simply needs to be a safe place for you to go in and out of dollars or whatever your local currency is at the most base level or nothing happens right that's that's definitely true but it that is a very very simple process which could be done and you know my first bitcoin i got on local bitcoins uh now i'm not suggesting that everyone end up in a panera bread with a guy called tiny uh buying uh buying their bitcoin and waiting six blocks with this guy who's in a wife beater and, you know, looks roided out. But that was too close to home, man.

That sounds a little oddly specific. So, I mean, yes, I agree that there are certain functions that we're going to continue to have intermediaries for. But I actually don't agree. And I think that's primarily where fiat meets crypto. And that actually is very well regulated already. My concern is that, you know, people like Tom, who's been in the space for a long time. I think there's something to me disheartening, right? And I think symptomatic about the fact that you say, we're not going to get a billion

people on unless we have regulators, you know, making sure that they are safe. The tools that we've built for key management and for securing self-custody over the last 10 years, the growth has been, you know, the improvement is crazy. You look at like a wallet like Zengo or Argent today, right? Which has social recovery, or Casa, right, for Bitcoin, who will help you make sure that, you know, your funds are controlled by a multi-sig. They're completely seedless. You're not writing anything down anywhere. They're almost foolproof. They're about as foolproof as you can get. Like, Bitcoin is

the most foolproof technology we've ever built. This comes a close second. And 10 years from now, it's going to be even better, even easier. Getting people onto the internet when we were all on a BBS channel seemed impossible. 10 years later, we had a billion people on the internet. We're going to do the same thing in crypto. The whole point of crypto is that instead of solving things through the liberal arts way right of talking and poetry and and and and and social influence we use technology to solve those problems in a scalable tractable and and repeatable way and and i think that's the whole point of what we're doing we're trying to replace um messy social solutions, messy regulatory solutions with programmed, scalable and reliable solutions. Yeah, I think everybody can agree with that, certainly in theory.

I want to pivot slightly, Tom, because I see it in the comments over and over and over again. And we talked about this right before. Someone keeps saying that there's a massive unlock coming for Solana. I know it's not everyone's favorite topic, but you did mention this to me and it is not untrue. And Jaco, to your point about some of these other coins and projects, I think you'll find this interesting.

Tom. Yeah, sure. So Solana's circulating supply is something like 360 million sol. About 100 million of that is unstaked and actually circulating in the environment day to day. The last few hours, we've seen a unlock period coming the next epoch. So they have epochs every few days where you can unstake and unlock a 50 million Sol coming up in about 17 or 18 hours here. So 50 million Sol out of roughly 100 million circulating Unlocked Sol will be available to be unstaked in 18 hours. The usual amount for each epoch is only about

2 million Sol. So that's a significant portion. I will note there's a certain limit on how much could be withdrawn each epoch, which is very close to that 50 million limit. But the issue is if we actually max that 25% of the stake that we actually can withdraw out, we're going to see a bit of a panic, I think. You could see, I just got a notice from someone in my company, Crypto.com's already suspended withdrawals and deposits of Solana. The Solana liquid staking tokens, MSOL and Stakesol are both off their pegs by 10 or 15%. So we have a potential really big issue with Solana based on this whole incident that has nothing to do with that whole ecosystem and all the awesome builders and all the awesome teams that I think we're really excited about.

But the sole token could be in some near-term trouble. I mean, I wrote an entire newsletter this morning about how with the bulk of these assets, all that matters is the bid, right? And I use Solana as an example not to pick on them. But if you're trading these things, the Solana ecosystem, to your point, Tom, can do exceptionally well. We can see adoption. We can see dApps. We can see faster, cheaper, whatever. But all that matters is the order book, right? Because of the way that these are structured. If there's nobody to buy it, the coin is literally irrelevant as to how much adoption there is. I mean, look, you have to,

yeah, it's actually fairly interesting. I mean, if you really, to say something that Yago might say, is if you look at it on a much longer time horizon, is it really bad if it stays cheap for a long time and people are building on it? And that allows people to acquire it and use it in a reasonable manner as opposed to being at a VC level kind of funding. You know, if reality sets in, that's not the worst thing in the world. use it in a reasonable manner, as opposed to being at a VC level kind of funding. You know, if reality sets in, that's not the worst thing in the world. If the technology is good and it works and the teams are there, it's fine. The issue is, is will new developers or the marginal developers continue to work on it if the coin drops in value significantly? And that is fascinating because I would make the argument, my guess is, as I don't know this, I'm curious what you think, Tom, that the vast majority of holders aren't the marginal people who sitting in my portfolio basically saying what is going to underlie Iago's vision, which as much as he and I

have argued both times we've been together, I actually agree with. So, you know, I think it's just a question of how do we get there? So it's, yes, your audience, Scott, obsesses about the short-term trading. Short-term trading, man, I mean, barring. I'm not making a statement about the value. I'm making a statement about the price. But that's right. And look, you know, it's down 80% from where some of what I bought, you know, and OK, maybe it'll be 95%, whatever. I mean, you know, it's like it is what it is. I mean, if you're buying in a 10 year view, you literally don't you never leverage. You'll leave it in a portfolio and you see and, you know, some will work and some will not.

And I'm OK with that. I'm a big boy and I understand that stuff. A lot of investors are, too, and a lot of them are just hoping other people's bags to, you know, want other people to take their money from them. I think it's really it's really interesting i mean i also find you know the bitcoin price action and the ether price action very interesting right you know bitcoin is you know why would bitcoin drop in this event unless there's collateral or liquid unless there are people who are in their death throes selling everything they have because they're leveraged if If Bitcoin is being used as collateral for Solana and people want to hold on to Solana, they're having to sell Bitcoin. The truth is, I don't think there's

a lot of that and the data is not suggestive of a lot of that. So this is really a very interesting period of time. At the same time, new entrants into the market, new capital, as Tom was talking about before, are going to pause every time these sorts of things happen. That is just, that's just absolutely, the same is true with Mt. Gox, for Christ's sakes. I mean, we've seen this multiple times, right? When there's a big hit, people get scared and they stopped buying. On that, I have a question for Scott, but Tom, maybe go first. I was gonna say, I think this, while it could be an issue in the short term

for a lot of our bags that Solana goes under and FTX is a big investor and led the rounds for both Aptos and Sui. So we could see those layer ones also have some struggles. Perhaps this brings us back to the ideals that, Iago, you were talking about that a lot of us have sort of moved away from a little bit and stopped kind of focusing on the shiny toys, especially as their prices go down and start to think about what we're all actually here for. Yes, that's kind of connected with the question

I was going to ask Scott. So, you know, people who have been in this space for a while like the magic of getting in early on bitcoin or getting in early on ethereum was that you were getting in before it's the it's like the first time in history that the everyman has managed to get in before the institutions and the fact that we're going to probably almost certainly because of these fucking shenanigans be delaying the institutions even further means that there's an opportunity for more people to do the same thing to come in with a long-term view to learn how to be a hodler and to get in long before the institutions and so you know if we see this massive drop in solana like in the price of soul if you're a believer in soul long term, which I happen not to be, but if you are, then this is an amazing opportunity for you.

And so I think the question I have for you, Scott, is like I was talking about, like competing for attention and competing for capital. Now, one of the problems also is long term investing advice, long term investing conversations are competing for attention and for time with trading advice and technical analysis. And the thing is that the technical analysis and the trading advice has such a big advantage. It's something every minute there's a different tick, whereas long term investing, what are you going to talk about? How many times do you tell someone a dollar cost average for 20 years? Exactly. Exactly. And you kind of straddle that dilemma with your audience. I'm curious, how do you think about that dilemma? How do you manage that competitive dilemma? I mean, in my mind, you, and I've said it so many times, you just trade with

a very small part of your portfolio and the rest of it should be dollar cost average into whatever assets you believe in over the long term. For me, that's Bitcoin and some Ethereum. I have little bags of some of these other things, but it's only because I made a profit before, not because it was necessarily a long term investment initially in my mind. But yeah, I think it's very hard right now. And listen, this is a black swan event. I'm not trying to trade my way through this and I would not recommend that anyone does either. But I think that the most, and Dave, you can definitely speak to this, having traded for a few decades, you don't trade your whole stack ever. Everybody should be an investor first, right? You don't go to the casino to play poker with every penny you have.

No, because if you do that, 100% of the time you get wiped out. I mean, 100% not true. I suppose there's some human being somewhere that risks everything every time and has won. They managed to get hit by a car right after winning. That's right, on accident. But if you look at the industry, if you look at September of 2008, so Lehman goes bankrupt, the market drops as a bloodbath. The market kind of next month or two shakes out, hits lows.

The biggest bull run in the history of the equity markets bottom was within a month of Lehman crashing. Now, I am not saying that that's the case here. What I am saying is that the revulsion and the no one will ever invest in equities again, no one will ever invest in financial companies again. I mean, I wish more carnage had happened with some of those financial companies. You know, I worked for Citigroup at the time and I know they were functioning bankrupt. I know it, right? You know, they put it all, they did, there's a lot of financial engineering that went on but the percent of the S&P that is still financial

companies is still way too large for my case but it is what it is. The fact is, from 2008, you know, the biggest bull run in history started and yeah, we all know why. The difference is this time the federal reserve is not pumping money in yet uh the central banks of the world are not pumping money in yet but the fact is is a lot of people who are trading and believe in bitcoin for example and believe in ether are there's just limited downside for those people to puke at these levels because they've all seen it people you know always remember what they want to remember right you know if you're left if the

more if the world were highly leveraged long crypto i wouldn't be saying this if the world were highly leveraged long crypto i would say that we're in for a world of pain but that is not the case from any all the data that i've seen the percentage of hodlers is at an all-time high. It's still been. That's one of the reasons this trading range has been so hard to break on the downside. That said, we did break the trading range to the downside. So we'll see what happens. But it's really important. I would love to hear what Tom Lee thinks about Bitcoin right now, because he's one of the only people who had it right in 2000, back in the past, when everyone else was reviled. I guess I would ask you being so close to the data from what I've seen,

the actual volumes of Bitcoin and Ethereum in terms of their trading, their daily active trading is still really low. So if you wanted to move the markets, you certainly can. And I think a lot, a lot of that in the short term is, is, is, you know, just people setting up positions and executing them and shooting the price lower. Well, look, yesterday was, it was an enormous day for us and our clients. I'm not going to lie about that. But the truth of the matter is that, you know, we have there's some interesting stuff, but I'll go do what I'm going to check

something right now. So, OK, so right at this second, if you wanted to sell 43, you know, basically over 40 million dollars of Bitcoin in one blip, you would basically have to knock it down from $17,725 to $17,550. Is that high or low? That's a bit higher than it's been. So yeah, the books are a little bit less liquid, but it's not horrible, right? You know, by any stretch of the imagination. And that's looking at the top over a thousand price levels across all the major exchanges. At the same time, if you wanted to buy the same amount, you would move it more or less symmetrically. It's another $175 up. I mean, it's about 1%. I have seen that number being double this. So basically, during the recent history, the order books have been twice, it is probably half the order book that it was at the most

liquid that we've seen it over the last few months, but fairly comfortably within historical averages, which is to say the markets are still relatively liquid, but people are being more cautious. What a surprise. When there's volatility, you expect this sort of thing. So nothing really crazy is going on is kind of the point, which is strange in and of itself. Two things. One, we usually stop at 1030, but I'm going to keep going if you guys want to stay. But if you have to leave, just leave. No problem at all. I know that some of you have that. Actually, Tom, I think you have to leave. Doug, you have to leave as well i i'll have to leave as well yeah yeah i'm gonna ask you one question jago before you leave absolutely you've been here probably the longest i my feeling yesterday and listen i think it's a recency bias to some degree was that to very largely yesterday

of all the shit i've been through since 2016 felt the worst because of who it was and how fast it happened. You've been through every single downturn, bear market, black swan. Where does this rank for you before I let you go? I definitely don't think it's the worst. From a sort of, oh my God, everything is destroyed perspective, Mt. Gox is incomparable. One of the things that I've been surprised about is how,

like, you know, okay, fine, the price is down, but it's down so little on a comparative basis. The amazing thing is how resilient we are to this at this point. And that is because I think to a great extent the institutions aren't here. It's basically a bunch of, you know, hodlers and DJs who have been through this before are now driving the market.

And for many of us, we're not surprised. And so this is going to continue to unwind and play out for a while. But the fact that we've gone through such wild swings time and time again. You know, there's a story about the Ironheads, I think they were called. It was a division of soldiers in the Civil War who came from, I don't know, some Idaho or something. Sorry, I'm not American, so my American history isn't the best. But they were basically collected, conscripted, given guns and sent to the front. And they ended up standing in lines being fired at, losing one-tenth of their men in the first day of their, you know, conscript, like the first day of battle.

And they didn't know any better. They thought this was like what war is like. And so they became the hardest, most reliable, most badass unit in the Civil War because their first experience is trial by fire and they overcame it and they learned they could overcome it. I think we have gone through the same experience in this industry time and time again. It's, you know, the strong survive and as a result, you know, the strongest hands in the world are here. So in many ways, even if sort of like the objective facts of the situation seem to be worse

than almost anything in practice, most of us have been able to just brush it off. And I think that is a sign of extreme optimism. And in fact, maybe this is the final blood sacrifice that the God Tauri required. All right. With that, I'm going to drop off. Thanks very much, guys.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you so much. Dave, I'm sure you have to go as well. I do. I think the bottom line is that if you really want to try to compartmentalize what's going on. We need to understand from a market's perspective, it's forensic. The due diligence that CZ is doing is literally what needs to happen. And no one's going to know until after they know, which is, is their enterprise value left?

How much, et cetera? If it's full, then customers will be made whole. And that makes the event very, very very different when we deconstruct this event in terms of understanding what actually happened uh there are a couple of key questions that are extremely relevant and people are going to need to know the answers and i don't look i know enough of the players to to and i'll tell you i don't have a clue to the answer it the key questions are, what's the relationship between Alameda and FTX? What decisions were made at FTX that may or may not have favored Alameda? Why and how were the collateral rules allowed? What was the deal with the risk engine? Why did it not happen? That sort of deconstruction is going to matter because ultimately, the only real way forward at this point no one's going to trust anything unless people are unless the exchanges that do derivatives are exceedingly

clear on how collateral works i mean if you're running a bitcoin inverse perpetual or a usdt backed uh perpetual swap uh on you know it you know what the collateral is, you know what the Bitcoin is, you understand what risk engine is going to work. And quite frankly, we know those are relatively, if the technology works, relatively bulletproof. And certainly, depending on the level of margin allowed, can be made bulletproof. When you allow anything to be collateral for anything, which is, by the way, how FTX grew so meteorically, because that was an incredible innovation. People loved it. The problem is there is anything and there is everything. And an understanding collateral and risk and having that be thoroughly disclosed and vetted and understood is literally the key here for people to get back to some level of confidence.

And believe me, that's what the CME is going to be pointing to. That's what a lot of people are going to be pointing to. And generally, what always happens in these cases is people point in the wrong direction. You remember the talk that I did in Vegas with you. When bad things happen, there's a very real chance that the wrong message gets taken. If the message here is we need to have intermediaries doing everything and do and do risk once a day, we're still taking huge systematic risk. If the lesson here is we need to have quantitatively determined rules for what's collateral and make sure that we can handle risks without having to socialize it, well, that's the right lesson.

But I'm like you, I doubt seriously that that's going to be the first response of those people. Yeah, I agree. Listen, I'm going to let you go. But right before you have to see this, Binance is strongly leaning towards scrapping FTX rescue takeover after first glance at books. Took all of 24 hours for Binance to take a look into FTX and say maybe not. Well, as I said, that's the key question. And that's why the market is dumping and yada, yada, yada. I mean, if there's no enterprise value left, then why would he? If there is, then he wouldn't. Now, of course, Binance's enterprise value of FTX by definition is far

less than somebody else. Somebody else, meaning someone who doesn't already have a derivative exchange, doesn't already have the same technology or similar technologies. So I guess we'll see. But that is the reality. And we don't know the answer. And that's going to be the biggest thing that's going to happen here, is understanding the answer to that question that we don't have a good answer to. Well, man, thank you, as usual, for your time. It's fitting that you're the first and the last on the stream because it's always us, man. I'm a glutton for punishment on this stuff.

But, you know. It would be both. Listen, I don't want to talk about this shit today. I didn't want to. I didn't want to wake up and write a newsletter and of course in the newsletter i speculated hey we should be ftx people should be pretty okay because binance is going to step in and here you go it took all of 24 hours to be wrong once again so yeah no not good oh well we'll see how it plays out take care scott thank you guys listen what an epic uh panel once again try to bring you the best y Yago is an absolute legend, man.

We recorded in person with him. All of these guys except for Dunleavy, actually. Dave and Yago in Vegas and have that content coming. Obviously, a lot of things that we've recorded over the past few weeks and months, a little less relevant than they are today with this massive Black

Swan happening. All I can say, guys, is be exceptionally careful out there. It's a scary environment. And for me, I'm just kind of waiting on the sidelines. Of course, everyone knows there's a personal aspect of this to me because I've been extremely transparent about my situation with Voyager. Well, who was supposed to be giving Voyager a lifeline? And our assets were largely dependent on the market going up and not going down. So not only did FTX blow up the market and cause the likelihood of a percentage of our payback to drop dramatically, well, there's also no FTX to buy out Voyager at the moment, likely, which puts us back to square one,

probably for those of us who are Voyager creditors. I can't say that for sure, but it can't be great. The only good news there is that Binance was in the bidding as well. And perhaps Binance is going to step in and buy it. But that also depends on what the regulators and the courts in the United States will allow. Of course, it was FTX.US doing the deal. So maybe it will still go through. Who knows, man?

But it's a roller coaster. And to be quite frank, there's times when we all wish we could jump off. But I certainly feel a personal responsibility to at least show up and offer the most information I can. That said, we're still in speculation mode. And as I said before, hey, man, a lot of us are going to be wrong. Two days ago, I was saying, show me the evidence that FTX is insolvent. And it took all of an hour to see that data, right? I had my doubts. I think it's fair to be skeptical and not to jump to conclusions because

I also have a responsibility not to add to FUD when it's unsubstantiated. But on a day-to-day basis, I'm finding myself continually shocked, surprised at the antics in this market, the things that we're seeing, because I really didn't believe that these things would happen. It is what it is. It is what it is right now. Guys, that's all I got for you today. Tomorrow, I know for a fact we have Mike Alfred and David Young from Coinbase for our normal Thursday roundtable. Today was supposed to be on-chain Wednesday. Of course, we pivoted because nobody wants to hear about how many Bitcoin are moving around on the internets at the moment. And we've invited quite a few other guests. So it could be pretty epic.

And largely, we will be continuing the conversation from today, guys, listen, it's not easy for any of us, right. But, uh, we will be here tomorrow and I'll be here the day after. And as long as you guys are here to listen and you care, I'm going to be continuing to present this content guys. See you tomorrow. Let's go.