The Wolf Of All Streets - Is Your Crypto Data Safe? Crypto Town Hall With Arkham CEO Miguel Morel, Eleanor Terrett, Bruce Fenton, Jeremy Kauffman, David Silver, David D. Tawil, Dave Weisberger

Episode Date: July 11, 2023

Crypto Town Hall is a new daily Twitter Spaces hosted by Scott Melker, Ran Neuner & Mario Nawfal. Every day we discuss the latest news in the crypto and bring the biggest names in the crypto space to share their opinions. ►►OKX Sign up for an OKX Trading Account then deposit & trade to unlock mystery box rewards of up to $60,000!  👉 https://www.okx.com/join/SCOTTMELKER  ►►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    ►►COINROUTES TRADE SPOT & DERIVATIVES ACROSS CEFI AND DEFI USING YOUR OWN ACCOUNTS WITH THIS ADVANCED ALGORITHMIC PLATFORM. SAVE TONS OF MONEY ON TRADING FEES LIKE THE PROS! 👉 http://bit.ly/3ZXeYKd  ►► JOIN THE FREE WOLF DEN NEWSLETTER, DELIVERED EVERY WEEK DAY! 👉https://thewolfden.substack.com/    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.

What's up everyone, I'm just going to send out all the invites and I'm going to introduce you to two new people we have. We got a gentleman by the name of Scott Melker and another one is by the name of Cryptoman Ran. So I'll introduce him in a bit. They are our new guests for today. Bruce, how are you? Great, how's it going? Good man, good. Have you met Scottott and ran i'm not sure if you've heard of them before they are special guests for today never heard of them are they uh are they noobs um scott is anti-crypto and ran is one of these nft guys um they're just you know meme

coin and nfts is his thing and you know those people that are in that space but don't know anything about how crypto works in the blockchain? And this is Juan. You'll meet him in a bit. Yeah. It's kind of like me. What I am, I'm a fiat guy.

I say fiat, you know, I know fiat has some problems, but it's our duty as citizens to support fiat because otherwise we wouldn't have the government. I actually just applied for a job at the SEC. Oh, I would take a job at the SEC. You better believe it. You know which job it is. The day I see,

imagine I see a news article comes out and it says, Scott Melker appointed as a chairman of the SEC. I would be like the chairman's executive assistant. You know how epic that would be, man? You're leading the SEC. You'll become a shit show. I don't know.

So much worse than it is now, but in a beautiful way. In a very fun way, man. It'll become a reality show. All right, man. I've sent out all the invites to have you. How was your trip? It was great. I was actually with Ran.

We definitely enjoyed not having you with us. All weekend at Formula One with OKX and McLaren, and we somehow worked our way down to getting fully sprayed with champagne in the winner's circle. Do you have any videos? I posted a couple of them on Twitter. I mean, it was literally crazy.

And, you know, McLaren has been pretty awful this season for anyone who follows Formula One, but this is their home race at British Grand Prix, and they came in second and fourth. So it was like an extremely epic just moment to be there. It was crazy. I mean, we were in the garage wearing the headphones, listening to the team,

like when they pulled out for the race. It was insane. Absolutely insane. Sounds extremely boring. By the way, the CBOE just tweeted just now, I think about a few seconds ago, I guess, or a couple of minutes ago, that they've changed.

So sorry, James, who's been a guest, he's tweeted that CBOE has filed amendments for all five of their ETF applications. And then they changed for Coinbase, regarding Coinbase's partnership, they changed expecting to enter to reach an agreement on terms. So just a small update here on the ETF story. And we're going to be talking about that in a bit. And I'm going to introduce you scott to a gentleman called dran oh hold on you spent time with him in the uta uh without me i appreciate it we did that we said and when i tell you we spent time because of the traffic was so bad from london

to silverstone we were knee to knee you know back to like he's sitting backwards in a car for seven hours two days in a row spent like really quality solid yeah i really liked you guys but there's no way i've come with the uk like if you invited me it'd be so annoying to be uh we were supposed to helicopter out uh which would have been like 30 or 40 minutes and then cars from london how long did that take how long did the car take so i i went to mclaren uh the mclaren center and it took two hours each way and then on wednesday and that's 20 miles um and then uh to the track which is about 50 miles took uh anywhere between two to four and a half hours depending on the day holy shit hold on guys two

two and a half hours there on sunday and and a half hours back. And then helicopter would have been 40 minutes. What happened to the chopper? Bear market? Yeah, bear market. Good to have you back. So today's show will be pretty – I think we're going to recap what we discussed yesterday. We've got a new panelist that weren't here yesterday to get their thoughts. Eleanor, it's been a long time.

How are you? I'm good. Thanks, Mario. How are you? So we're going to talk about the macro. We've got a lot of announcements coming in this week. We've got a pretty good agenda. So I'm going to be mentioning those, spending a bit of time on that. Then we're going to dig into a few updates on the ETF story. And then dig into AR Arcam, a project that people love to love or love to hate. And we've got the CEO coming on. It's going to be a really interesting discussion.

I've been looking into it. Scott, what was your... Actually, no, keep it for when he joins. Your feedback when he looked at it, it was pretty funny to me. But I found it to be a very fascinating project. Like if I want people to be critical, because I'm going to destroy anyone critical, even though I'm not invested and have no people to to be critical because i'm going to

destroy anyone critical even though i'm not invested and have no incentive to do so because i really like the concept assuming technically it makes sense but um scott let's start with you man um as our special guest for today maybe introduce yourself for the audience who you are what you do and then tell us about the macro story oh you're so difficult um let me add actually we have garrett here it's got okay no let me let me ask you a specific question so so next oh this week sorry we've got cpi coming in tomorrow ppi on thursday jobless claims on thursdays consumer sentiment on friday bank earnings began began yesterday the big ones are on Friday. And we've got eight Fed speakers. So I'll get you out of this one.

Gareth, I want to be brief on this, just get some new voices on this topic because we discussed it at length yesterday. But my question is pretty broad. What do you expect? And I'm going to read out what I think is JP Morgan. Let me see what they've said. Get your thoughts on that. And then how important is it when it comes to crypto? Would love to get your thoughts. Yeah. So at least in regards to Bitcoin, the CPI data tomorrow will be very, very important.

We've seen Bitcoin hovering between this 30 and 31,000 level now for many, many weeks. And again, anytime something hovers in a tight range, it's like a spring that's winding up. So whichever way it goes, you should expect a big move in that direction. Upside resistance would be around 35,000. Downside would be about 26,000 if we see a breakthrough, the 30,000 level to the downside. So overall, I think that the markets here are primed for something to happen. We know that it's been dead recently, and I think tomorrow's CPI could be the answer to that move. And so there's one argument that was being made is that it doesn't matter as much as it did.

Like the ETF story is what everyone cares about. And it's kind of everything. That's my- Who's that? Hold on. Who's that voice? That's a new... Oh, it's Ryan. One of our new speakers, Ryan. Yeah. How are you? Good to have you. I can feel it. I can feel it. I think that this CPI reading, I mean, is a non-event.

It's an absolute non-event. It may hit the traditional markets down slightly, but net, net. I don't see this market, the CPI. What about all the other announcements that I expected? We've got the PPI, we've got consentment, we've got bank earnings. You think all of this doesn't get jobless claims, all of this doesn't matter anymore?

Everything's been kind of priced in? The king of all announcements is the CPI announcement. The PPI announcement is the indicator which then points to what the CPI is going to do in the following month or two months later, because it is effectively just a pre to the CPI. Now, the CPI is expected to go down, whether it goes down from 4 to 3.2 or 4 to 3.1 or whatever the number is. I think that the big narrative right now is the ETF.

I think that the big narrative now is we're in a big, raging bull market. And I don't think that in these kind of bull markets, man-to-man CPI data can actually move the market. Gareth, tell us. But I also just want to challenge you, Gareth. Yeah, Gareth, please tell me why Iran is wrong. And I'll read out what I think is JP Morgan. I can't remember who made the statement.

But US CPI for June is due on Wednesday. Headline is expected to fall to 3.2 year over year, which would make for the lowest print since March 2021. And then I think there is, I'll read out what they said about what they expect in terms of the markets. But Gareth, is Ryan right? Like, does it matter a lot less now

and everyone just cares about the ETF, which we'll talk, we'll give a few updates on that in a bit, or it matters a lot more and he's wrong? Well, I do think it matters somewhat. And the reason it matters somewhat is that we know that we had higher hourly earnings or wages in the last non-farm payrolls last week. So there's been some data showing the economy is weakening, jobs starting to kind of down take a little bit, but you're still seeing

wage pressure to the upside, which is inflationary. So this reading tomorrow can go a long way to telling us whether there's going to be for sure. And right now, I think it's a 92% chance that the Fed is hiking end of month. But will the Fed have to raise again after that? And if the CPI comes in a little hotter than expected, you're going to see those forward chances of rate hikes going out to August, September, October, et cetera. Those are going to start to jump up and the market will react to that. The stock market and the crypto market probably will react. And David- I'd say it reacts for like an hour, Mario. We see it every time now. It depends, unless you have a surprise though. We're talking about if it's with-

Yeah, but then by the next day, we're on to the 17th Fed speaker that you just mentioned. How about bank earnings? The narrative of inflation, the narrative of inflation and interest rate increase, it's finished. It's dead. We're all expecting another interest rate increase. There's a 99% chance or 98% chance, as Gareth says.

And it's got... I mean, the truth is, if we get it slightly higher, slightly lower, the market's looking way beyond that now. The market's looking towards the next narrative and the narrative. Let's move to the next narrative. David, I'd like to get your final thoughts on this and then I'd move to the next narrative,

which is the ETF updates. Dave? Yeah, so I think that unless there's going to be a major risk on or risk off follow through in the equity markets, I don't think that this is going to affect crypto. I do agree that the major narrative is around the ETF. I think there are other narratives abound beyond the ETF that are important. Certainly some of the litigation that's going on is important, certainly for specific coins in particular. But that's really, really long term. I think in the short to medium term,

litigation won't yield any results. I don't know if David Silver would disagree. I don't think it's about yielding results. I do think that we see volatility from it in the markets. Certainly short-lived, but nevertheless volatile. David, I'm going to play a quick clip, and I'd like to give you a false guess. So that's the former

Jay Clayton, former SEC chair, saying essentially that spot bitcoin etfs should be approved so that's pretty bullish news i'm gonna play out the clip it's a one minute clip and you love to get your thoughts because this is obviously the story of crypto for this week this month um at least next couple of months so let me play the clip can they say no to a spot etf well it goes to that issue i I think that when the SEC approved the futures-based ETF, they said, let's look at the futures market. We see the surveillance. We see the protections in that market for the end investor that are sufficient. We don't see them

in the spot market. So we're going to make that distinction. I think what the institutions are arguing is that those distinctions have gone away and now the spot product is actually less drag, more efficient for the investor. So if there's not that delta in regulation, not that delta in, what I could say, efficacy, the spot should be approved. That's the argument that's going on right now. The regulatory process, whether... It doesn't matter if it's been a while already. What I would say is this, if they're right, that you can demonstrate that the spot market has similar efficacy to the futures market. So guys, yes. So keywords here. It would be hard to resist. So guys, yes. So key words here.

It would be hard to resist the last statement he's made. So can we just start popping the champagne bottles? Everything is pointing to the ETF getting approved in the short term. What do you guys think? Definitely a rocky road still. I don't think it's a straight line to approval. Gary Gensler has no friends. And Gary Gensler is a political pawn.

That's the bottom line of all this. I think it's kind of sad that we've devolved to this point. So it is. David, what do you think? Silver. Sorry, guys. I'm doing like... Oh, sorry.

We'll go. We'll go. Daveave yes i'll just i don't know if you heard jay clayton's statements but he's actually said that he expects the the etf to get approved didn't say when uh but he's pretty pretty optimistic on it david and we would love to get your thoughts and dave's thoughts as well so it's always easy for my ex-wife to you know tell me all the things i could do differently it's not like j Jay Clayton approved an ETF when he was in charge. So I take with a grain of salt when people who could have done something tell me how easy it is to do something when they're no longer involved. I'm not sure that's the best argument because I think the

market's really changed since Jay Clayton was actually there. We have a much better infrastructure and we have much less market manipulation we have a much more regulated market than the days when jay clayton was um was uh uh in in dc hot seat that you know he left he left a long time ago i do think that he has a very very valid point when it comes to the bitcoin futures on bitcoin spot ETF. And the reason for that, if you look at the return of the futures ETF, the return of the futures ETF year to date is 57.86%. And if you look at the spot return of Bitcoin, it's about 85%. So the problem is that the futures ETF gives a lower return return than the spot etf now the reason for that

is quite complicated it's called contango um i don't want to get into into what contango is i think it is quite complicated but suffice to say that when you're buying a bitcoin futures etf the future the the fund or the etf has to keep buying longer dated futures contracts and exiting shorter dated future contracts to keep up because futures actually expire and so what happens is over the long term you get a futures etf performing uh uh less than the spot it happens in lots of commodities market happens at oil and other commodities markets now the idea is that the sec has now approved a bitcoin leveraged futures etf and they haven't approved a spot etf and they have this data that the futures etf underperforms spot they're not that you know they have this data at

their tips so i think it's it's starting to become a really really really tough argument of of declining an etf let's not say gary Gensler can't do it because he can, but I think it's starting to become a very difficult argument. Yeah. I mean, I think that's great points. Obviously, you saw my 100% strength. It's very good points. But there's two things I want to mention.

It's precisely because Gensler is a political, well, you use the word pawn or someone use the word pawn, but he's a political to do before. And it was his clear goal from the beginning. Now, he's distinguished from Jay Clayton, who made two epic mistakes as chair and knows he made two epic mistakes as chair and is trying to rectify them. One was not approving a spot ETF. He kind of knows the reason he didn't do it had nothing to do with the reasons you said, because by that point, by the time he was out of office or going out of office in those last six months, Coinbase already had anti-manipulation software, et cetera. And he could have engaged and gotten what Gensler has

now gotten from BlackRock, but that's besides the point. But the second one, the worst one, the one that we're all dealing with now is the failure to adopt Commissioner Peirce's safe harbor proposal and actually work on reasonable regulation. And I know he regrets that now. So now he's going to do everything he can to try to rectify his past mistakes. But Gensler cares a lot about jurisdiction, has always cared about jurisdiction, and will continue to care about jurisdiction. And now he's gained something. Frankly, this is probably the best deal he can get without Congress giving him authority. And if he rejects here, it's more likely Congress will take authority away. So I think that that's the reason I believe he's going to approve it. Dave, I want to kind of point something out.

It was tweeted by Lex Moskovsky, and he tweeted a few media articles about Bitcoin. So he tweets, Bitcoin suddenly has become a greener, helps third world countries, and is not being used by the baddies anymore since BlackRock filed for a CTF. There's some of the headlines everything you need

to know about bitcoin in the environment how bitcoin helps civilians escape the war in sudan that was and that's recent that's july 7th july 5th 12 hours ago bitcoin network to reduce more emissions than its energy sources produce and then on july 6th terrorists north korea and other illicit actors move beyond bitcoin so So are we seeing a narrative, you know, the entire narrative towards crypto shift and should that be looked into? You know, is that we would you look at that as a positive sign or we're kind of looking too deep into it? I figured it out of the sign, but that's sort of a pop signal. Right? I'm not actually saying that the market is top, but it's funny that when...

No, it's more, it's not really, but they're not talking about the price. It's more of, these are kind of adoption type. Yes, but price sadly generally leads near. It's hard to write when things are down. When you see the doom and despair and it's going to zero and we're boiling the ocean. And when things are great is when you get all the good despair and it's going zero and we're boiling the ocean and when things are great is when you get all the good news and i mean it's usually it's not the case here with the market but we've seen these narratives shift back and forth at various times and it is i do

think he's correct it's because of blackrock but then you can't make uh aggressive environmental claims about bitcoin when the world leader, yet he, which is BlackRock, was filing for DGN. That really does kill that fun and kill that narrative completely in my mind. I mean, look, I've been talking about in my weekly recaps on CoinRoute, the narrative shift for three weeks. I'm a big fan of Epsilon Theory because they have a balance. They talk about narratives in society,

and narratives are much more like aircraft carriers than they are like fighter planes. They don't change overnight. But the fact is that the FUD that literally is FUD, that is bullshit, is getting routed now. And it means that the people who hate Bitcoin for their own selfish reasons, i.e. they want to support the existing financial system, they want government control, we all understand what their real reasons are, have to find new FUD.

Because as Scott said, ESG has been, well, look, we all know it's been garbage from the beginning. I mean, Carter has done a phenomenal job of explaining to anyone who will listen or read why. But, you know obviously larry fink agrees with him and when you have someone like that you know it makes that narrative difficult you know the chain analysis i was talking to their ceo a couple weeks ago at a conference and you know that epic conversation he had with elizabeth warren a year and a half ago i think it was a year it was a while ago, at congressional hearings was amazing. But that didn't stop them from making the same claims.

It's just they do it, you know, and it'll come back. Scott's right. But this narrative shift does mean something. And Dave, you're right that it's usually, you know, obviously sort of that you alluded to that takes a long time to turn an aircraft carrier. This because of the size of LAPROC, this is almost the first time i've seen them change so quickly i won't say quite like a fighter jet but this is it is a pretty aggressive and fast narrative change i mean it's almost like we forget that the same week or within days we had sec enforcement action against

finance sec enforcement action against coin, anti-crypto army and Bakken. These things only weeks before that. Even the second the BlackRock ETF news dropped, Bitcoin goes from 25,000 to 31,000 and eloquently put it became all roses and unicorns. But this was, I agree with you, this is the fastest sentiment ship I think I've even seen in this market. Well, because I mean BlackRock is the fastest each of them ship i think i haven't even seen in this market well because i mean black and white we just have to imagine the world it makes sense yeah i mean politics is is is a game but you know at the end of the day it's like a game of risk

and we played a family game of risk and it was rather amusing but you know it's a game of risk uh the sec overextended themselves by going after coinbase and then proceeded to make it worse by not only they go after them but they backed them into a corner. And so the world essentially took, you know, two sides at that point. And the courts we all know are going to be too kind. We know what the Republicans in Congress think. We know what a bunch of Democrats think. The point of this narrative is important. We have a major election coming up. And do you want to be on the wrong side of a fast-turning, powerful narrative and give the other side an issue or not? And that's really the thing.

And so it's important to keep that pressure up. But as long as that pressure is there, that's the other reason I really do believe he'll approve the ETF to try to take oxygen away from making this an issue that could rebound against Gary's political bosses let me let me jump in scott um first before introducing our guests and the next topic and which i think a lot of people are waiting for pretty interesting topic and rent it's gonna be a fun discussion can't wait to argue with you on on this particular topic and let me remind the audience if you want to come on the show as a sponsor i think the next

sponsor is going to be tomorrow but if you want to come on make sure you hit us up the pinned tweets at the top there's an email there um or just dm us if you don't want to email if you're not a boomer so just dm me all right but we prefer emails otherwise uh you know we have miguel miguel from our car i'm not sure how many on the panel know about our car i'm sure you've heard of it. Their tweet with the video, their promo video, the announcement that was yesterday. It's got 2.2 million impressions, 3,000 likes, 2,000 retweets, and 500 comments. And it's a thread that explains it.

Now, I'm going to just explain it in one sentence and give the mic to Miguel to kind of explain it further. And the reason we're chatting to Arkham here, it's more about the solution that Arkham is focusing on rather than Arkham itself. So in their first tweet, the way they describe themselves is they're a blockchain or first on-chain intelligence exchange. And they allow people to buy and sell information on the owner of any blockchain wallet address, anonymously via smart contract. And probably Bruce is about to have a heart attack.

And it's been a very polarizing topic in the industry. So Miguel, I want to give you the mic and I want you to tell us first, what do you guys do? And try to be as objective as possible. But if you can also tell us what are some of the criticism you're receiving and obviously you can respond to it as well.

But why are so many people being critical on the solution you guys are offering, Miguel? Hey Mario, thanks for having me on. on the solution you guys are offering. Miguel? Hey, Mario. Thanks for having me on. So basically, I founded Arkham a couple of years ago in January 2020 and working on it since essentially building a platform for what we've described as the general kind of transparency

of crypto wallet addresses and the entities behind it. And so what we have actually developed and are planning on launching, which we made quite a big splash about yesterday, is what we're describing as the Arkham Intel Exchange. So to date, our platform actually has been running in private beta since about August. So August of last year, thereabouts is when we actually launched the beta. To date, we've gotten probably about a quarter million users using our platform in order to do on-chain analysis. But all of the information that you see on the platform is actually produced by Arkham itself, right? We basically focus on analyzing strictly publicly available information to then make connections about what sort of entities own which particular wallets. Just to kind of simplify for the audience, you incentivize people to dox others on the blockchain, in the crypto community.

Is that a fair simplification of what your platform does? Because I want to get into the advantages and then the disadvantages or the criticism you guys are receiving. So to date, absolutely all of the information that's available on Arkham has actually been produced by the company with no sort of external help, right? We don't use any of the data that people provide. And we have our own analysis teams and algorithms which, you know, sort of look at information and then deem, you know, which entities own which particular wallets. not meant to necessarily be a place where people are posting direct information about the exact location of people, where they live, all of this kind of info. It's actually meant more from an on-chain analysis perspective. So there's all these situations where you have these crises within crypto and it happens every so often and people kind of flip-flop between what they think,

whether or not they think we're good or bad, depending on how much of a fraudulent crisis is going on within crypto. But very often things can be happening on chain, especially scams, frauds, you know, obviously other kinds of negative information and people don't know who's behind the activity. This is one way where this can be exposed via a marketplace. Like I said, just Miguel. Okay, so just Miguel. Sorry, this is Ryan. I was wondering if I understand it correctly because I've done a little bit of research. Not a lot.

I'll be the first to admit. But from what I understand, there is an incentive for people to tell you what they know about other people's wallets. So I'll give you an example. If me and you participate in a transaction, in a private transaction, there is an incentive for you to provide as much information about my wallet as possible because the marketplace incentivizes people to give information about other people's wallets

and even their own wallets. Am I right in that? Yes, there is an incentive in order for people to go and explain who owns which particular wallets. So essentially what Mario's explanation is around dox to end is pretty much right. You could dox runs wallets and for that you would earn money, or you'd earn tokens, or whatever the mechanism is. So one really crucial thing about the fact that it is a market is, number one, it's not

a completely free market. So it's not like anybody can just post any piece of information, and then it can go online. There are a bunch of restrictions and guidelines, all of which we will be rolling out. Keep in mind, it's not live yet, right? It's going to come live in the future. There are a bunch of restrictions and rules about what can go on the marketplace, what

cannot go on the marketplace is number one. So there is a focal point of what kind of information is revealed. Can you give us some of those rules? Can you give us some of those rules just to give us perspective? We're going to explain everything and it'll all be written out over the coming days prior to the Intel Exchange being launched so that everybody can look at it. Right now, all of the information about the Intel Exchange is actually in the white paper. What I will say additionally is that the primary focus of the Intel Exchange is around trading firms, market makers, exchanges, very large kind of institutions within the crypto

space that people are actually following. At the end of the day, the large kind of institutions within the crypto space that people are actually following. At the end of the day, the main customer of Arkham is traders, it's hedge funds, it's people making money off of information about who's buying and selling large positions of a particular token, founders of a project, et cetera. It doesn't matter why. It points to the general direction of the information, right? Nobody's going to be posting info about somebody's dog if nobody cares, right? Nor is it going to get approved, right? So information about normal...

The type of information is all on the blockchain. The type of information that is on the blockchain is financial information in general. It's not about people's dogs. And it's public, right? It's publicly... No, no no no certain parts of it are public such as addresses but the owner of the address is not is not public and you're trying to de-anonymize the blockchain by making that a significant by incentivizing by you doing it by incentivizing people to give you whatever

information they have about other people's wallets with a whole lot of restrictions that you don't want to talk about now or do want to talk about now. So let me give you one example. So to date, I don't know if you've used the Arkham platform, but I recommend that you at least check it out so that you can understand more about what we actually do. All of that to date has been done without the use of the Arkham Intel Exchange, and all of the information is completely publicly available. I know that you're saying that, you know, some of the information is not public. That's not true. We've managed to collect information.

You know, there's over 200, 300 million labels on the Arkham platform, ranging from exchanges, market makers, trading forums, large whales, you know, project treasuries, etc. And all of that information is publicly available, right. And so this is a continuation of that info beyond just the Arkham intelligence team, right? If there are people who have information about somebody who's conducted a hack, or other kind of info that's extremely valuable to the community, that is the kind of thing that will be accepted onto the into the Arkham Intel exchange, and which will receive a lot of volume from the market. It will not be small individual private wallets because that's not the goal of the Arkham Intel exchange. And B, no one actually cares about those and is going to pay money for them.

So Miguel, by the way, I'm a fan of your solution. And Ryan and Scott probably get pissed off now. I'm not as big of a fan of privacy as many other people, and I know Bruce will probably block me for saying this, but that's just the way I live my life. But I've also learned the importance of privacy. So when you incentivize people to dock someone else or to reveal their identity, an identity of a wallet, it is a solution to a problem.

And obviously the biggest problem it solves, or hopefully will solve, is doxing scammers, revealing the brand you've got a hot mic around is doxing scammers so my question is what about the the nefarious ways that could be used what if is there is a a whale's wallet and then he dox that whale and that whale now needs to get security like i don't want anyone to know how much money I have. And when you incentivize people- And what if you're wrong? That's the second point.

I've got this one as well and I'm going to read out a tweet on this one. But Miguel, so I don't want my wealth to be known, for example, a bank account is private. So what if people start going, what if people docks my wallet and what if they go above and beyond and not use publicly available information

just for the reward? Let's say it's a really big reward, big bounty on this wallet. They go above and beyond and not use publicly available information just for the reward let's say it's a really big reward big bounty on this wallet they go above and beyond and somehow cross the line of what's publicly available and privately available just to um to dock someone's wallet would love to get your thoughts on on on this particular point yes i think that's i think that's right so um you know these are all great questions. I think that, you know, it's very multifaceted. So I'll try to go through them point by point. Number one, I think that if there are people who are very interested in maintaining privacy regarding their financial information, publicly available blockchains are probably the worst

possible way of keeping one's private information private. You are literally making transactions, which you are broadcasting to a decentralized network of millions of people, all of whom can look on chain in order to see which transaction is being broadcast. So that's number one. On this one though, before we move to number two, by the way, I'm a fan of your solution, just FYI. But on that particular point, but blockchain is the only way to own your assets. The other solution is either cash or bank. So people are not using it because it's anonymous, because obviously being anonymous on the blockchain is not that easy, but they're using it as a way to own one's assets.

Jason Lowery I agree. And that's the reason why I use blockchain. If you have a blockchain based financial asset, that's the reason why I use blockchain, right? Like if you have a blockchain-based financial asset, like that's an amazing utility for why one should use it. And that's why the reason is why I would use a blockchain, right? Speed, ease of use, actually owning your own app that being able to make cross-border payments instantly. These are all amazing reasons for using cryptocurrency. Trying to be completely anonymous is not one, right?

And this is something that you know many people do not understand and have kind of been operating as if blockchains are private um when they aren't really and i think that part of the news that we've kind of broken is the fact that you know it's not true even if you think you're using blockchains completely privately it's not necessarily true thankfully there are privacy solutions available out there for those who want them right this does not we go like this, I like this. Like, Scott, what bothers you? Like, you saw me and you say, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Like, for me, it's, if you don't use a blockchain, you understand that the blockchains are going to be... I believe in the, listen, I believe in the free market. I believe people should be able to do whatever they want to do. I believe that that response is disingenuous because we know that there's plenty of people who are transacting and don't think that they're laying bread crumbs for some amateur

sleuth to put together a story against them that's likely false and I've seen it I don't need to tell you about Arkham specifically to go on I think like I said conceptually I understand but I have seen people who do not know how to interpret on-chain data or of course

of course destroy people repeatedly in this space and this is giving them an incentive to interpret on-chain data or... Of course. Of course. ...completely destroy people repeatedly in this space, and this is giving them an incentive to do it. You can literally tell someone, go out, you'll sleuth to earn, whatever we're going to call it, and we have to trust somebody that is going to... He was close. He was close.

But guys, guys, is it this word, Mara or Mara? Even worse. I remind you, I want to take your hands back a couple of months when Arkham had a mislabeled address and published a false notification, which took the market, which took the Bitcoin market down, crashed the whole market. But this is of what they called an intentional... Yeah, but just going back to Scott's point, guys,

you love talking about self-regulation. You love shitting on the SEC. You love shitting on regulators. Well love talking about self-regulation. You love shitting on the SEC. You love shitting on regulators. Well, this is self-regulation. So if someone scams, generally authorities will act. Obviously, authorities are not acting on most. By the way, I don't shit on regulation. I shit on this SEC.

Okay, fair point, fair point. But you're a believer in self-regulation, yes or no? I'm a believer in self-regulation, but I also believe in a competent SEC. Forget the SEC. Forget the SEC. Let's move away from it. I'm not a believer. I'm not a believer.

Okay. I'm not a believer. Exactly. So, if you are a believer, so, Ryan, that's a different point. But if you are a believer in self-regulation, well, ACROM is the definition of self-regulation. You're incentivizing the public in a decentralized way to dox someone. Now, why would you dox someone? There's going to be positive reasons, doxing scammers,

and there's going to be nefarious reasons and hopefully... But this isn't about doxing scammers. It is, among other things. A bigger one, Mike, and Miguel's point, which is correct, is being able to trap a whale wallet, understand what people are doing in the market,

information. It's kind of like the, and you said for me, I'm a frequency trader in stocks. That part of it, I totally get, understand, and support. What I'm concerned with is the, that opens when you incentivize people financially to attack people. And they could do it,

literally could just choose someone they don't like and put together a story which is very easy on the blockchain that's arguably false. Oh, so you mean like, you mean putting some scam transactions here and there to frame someone? Not even scam transactions. It's very easy.

So like, someone, like, you mean like someone like you mean you mean like someone you mean that just got a socially good interesting point so you mean like and and miguel will go to you obviously because we're talking about your product but what you mean scott is essentially getting um let's say scammer was affrained someone so they scam money and then they send that scammed money to a wallet owned by that person and then or if someone literally just doesn't yeah... Yeah, yeah. And they see one transaction and they... But that's a problem of the internet. Yeah, that's exactly...

I actually think what, Miguel, I think what Arkham is doing conceptually is extremely interesting. So, listen, we're here to have this conversation. There's both sides. I'm just concerned in the that negative way yeah miguel and and these are these are concerns for us too right these are concerns for us too right we we will fail and i will fail as an entrepreneur if there's a bunch of fake news

and there's a bunch of negative information and there's a bunch of stuff that's not true on on our platform and on and on the right? So we have to do as much as possible. This is true of any platform, by the way. Even Twitter goes through a bunch of issues and complaints, critiques regarding how they manage misinformation. This is true of any place where people are able to freely post information about other people. Thankfully, it'll actually be more vetted and more regulated even than something like Twitter or Facebook, right? Because every bounty needs to be A, approved. That's number? Because every bounty needs to be, A, approved. That's number one.

The bounty needs to be approved in the first place for you to make a request about it. Okay, okay. How's the, Miguel, Miguel, how do it? F, B, the submissions need to be approved as well. Okay, that's interesting. So, by the way, for the panel, I want to go to you guys, David, Jeremy, Dave, Eleanor,

just to get your thoughts, especially Bruce's thoughts. But Miguel, first question to you, Ryan. Ryan, do you think the solution that Akram is working on is a solution that we need to have? Or you disagree with the solution itself? I know it's easy to be critical of it, but the solution itself? I think it's smart. Let me go back. I think the idea itself is very smart I'm just skeptical of offering

random people when I say random people with the set of rules rewards for doxing other people's wallets it's not because I don't think we can trust Arkem, which is a separate discussion, but I just don't think we can trust people. And I'll give you a very

perfect example of that. Mario, if I do a blockchain transaction with you and we agree that, you know, we'll keep the transaction private between us and you send me money and your fund will invest

in a certain, I don't know, IDO, ICO, whatever the hell you call it, certain investments. I now have an incentive to dox you. Because there's all of a sudden this token thing to dox you. I'll give you another example. If I work at a big exchange and I have access to a whole lot of KYC files and I'm in the

exchange, I now have an incentive to take those files and dox them. Because there is- Let me stop you right there with both of those examples i go through them one by one in the first one when you're making a private transaction with the number with another person first of all you need to trust the other person to not do so this has nothing to do with cryptocurrency right theoretically you do the same with cash you could do the same with a wire i could put his routing number on the internet if i wanted to you need to trust the other person his routing number on the internet if I wanted to. You need to trust the other person.

That's number one. Number two, if they used any kind of privacy tool or privacy coin, it wouldn't be trackable regardless. Number three, they don't even need to go as far as that. If he sends the money from some kind of exchange or a fresh wallet or anything like this, there's nothing to go back to that's doxable, right? If he sends you money from a Binance account, all you're going to see is a Binance hot wallet. So there are plenty of ways to ensure one's own... Yep, they use TornadoCat. Sure, but you can use Coinbase. If you withdraw from Coinbase, what are you going to do?

You're going to dox a Coinbase hot wallet? Miguel, you're a very smart guy, and you know that in terms of European regulations, very soon all transactions between exchanges accepting from a wallet and exchanges paid to a wallet are going to need to be KYC'd. Because you've read the regulation because that's your business. So you know very well that very soon it's not about the exchange. The exchange is going to have information about the wallet where they receive money from and the wallet that they send money to.

Because that's already in European regulation. So you know very well that exchanges are going to because that's that's already in european regulation so you know very well that exchange is going to have a whole lot more information about the user and so anybody who's working in the exchange um anybody that is working at the exchange now has an incentive to leak that information to you guys because they're going to earn tokens money etc etc so number one. Number two, I'm not sure that I trust you guys as the custodians of information. I haven't known your company for a long time,

but in the short period of time that I've known your company, you've had two or three quite serious mess-ups that don't show you guys are a competent data management firm. You had a mislabeled account which crashed the crypto market not so long ago. You apologized to the public. You had effectively what is a date breach yesterday with your referral links that docks the people that have already applied to be part of this. Okay. I mean, I'm not sure that I want you guys being the custodians of any kind of docks. I've got to be honest.

Miguel, go ahead. So regarding the information on the exchanges, just to, again, go point by point. So regarding the information from the exchanges, it is already the case that in order to use the majority of exchanges, in order to make deposits and withdrawals, that is done by a KYC.

Nearly all exchanges require KYC of their customers at this point. The overwhelming majority of exchange volume from customers is being done by a KYC account. So that's number one. You are already trusting all of these entities and exchanges and their employees to not release any of these.

There's no... Hold on, let me finish. Hold on. Let me finish. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, it's a good... Ryan, you got actually a good comeback there. But Miguel, I think...

Miguel, I shall... Ryan, mention your comeback and let you finish, Miguel. There is no incentive to do so. That's Ryan's comment. Now you're adding that incentive. Go ahead, Miguel, I shall mention your comeback and let you finish, Miguel. There is no incentive to do so. That's Ryan's comment. Now you're adding that incentive. Go ahead, Miguel. There are already all kinds of darknet markets and other reasons for why people have leaks all over the internet.

That's number one. Number two, as I mentioned before, there are protections against this kind of information being on the marketplace regardless. Because as we noted in the white paper, every single bounty and every single submission needs to be reviewed prior to actually going live on the Intel exchange, right? And so there's a massive leak that comes from an illegal data breach, right? Every single piece of bounty and every submission needs to be vetted. You need to state the provenance of where you got the information in order to show that the information was shown publicly. And all of these things

without it, the submission doesn't actually go through. The more you talk, the more I realize what my issue is here. My issue is not with the system. My issue is with your company managing the data. I've known your company for less than six months. And in six months, you've been... We've actually been public around that. Before then, you wouldn't have known about it, regardless. Okay, well, whatever it was, I'm saying in the short time, in the short time that I've known you guys,

you've had two massive fuck-ups. Let's be honest. One of them was the first level address that crashed the crypto market. And one of them was pretty much a data breach. Yes. Which revealed all the emails in your referral. Now, you know, invites within, as I explained in the post that we made, when people made invites and accepted a referral, you could see the referrer's email actually within the Arkham platform or Garnet's because it told you in order to show the trust. This is a company. This is a company. You're referred. You're referred.

You pretty much doxed the email address of the people that were participating in the program. I mean, come on. But Rand, just to, Miguel, hold on. Rand, you could just say, you know, we're both fans of Binance. Binance went through a hack in 2019. They went through a hack last year. Does that mean Binance shouldn't exist? Or, you know, every company?

No, I mean, if you're talking about a company that's going to have a business model, old story. LastPass, German LastPass, but LastPass Taurus, password. Yeah, they've had- Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. This is the LastPass.

Now, the question is, do you trust Miguel to be a LastPass knowing that? Yeah, but I use LastPass. LastPass didn't have a hack, but then went through a security breach. I think this is, for me, the solution itself is the biggest story whether whether akram you know you know if they have hacks people will stop using it their reputation will get hit so i think this is capitalism 101 i'm not too concerned whether they get hacked or not the reason is if they get hacked you know something happens this will impact their business that will impact users so they're incentivized to make sure they're secure um and whether they have the right security team etc et cetera, the right processes. That's a

different discussion that I don't think we have the answer. But my bigger question is, and Scott, you were mentioning that. I'll read out a tweet here by Crypto Condom. It says, there is no way to 100% verify wallet ownership and no one should be profiting on your data but you. But the first part of this, there is no way to 100% verify wallet ownership. That's a really interesting point, Miguel. I mean, it's just flat out wrong, right? Some people actually just post their wallet addresses on the internet and say, you know,

these are my funds or they own it. True, fair point. It's an extreme statement. It is an extreme statement. You think it's true. But I'll reword it. I just think it's wrong. How do you make sure that the doxing is actually accurate?

So every piece of information that can be found on any analytics platform, by the way, there are plenty of blockchain analysis platforms, including probably, you know, one of the more famous ones, Etherscan, that include labels about information about who owns what. And all of it is found in a public manner where you can actually make the provenance and the attribution. And the main way in which this is actually done is there are processes from blockchain analysts who use heuristics that include looking at all of the publicly available information about who owns what. For example, I'll give you the most straightforward approach. Most exchanges now post FTX because FTX did not have a proof of reserves and therefore after collapse because it was fraudulent, now they are starting to post what their hot wallets are and

what their cold wallets are so that they can show and instill trust in their customers that they own those particular wallets. You can collect that and then put it on that data platform. So McGill, now imagine that times every project in the space, every exchange, every major institution that is basically being done at scale in order to provide users with information. That same provenance will be necessary on the intelligence. Let me go to, so I want to get the panel's thoughts on this. I'll give mine first. And then I would love to get, David, I'll give you the mic first, just for the audience as well. I want to get your thoughts as well,

listening to the discussion. Miguel's answered some really tough questions, especially from Ryan. And I want to get your thoughts. Is that a solution that is needed? Do the advantages, like for me, the thing that sold me is as soon as you talk about an incentive to dock scammers,

that made it really interesting. But we have regulators for that already. Do we need a decentralized solution to this? That for me is what really sold me. But then the concerns are very valid as well. And Ryan gave a few examples of those. So I'm kind of in the middle, still leaning more on, I think, some really interesting solutions. David, where do you stand on this?

Look, I think we increasingly live in a more public world, and I think it's a generational issue. On the other hand, when it comes to certain information, privacy is sacrosanct. And I think it's quite all right. I don't think I have any objection. I would doubt anyone else here has an objection about aggregating publicly available information. But once you start to go across the spectrum, which is you're not aggregating, now you're drawing lines, right? And some of those lines could be questionable in terms of how valid or how accurate those lines are. And then if you go even further across the spectrum where you're incentivizing people to essentially rat out information that they know or have found out and go ahead and adding that to the database, then it becomes, I think, very problematic from two perspectives. Not only from the perspective of, I now have information being shared, which I didn't want being shared. And yes, there is always that issue, right?

But someone could go to the press, but it's not- the information being shared, which I didn't want being shared. And yes, there is always that issue, right? But, you know, someone could go to the press, but it's not... But David, there isn't... But, you know, it's got agreed. Like, David, isn't privacy dead in general? Well, Mario, wait, I'm not even finished. I'm not even finished. Who funded your company? All of our backers

are on our website. It's a mix of co-founders of OpenAI. Hold on, hold on. He wants to play the Palantir card. Go ahead, Ranks. I think that's a really silly point. Who cares? I mean, are you...

Why? Why? Why? Hold on. Why? We know the links at Palantir for the CIA and the FBI and everything else. These are the things... They wrote a check. They wrote a check.

And? This is my question. People are trying to draw these kind of crazy lines between this stuff, but it's incredibly normal for a series A startup to go and get money from smart people who are also in data analytics. That's not weird at all. And I've already made statements that it's not a government project. I have nothing to do with the government.

I've never worked with the government. So I don't understand why people keep trying to draw these lines just because i got a check from successful founders i'll give you i'll give you an example it's an opening eye product every day right right right i'll give you babylon health origin repair therapeutics uh lilium sarcos weijia all these are companies the companies that we all use no one has problems with and that Palantir invested in. I'll tell you something, I'm facing a similar story. Unless they have a big chunk, Miguel, I don't know if it's public, but do they have any decision-making powers?

Do they have a board seat, Miguel? That Palantir is not, to be clear, Palantir is not even an investor in the company, right? People who founded the company are, right? And it's a minor stake in the company right people who founded the company are right and and it's a minor stake in the company regardless and at the end of the day none of them have any impact on our product or yeah right i'll give you right right i'll give you an example like i have ibc got if it gets a check from a foreign fund yeah everyone in crypto gets investments from around the world and i have an incubator and then people built out a narrative, hey, Mario gets checks from companies or funds that are not US-based.

They're based in Switzerland or UK or Dubai or whatever it is. That means it's a foreign-funded media entity. I just don't think that argument holds any substance. Let alone, it's the founders of Palantir that invested. I think your concerns, your earlier concerns, Ryan, in my opinion, a lot more valid and kind of didn't change my mind um david shared them but kind of their concerns that um i just don't know how you guys will deal with them but we'll we'll see time will tell well well the the reality is that if somebody doesn't want to use

our platform and they don't want to trust our data, they don't have to. That's the reality. And if they do want to use it and they want to, they can do it too. Yeah, but they had, I'll give you a solution. You talked about having an approval process for what data shared. I'm curious, what is that process? If you mentioned it already, I apologize, but that for me, because this is your solution to ensuring nefarious data is not shared. So is that a decentralized solution? Is it centralized? And how do you determine what should be and should not be or who should be and should not be doxxed? So if people want like a complete read of it, they can look at the white paper.

I'll give a high level view now. Basically, in the very beginning, we are starting out by setting out guidelines and rules for what kind of things were going to be allowed and not allowed on the Intel exchange in the same way we make decisions about what kind of things are allowed or not allowed on the Arkham platform to date with 250,000 people using over the past year, right? Okay, so that is already something that needs to be done and is currently being done within the Arkham platform. Over time, this will decentralize where based on those guidelines, then the community can, you know, make decisions about what's the missions for bounties can go through, right? Part one is just people making a request for the information. So that's one side of the

market, right? So the first side of the market that needs to happen is somebody needs to say, you know, we need access to this information. And then the second part of the market right so the first side of the market that needs to happen is somebody needs to say you know we need access to this information and then the second part of the market is that somebody actually then needs to provide it and then that one also gets submitted and so we have in our white paper an outline for how we kind of are thinking about this problem of doing the decentralized governance of which bounties are allowed to go on and then which bounties. I think, Miguel, you've explained it well. So, Jeremy, I like it. I think it's an interesting solution. I think it will be abused, and I think it's their responsibility

to make sure that the platform is not used for nefarious purposes. Now, Rand's concerned, should we trust you guys? Should we not trust you guys? If they lose trust, the business dies. I think it's really simple. And, Jeremy, where do you see… Like any platform, should we trust you guys, should we not trust you guys? If they lose trust, the business dies. I think it's really simple. Jeremy, where do you... Like any platform, by the way. Yeah, exactly. You have to set guidelines for your users about what they can and can't do. You can't post extreme

info on Twitter, right? It gets banned, it gets removed, it gets moderated. The same thing for the Intel Exchange. Bruce, I think... I'm actually more interested on Bruce. Bruce, where do you stand on this? Yeah, well, you know, like a lot of things, you know, like math and, you know, a lot, you know, a lot of things that I don't agree with. I agree that it should be allowed.

You know, I support the free market, but I don't think it's a great idea. You know, I believe in financial privacy. So and in some cases, that should be a right that people should have the right to have privacy. So, you know, in general, I just, you know, I'm not, you know, I'm not in favor of the idea of... But isn't it, Bruce, wouldn't you say, would you say, isn't it like private investigators? Like if you hire private investigators

to know where I live or how much money I have or if I'm sleeping with someone, you know, we don't say, hey, private investigators should not exist. Is that like a kind of a private- No. Well, I didn't say, yeah, to not exist implies the idea that you're going to have a force or a law to say this can't happen. And I'm not in favor of that. Are you allowed, Bruce? Are you legally allowed, if I get a private investigator and find out things about you, am I legally allowed to share that information publicly?

It depends on what that information is. I think those same laws should apply to... It probably depends on the information. And we should watch out for the idea of using whether something's legally allowed as any kind of metric about anything that means anything. Because there's a whole bunch of terribly immoral and horrible things that are allowed, you know, just because you can do it. I mean, there's all kinds of things that are allowed, and there's probably even more things that should be allowed. I mean, you should be allowed to be racist. You should be allowed to say horrible things. You should be allowed to offend people. You should be allowed to be a jerk. It doesn't mean it's a good thing.

You know, we have morality, and it's immoral, in my opinion, to certain things that you do are immoral. I think it's immoral to spy on people. There can be good reasons for it, just like private investigators, but you've got to really watch what you're doing. I'm in favor of it existing. I don't like the idea. I'd prefer pursuing you know, pursuing something else. I think there's better, better business. So one quick thing, which time one quick thing, which time will tell regarding, you know, the market and, and the Intel marketplace as a whole is exactly what kind of information is even popular, or most valuable to share in the first place. And we will see this after the actual launch. And, you know, there's the trials, and we start to see which bounties are actually on, etc. Again, this is still in beta phase, hasn't even been released yet and time will tell what exactly. But this is exactly the kind of thing that would have been

extremely valuable during every single crisis of fraud, of scams, of rugs, and every piece of negative information that has destroyed the reputation of the cryptocurrency industry over the past years right it's not so it's like can actually be traded right the community yeah so so scott like the argument and by the way eleanor we got your message so we're going to talk about this right after the breaking news you sent us but

at rand scott like the argument that is being made, essentially like, hey, the internet allows people to easily share information about anybody with the world and anyone can access it from anywhere in the world. Whereas in the world before the internet, you couldn't do that. You had to go through centralized entities that will essentially not allow you to share the address of someone and dox them. But now on social media platforms, you can dox anybody. Does that mean that those platforms shouldn't exist? No, but you're not financially incentivized to do so. No, yeah. But people do it for other reasons.

Likes, reputation, clout. Clicks. Hold on. Hold on. Miguel. Miguel. Exactly, Miguel. I got it.

Yes, you are incentivized. Clicks. So on Twitter, they attack people that will get them clicks, or they dox people that will get them clicks. The media is another good example, right? Yeah, but that's not

a centralized company. It's not a centralized company. There are no centralized companies who do it. They're called news sites. I think I agree with Bruce. I think for me, the issue that I have two issues, as I mentioned.

One is I think it's immoral. I think it's immoral and unethical. And number two, I don't trust the company specifically to... Or any company, to be fair. Almost. Or any company,

but there are companies... And what about if it was decentralized? What about if it was decentralized? Exactly. I was going to say that they're going to go on because that's the plan. If you read the plan, the community gets to decide which ones go up and down on the platform. So ultimately

you're not relying on us. There's a big difference between this and news organizations. News organizations don't pay their sources. And so therefore, they're not incentivized in a... But they don't have to pay their sources because

they get clicks and that's how they generate revenue. So it's a roundabout way of being... It's a roundabout way of doing it. No, you can't. No, absolutely not. They can more easily say that they are an objective arbiter of the validity and the veracity of the information, right?

Because they will go down if the veracity isn't there. However, once they say for the platform, what's the difference between that and the Intel exchange? Nobody's going to use it. It's going to go down and fail and claims if all the information is wrong. It's not too big to fail. If anything, if anything, the New York Times is more of a too big to fail entity, no matter what they say or any other kind of large media organization is too big to fail no matter what they say compared to our small crypto you know intel exchange which hasn't even launched yet these entities put out put out information that's wrong all the time especially about people they're even trying to get financial information right now about you know all of the creditors of ftx from the ft and bloomberg and all of these large institutions

are trying to get the courts to review all the FTX creditors. Why? Because they want to get clicks so that they can make money. Your hope is not that your site remains small, right? Your hope is that it becomes the central repository for all crypto information in terms of identity, right? At that point, you will become too big to fail, right? That's the slippery slope we're on here right? At that point, you will become too big to fail, right? That's the slippery slope we're on here. And at that point, even before you become the behemoth, right? You will be able to incentivizing somebody financially to go ahead and do something potentially not fully accurate, let alone full blown, to go ahead and take somebody down.

And if you have that happening, even 2% or 5% of the time, you will continue to exist. Certainly, you won't be taken down and shut down, but you will be ruining 2% to 5% of the people. And those will just be the casualties of your war. So you're incentivized to go ahead and monetize your platform in the best way that you see fit. So you're incentivized to go ahead and monetize your platform in the best way that you see fit. So you will continue to go ahead and hand out monetization as it goes ahead and fuels more activity for your enterprise. All of the incentives are decided ahead of time and then voted on by the community at large, not necessarily me. So that's number one. And that's very different from any kind of other centralized organization. And it's one of the beauties of crypto. So that's number one. Number two, in addition to that, as the platform

grows, and as I mentioned, it's going to become more and more important that the information is actually correct or else it'll suffer from immense reputational risk and the market will do its job and people will leave and they're not going to use it. And then the final part is to set a bar for a company, which in my opinion, the reason why we're even having this discussion in the first place is that it's building groundbreaking innovative technology for the entire space to set the bar as there should be no negative externalities when you're doing something that you think is positive for the world and positive for the community is too high a bar and it's incorrect. Lots of companies that are building, you know, very important technology that are used by very many people can have occasions where,

you know, there are mistakes. I cannot set the bar for us as no, every single little thing is going to be absolutely perfect. There may not be any negative externalities whatsoever. You know, this is not the case, but we're absolutely going to do our best. I think the community is going to do its best and we're going to set you know the best rules and guidelines it's coming miguel it's just coming jeremy jeremy jeremy it's just for me it looks like it's coming down to execution rather than the idea itself what do you think well first i was going to say if the system can't be used to do bad things uh then the system doesn't work right so it's kind of necessary that the system be possible uh to be able to be used to do bad things, then the system doesn't work, right? So it's kind of necessary

that the system be possible to be able to be used to do bad things, or the system wouldn't have the properties that you want the system to have. But more importantly, I actually think debating all of this stuff, when it's something that you can't pick up and use. And I understand that there's a, you know, a private beta or something like this, but, you know, the answer to all this stuff is be skeptical, you know, wait and see. And when there's something there that you can pick up and try for yourself and evaluate for yourself, you know, then you can see if it works and you can see if it's real. But right now, it's this entirely theoretical discussion that I would suspect

is more motivated by the desire to sort of create hype around something that you can't actually pick up. Yeah, exactly. I think, like, shouldn't we, like, Ryan, shouldn't we be applauding innovation and then let the markets decide

if it ends up being net negative to the community? It won't exist anymore. Either users will flunk out of it or regulators will act. In this case, the problem is that when it happens, it may be too late. That's the problem.

They may need to realize that they got non-fledged. By that time, they've already got... I agree with that. So, in terms of this, at the end of the day, additionally, the thing can be shut down. That's the other

major part of it. It's not just running autonomously. Many of these questions were asked of all kinds of... But I thought it was decentralized. Decentralized governance of the bounty and submission system does not mean that the system cannot be shut down. Those are

two different things. The governance is very different from the actual operation of the software itself. And then it would have matured to allow, when we get to decentralization, we would have known if the solution is net positive or net negative. Jeremy? So number two, I think this is the other big thing. I mean, even if you have a system and all the decentralization is there. Did Jeremy drop out? Or is it my end?

Yeah, he dropped out. Eleanor, I know you've met. Yeah, you dropped out. Eleanor, I'd love to get your thoughts on this. I know you sent through a piece of news. I think we'll talk about it tomorrow and let us get more information on it. But after Jeremy, Eleanor, I'd love to get your thoughts as well. And before we wrap it up, Jeremy, you were saying, oh no, he's connecting.

Eleanor, what do you think of the solution? Do you think that the benefits outweigh the risks? I think it's really interesting. Honestly, like I feel like this is, you know, this is hasn't, we haven't heard anything like this before. This is a very unique solution to sort of a niche problem, right? But one that's, you know, kind of flaked the industry for the, I mean, since it's been around, right? And we need to get rid of fraudsters.

We need to, you know, kind of build the good name up in cryptocurrency again. So kind of, you know, weeding out these people is a great thing. But in time, what cost benefit? I mean, excuse me. I mean, the tweet that i that i shared with you mario and i'll just you know i'll just kind of give you an overview go ahead i mean so this sort of like kind of i mean it's kind of you know the the timing is interesting right because this just came out from the u.s attorney's office um manhattan u.s attorney uh just basically

arrested a guy um because he was a senior executive or a senior engineer, I'm sorry, at an international tech company. He used his expertise to defraud the exchange and its users. He stole approximately $9 million in crypto. He laundered the stolen funds through a series of complex transfers on the blockchain. He swapped cryptocurrencies, hopped across different crypto blockchains, and used overseas crypto exchanges. I mean, Miguel, does it... I'm sorry? The Prima Finance Act from last year, is that correct? Yeah, I believe so.

And he was just the rest of the day. Yeah. So, I mean, does your solution kind of... I mean, does this solve problems like that? My question. Of course. Of course. The whole point is that when situations like that happen, there is then an incentive from

the community that's actually getting, you know, exploited in these situations to actually then go out and, you know, put in real work and real hours to try to figure out who's behind this person so that they can be, you know, who's behind the fraud in order for them to be potentially reported to the authorities or for the community to know or,. This is the general intention. Imagine if this was already out and it could have prevented very large frauds and crises within crypto, such as the FTX Alameda collapse. All of that information was on chain. Lawyers are getting paid hundreds of millions, hundreds of millions. Because prior to it becoming a $ billion dollar fraud, there would have already been a massive incentive because there were plenty of rumors circulating for years about what was going on between FTX and Alameda. And there were plenty of people who were talking about it. And I was thinking into that. But but but but but but but maybe but maybe it wasn't enough. Yes, and maybe, Jeff, maybe, because there wasn't any kind of, as you say, financial incentive for them to do so, they didn't take the extra step of actually writing up a report and submitting it to the community, right? Maybe that's the final step.

I think we all agree. conceptually i i understand that and i get that but i i would be willing to bet that 50 people who are completely innocent would have been dragged into some complete bullshit in that process but then again but scott like he just bothers me scott scott we constantly scott we constantly complain how regulators are not acting fast enough acting at all when it comes to scans. Well, there's a solution, an imperfect one. Why are we applauding the solution? I'm glad we should be critical and I'm glad we're adding it. Of course, I think my problem is the, actually, I think the solution is extremely innovative and interesting.

And I think that there's a great business probably here for Arkham. The part that I don't like, because I've seen it over and over and over again, is it's going to incentivize a bunch of wannabe on-chain detectives to now go do what they do and make a profit. But those on-chain, yeah, but then you're allowing people like ZachXBT and others, you're monetizing what they do. And I think, you know, they're not perfect. All of whom have complained that they're not paid enough.

Yeah, and these guys, look, these guys are not going to be perfect, man. And they're going to be held accountable. And I don't know how... No, they're not. They will not be held accountable if they're not perfect. They lose credibility. They lose credibility. I think people will stop...

No, they don't. It's forgotten every three days. It's forgotten every... That's not true. I welcome you to participate in the InfoExchange governance process of approving bounties, approving submitters, and approving submissions as well.

You can join everyone on banning. Dude, I hate shit on chain sleuths too, right? They're like moonlighting my full-time job. I don't like that either. I don't like the misinformation. They're basically the scammer equivalent of my job and my business. I want absolutely nothing to do with that. I only want high quality content that can help the community at scale to try to uncover all of the sickening activity that goes on in this space under wraps. The benefit, Miguel, Miguel, Miguel.

This is the best proposal that I've come up with for this, and that's why I revealed it to the community. I don't disagree with that. But we're talking more now about the sort of Rumpel and Stammer side. The original pitch and the part that I think is really, really interesting was actually more about, you said, clients being hedge funds, trading, obviously, tracking whale wallets, that side of it, correct? I mean, which to me is more like sort of the hype. So let me, yeah, yeah, yeah. For sure. For sure. And let me give you the numbers, right? 250,000 users, probably 200,000 of those are regular retail traders and regular retail people who use our platform in order to do this kind of due diligence and risk management that I described. The other around 50,000 are professional investors, professional market makers and traders

who use it across around 3,000 institutions. Okay. So it's a mix. It's definitely a mix. And I think that, yeah, so that's why I'm building it. And I want to see if it works and I want to prevent problems. Is it the margin? And it is with anything else i understand that argument in that point from both yourself and mario i just you know it's hard when obviously even though we all know that the blockchains are not uh private they're not used for privacy i mean a lot of people do trust that they can effectively transact directly with one or another without yeah i think i think miguel mig Miguel, you've got an incredible responsibility on your back. I think you guys ensuring that it's not used for nefarious purposes is going to be the

determining factor on whether this will work or not. Because I think the solution makes sense, but the flaws are tricky to navigate. And look, I've been the victim, Ran, and I'm sure Scott, Scott probably been the victim the most of these investigators that just don't care about facts and instead care about clicks.

So incentives are misaligned. If you guys could ensure that the incentive is facts rather than money, because if they could just sit there calling out others and the verification process is not right, I don't know how you, again, I don't know how you guys could

really verify the actual owner of a wallet. But if you guys, if there's a flaw in that and someone capitalizes on that flaw, then they start abusing the platform just to print money and to make money because the verification process doesn't make sense. And then you become more of a problem rather than a solution. And that's a problem that us three and many others have faced. And I completely agree with you. I think that with any major project and with any thing that you build that acquires great power, you have an enormous amount of responsibility. I intend to use that in good faith as well as I possibly can. I've completely tied myself to this company from a reputation, financial perspective. It's basically my entire life. I want to make sure that it succeeds.

I want to end the way in which I'm doing that. I'm trying to align it as much as possible with the community. And at the end of the day, like other large projects like OpenAI, MidJourney, any kind of computer generation, there are tons of these very valid negative externalities that people put out regarding deep fakes, fake content on the internet, you know, misinformation, etc. Those are all real critiques and it's up to the companies

to make sure that those things don't happen. Yeah. And I follow the same. Miguel, Miguel, I'll wrap it with this and the kind of indirect jab at Rand. Not sure if he's even listening,

but I'd say like your, who your investors are doesn't really get Palantir invested or the founders of Palantir invested. I don't know. Yeah, I know about them. Oh, shit, shit. Okay. Now i think look rand's points are very valid

i think you should really listen to no no look i'd be honest and can i let you wrap up rand and but my my thoughts miguel is that who invested in miguel the founders of open ai and all that shit like congratulations i don't really care mistakes you've done before that referral link and and the the the call that you did earlier that randall's very critical of i don't really care i care about what what happens moving forward that you take that and it seems you're taking that responsibility very seriously um because i think we'll be having you on the show again but hopefully it's for positive reasons where he called out a scam rather than negative reasons where someone uh you know got kidnapped because they only got doxxed and they're sitting in Slovenia and out of nowhere, they're in a car and getting their finger chopped off.

So you've got an incredible responsibility on your back and I hope that the result is positive. Ryan, your final thoughts? Do you agree with the way I wrapped it up? I think I agree with you. I think there's good and bad in what people are doing. As I said, I find the incentive a little bit immoral,

but I mean, everyone has different morals and different ethics. Immoral, unless it depends on what they use, because some of them are more like calling out a scammer. That's moral. Agree? Yeah, agree. As I said, my calling out a scammer, that's moral. Agree? Yeah, agree. Agree. As I said,

my biggest concern is around the company that is doing this. It's very soon in the process, but already they have got the best track record and they're dealing with very, very sensitive information in this case.

So, you know, my trust levels start off very, very low and in time they'll be able to win my trust. Cool. Well, guys,

I hope we'll convert you into a true believer, Rand. Yeah, man. Hope we'll have you on. Now, don't look forward to it. Don't say that, Miguel. Some people are just a lost cause, bro.

Look, I just want to applaud Scott. I'm not Mario. Mario, I have a very open, Mario I have a very open mind I have a very open mind I've aired my concerns I've aired my concerns, I believe my concerns have got

substance to them, they're not just concerns I didn't wake up in them, I just have concerns I have an ethical concern, the company that we're dealing with has had two very very very simple mishaps that have huge implications. And so to me, that's not a company that right now has 100% of my trust, as I'm sure you're saying, Sam.

The same is probably… All of these things will be mitigated. All of these things will be mitigated with time, and the market will tell. Miguel, I think you've handled the interview. Yeah, but as I say, you know, but the problem is by the time

that there is a data breach, we'll all be able to say, I told you so, but the data breach will really happen. But you can say that, but Randy, you can say that

about pretty much any company. That's a problem across the world. Yeah, that's why, that's why, but not any company skirts on that plus something that I believe is immoral

yeah none i look at miguel miguel just kind of put it into perspective like ryan has been the victim of of uh of a problem that your platform could lead to and i'm going through one now where the incentives are just misaligned where people care more about clicks um rather than truth and this for me is the most important aspect of your platform but anyway look i think the incentives are just misaligned where people care more about clicks rather than truth. And this for me is the most important aspect of your platform. But anyway, look, I think we've butchered it.

I think you've done great in, in this interview, this chat. I appreciate you taking the tough questions and you know, Scott, I want to applaud you for leading a great show on the last few days, man, with me and right away,

you, you fucking killed it. So I just want to give you all the credit here. The last, the last seven days, you were, you were an incredible moderator. The feedback has been great. So well done there, Scott.

It was like 30 days, man. I appreciate you all. We'll see you again tomorrow if you want to come on. Although I think we're here with the best moderating Scott today. What did you say? Sorry, did you just compliment me? He's basically saying when I'm not here, it's the best moderating. Yeah, so he just complimented me.

The first compliment I got from Rand publicly. I love Scott. I think all the students see the best moderator. I had a great weekend with him. Speak for yourself, bro. Look, I'm not putting my hand to this. Out of the two of you, he's the best moderator. Keep me out of it.

The worst. All right, guys. Anyway, we'll see you again tomorrow, same time. Appreciate you all. Miguel, well done. And for the panel, thank you so much for joining, as always. See you all tomorrow. Bye, everyone.

Thanks, guys.