The Wolf Of All Streets - Republicans Add Crypto To Platform | Crypto Town Hall w/@mars4_me

Episode Date: July 9, 2024

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

Hell of an interesting title this. I have no idea what it's about, but I don't see any manipulation. I don't see any Bitcoin manipulation in the CPI. I wonder what this title actually means. Can you see WhatsApp? I literally just messaged. I didn't see that. Our team's wonderful, but I literally just messaged that I was signing on.

Can someone explain the title to me? Question mark. No idea what it means. Sorry. Yeah, I don't know. I'm here. I don't know what we're going to be talking about, but I literally just messaged that I was signing on. Can someone explain the title to me? Question mark. No idea what it means. Sorry. Yeah, I don't know. I'm here. I don't know what we're going to be talking about, but I am here.

I think it's about Bitcoin manipulation ahead of the CPI. But has anyone seen any Bitcoin manipulation ahead of the CPI? I checked under a few blockchains. I didn't see any manipulation happening on my end. I don't know. Did you? Yeah, I did. I didn't see any manipulation happening on my end. I don't know. Did you? Yeah, I didn't. I see Bitcoin manipulated upwards. I see East actually at $3,100. So it looks like it's a,

looks like, I don't know. I wonder if Peter Brandt will join us today because he said he's seeing a double top on Bitcoin. And he's saying, I mean, that implies that we're going to move down. He's talking about a 20% move on Bitcoin. He's not the only one. Eric Crown called for Bitcoin down to the 40s. Kyle, who works with us, also called Bitcoin down to the 40s. I don't know. To me, it just feels like the worst is over. I think we just bought it for now.

You can zoom out and say that there's a triple top happening even if you go out far enough. But again, like... Haven't JP Morgan called for a drop down to 40s? Oh, hey. Since when do we listen to JP Morgan? I thought we were just all throwing out some nonsense ideas. I don't know.

I think, to be honest, I think what's going on in the crypto market is probably the best thing that I've seen happening in the crypto market for many years. And I want to just break down that thesis and then I can hand it over. But I think that ever since i got into crypto there was a cloud of the mount cox coins i remember every single year every single bull market there was always this cloud of the mount cox coins i mean the german coins to be honest i wasn't really aware of them although i was aware that a whole lot of governments actually owned crypto uh unwillingly because they they got the crypto through things like Silk Road and whatever else. And there's always been this cloud around when these guys may be

selling. And I think that what we're getting now is we're getting a transfer of Bitcoin and crypto, but let's call it Bitcoin just for now. We're getting a transfer from hands that should never have been in the market and don't want to be in the market to hands that actually want to be in the market. And I think we saw quite clearly with the ETFs. I think the ETFs underwent their first massive test in the last couple of weeks. So when I say their first massive test, there was a lot of speculation that when the price of the ETFs of the Bitcoin went down, the ETFs would actually exit. A lot of people had this theory that right now the ETFs have maxed out and they're going to start using this as a trading instrument.

And what we're seeing in the first real dip since the ETFs actually came to the market is that they're actually buying up the supply. Where is the supply coming from? The supply is coming from the hands that don't need or don't want to be in the market. Governments, Mt. Gox overhang coins from the HAC. These are clouds that need to be moved. And I'm just grateful that it's happening now when there is an ETF versus it happening a year ago

when there was no... Can you imagine the German coins? Yeah, I would have been miserable last summer. Oh, miserable. Yeah. So I think that this is probably the healthiest that I've seen the market in a long time. Like literally transfer of transfer on coins from people who should be in the, who shouldn't be in the market to people who want to be

in the market. And that sounds somewhat Bitcoin specific though. Correct? Yes. But the whole market is down because of Bitcoin. If Bitcoin is shut up to 80,000, the whole market would shoot up again. You know that. It would, but it's still been disproportionately bad versus previous times Bitcoin made an all-time high. Now, I would argue that that's normal. We had the ETF, that value accrued to Bitcoin, very obvious that would happen. That can't trickle down from your E-Trade IRA into buying dog with hat, obviously. This is actually where altcoins kind of should be at this point in the market. I think it's just you have this bipolar depression because Bitcoin went up so high and altcoins didn't really capture the value. But this is the summer after the halving before altcoins

have historically gone parabolic. Exactly. Exactly. I saw a chart today, which I spoke about on my show, which was the RSI chart. It was the Bitcoin RSI across all cycles. And what you can see is in all cycles, we've had a spike of RSI and a spike of the market just before the hop just before the hobby and then we've got a drop just after the hobby. Now if you look at that chart, it's the RSI went extremely high this time for the period just before the hobby. And the reason weekly, weekly, I assume I'm talking about because it went to about 89 this time and like historic I just read was not I just retweeted it. So if you go if you go look at my account, I've just retweeted it because and I'm doing it because I don't

know how to print something from my desktop. But going over that just just just repeated it. It's a tweet from Quentin Francis, Franco. You can maybe put it in the nest. I did it. I was doing it while you were... I can't do two things at once, so I had to stop talking while I did that. Yeah. Go ahead. So, I mean, if you look at that RSI,

look how much higher the RSI went before the real boom, before the real parabolic run, right? And so that is the effect of the ETF skewing this market positively. And so now we've got to come back to some kind of equilibrium. Dave? Yeah, I want to point out that it's something that Rand said, and just to amplify it. I mean, I was on this show criticizing Jim Bianco from Bianco Research and a bunch of others who all claimed exactly what Rand said, that the people who bought the ETF

will be paper handed as soon as things get bad and it will exacerbate volatility. And I rarely get, well, I shouldn't say that, but in this particular case, I was extremely confident and said it's going to be exactly the opposite and effectively almost engaged in name calling because it was so obviously wrong. But I think we can now say conclusively with in the immediate aftermath of the fall that we had to have the net inflows that we've seen, it's extremely clear that there's more long term holders being in the Bitcoin ETF than there are in the market writ large. So that's thing number one. Thing number two, people always have to remember that markets on the margin are priced by more aggressive traders. And in the case of Bitcoin, it's still

the leverage traders. And what we haven't seen is a whole lot of long leverage. I mean, even when things have fallen during these moves, the liquidations on the downside were actually well below, quote, normal or average, at least. And so there is a lot less leverage in the system. The buying has been more fundamental long-term buyers. And long-term buyers are more patient. They don't V-bottom it right now. So looking at all of that together, what you're really saying is at some point, the sellers get exhausted,

the buyers buy off the supply, and then it turns. And, you know, we all kind of thought that that would take months for that to occur. I still do. Although who the hell knows, is this RSI positive divergence? Is this enough to say this is the bottom? Maybe, but I'm still, nothing has dissuaded me from being incredibly confident that we are nowhere close to the top for this cycle. Yeah, I was looking at some of the on-chain analytics from Into the Block and Insantimate.

Into the Block shows 83% of bitcoin holders are in the money and then what's really crazy is if you look at that mvrv ratio on sentiment now that in a nutshell that is a ratio measuring positive and negative so below zero essentially means that adding two positions or creating new positions is less risky. And if you go on a 30-day period, 60-day, 90-day period, historically, right now, it is at negative 10%. This is the lowest it's been since middle of November 2022. And if you look at that MVRV ratio, anytime there's these big dips in the close to 8% or lower, it's not long after there are some significant, significant recoveries in Bitcoin. So this is in it.

So it's sitting right in that spot right now. Interesting. Tom. Hey, good morning, everybody. Yeah, I've been thinking a lot about this and kind of where we are in the cycle. So if you look at previous cycles, prices have topped 500 days post-having, so that would put us at October 2025 or so. Looking at election cycles, as I've talked about in this show a few times, you see the back half of the year rise pretty precipitously as government spending increases, I think, 10% versus non-election years.

We have positive liquidity coming in the back half of the year, most likely, with a number of rate cuts. I think Citi just called for 8 the other day in the next 12 months, which is crazy. We'll see if that actually pans out. And then we have the FTX. I think the final estate is going to be, the estate is going to be finalized in October and then money has to be returned within 60 days after that. So you're going to see an influx of capital. I think it's 12 to 14 billion there. Sorry to interrupt. For the XTX, it's not going to be like coins. So that's likely buying pressure more than selling. Yeah, exactly. So it's going to be in cash.

And you would say, okay, a lot of these people probably sold their claims beforehand to maybe non-crypto native buyers. But I was looking at the claims numbers. How can you find that? I tweeted something about something about earlier how can we gauge the number of the number of claims that have been sold to claims agents has anybody got like a a measure like i just i'm trying to understand how much of it is good already in the market your average your average creditor of ftx had no idea they could sell their claim just being clear as someone who went through like the Voyager process and knowing everyone. So I'm not sure you're right there because I think the majority of the FTA creditors, the big creditors were actually big fans and stuff like that. I think, you know,

If we're talking about how much money versus how percentage of people then yes, I got you. Yes. How much money? If you look at Xclaim, which is a service to sell claims, and I looked at a few of people, then yes, I got you. How much money? If you look at Xclaim, which is a service to sell claims, and I looked at a few of these, they had $225 million in aggregate FTX claims. And just talking with other funds, there are a number who have sold their claims.

I think Travis sold his, who's been on the show a number of times. But even if you write up to $1 billion out of that $12 to $14 billion, you're still less than 10%. So I would say it's not. But what if it's not? What if it's like $8 billion? I don't know. I'm just giving you numbers. I just don't know how to start gauging this. Yeah. I mean, the best thing for me was just to look at the claims sites that actually are

selling these things. And that's the numbers that came out. So I don't know. I think it's net buying pressure. And as Scott mentioned, it's all in cash. So they're going to have to be purchasing that new tokens if they're bullish. But, you know, what does that come through the ETFs? Does that come through

individual tokens? I don't know, but I think it's at large better for crypto. Just a quick one. Are we sure that FTX have sold all of their tokens for cash already?

Or could there be potentially some selling there to fulfill the cash obligations? Are we sure they've sold everything they have? I won't say we're sure, but if they're talking about distributions towards

the end of this year, then I would imagine that they're pretty far down the line. I don't think that they're going to be doing distributions in kind. No, they're not going to do in kind. It will be in cash, but I'm just wondering

if they definitely have liquidated all of their assets. Right, if they're holding billions of dollars. Yeah, because otherwise that could be a sell event rather than a buy event. They could have to liquidate all the animals. I think they have liquidated most. I mean, Galaxy would probably be, Mike Novigrad and his team might be in a better place to

tell us, but it seems to me like they have. So the guy who's in charge of it on Galaxy was on a podcast the other day with Alex Thorne, and he was kind of he couldn't talk about the specifics, but the he insinuated that most of the selling has been done. And it's really just like the long tail of assets, they're trying to figure out actually how to liquidate because most of the stuff is, you know, dog shit. Yeah, that makes sense. Some of that just can't even be sold, basically. But I think we know that the largest tranches were sold at least, and that a lot of it was sold, you know, OTC at a discount, like the Solana, obviously, which was a huge portion of what they have. I mean, we have the title here, Bitcoin awaits CPI. Does this matter? Does CPI matter at all at this point? Does Bitcoin care?

I think Bitcoin's completely disconnected from macro. I mean, if you look at the correlation between Bitcoin and the NASDAQ, it's the worst, it's the lowest that it's been in like three years or something. I would say it's the best. The best. Yeah, I don't know. I think we've disconnected from macro. Forget about macro. That's not that's not our trade. What do you guys think about the global liquidity cycle and its effect on Bitcoin?

I've heard Rahul speak about it relatively eloquently. It's not something I've dug into too deeply, Brad. What's that? Sorry, Rahul's liquidity cycle. Sorry, you had your mic upside down. He asked what we think of the global liquidity cycle. Obviously, it's something that Rahul Paul talks about quite a bit. You know, the idea that Bitcoin halving is a four-year cycle, but it aligns with the global liquidity cycle,

that aligns with the election cycle, that aligns with another fundamental number of fundamental things, meaning it's not really the crypto or Bitcoin four-year cycle, but kind of the everything liquidity four-year cycle. I mean, Matt, I don't really have a strong opinion on it. I think the data shows there is increasing global liquidity and that there is increasing money supply. Yeah, and it kind of lines up interestingly enough with the election

cycle and the and the having and i just i it's something that recently you know came across onto my radar and yeah raoul paul was one of the people that first introduced it i saw a tweet about it somewhere else a few months ago and and it's just i think it's maybe it's another narrative play um to kind of just give hopium but it also does kind of make sense so yeah i'm still learning about it i was curious if you guys have any thoughts and quote see hands so that's what's up yeah dan and tom yes i want to bring back the to CPI. One of my favorite projects I invested in these guys, Truflation. They're putting the inflation rate about 1.86. But interestingly, over the last month, it's down significantly from 2.17 to 1.86.

So if Truflation is to be correct, I would expect the CPI print to come in low this week, which should be a good event for Bitcoin. Let's say this. The last readings were 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, and the forecast is now 3.1. If we get one, two, three declining reads. And we get the 3.1, which is an acceleration and a decline. So the previous declines being 0.1s and the next one is 0.2s. It would be very hard for Powell to just like, you know, he didn't say that inflation must reach 2%. He said inflation should be heading in a direction of 2%. And it's very hard to argue that it's not even heading in the direction of 2%.

Yeah, so I would generally agree. Inflation is rapidly decreasing. And that's why you have these banks like Citi, I mentioned earlier, calling for these massive rate cuts, a rate cutting cycle. Just to touch on liquidity though, so Cross-Border Capital who specializes in looking at these liquidity cycles, he was on Raoul Pal's show the other day, was talking about a 20% annualized rate of growth of liquidity going into the back half of the year across the board. So you're not only going to have the US easing and also running down the Treasury General Account, which is the Treasury's bank account at the Fed from all the tax payments they just collected.

But you also have easing from the PBOC, which is China. You have easing from the ECB, who indicated they're going to follow the US, and then Sweden and a number of other countries. So if you do believe that liquidity correlates well with Bitcoin, which historically has proven true, then the backup this year is going to be massively bullish for liquidity. Yeah. I think a lot of people... It's interesting, though. I was talking about this on Macro Monday this morning with Dave, Mike, and we had Noel Atchison. And obviously, we all know, I think everybody knows at this point that when you have a yield curve inversion, like we do now, and then a Fed pause, traditionally,

yield curve normalizes or un-inverts, which has not happened yet. Then you get a Fed pivot, right? The Fed starts to cut, usually maybe because something is breaking, and then the stock market corrects every time. And this time, everybody seems maybe it's a recency bias to be really excited for the Fed to start cutting, although every time in history, the Fed start cutting has been when the stock market corrects. And my question to them, and I don't know if anyone here has any insight, but is this time different in the fact that everybody's historically watching monetary policy to see what the Fed does, but we all anyone with a brain already knows that on the fiscal side, the Treasury, as you guys have pointed out, we're already adding a ton of liquidity. So I think in the past, people were

looking to the Fed to finally add that liquidity and it wasn't there. And like you guys have said, I mean, money supply is rising, we're getting more liquidity and they haven't even cut yet. I don't know if anyone has a theory on that, but I still don't understand generally why everybody's excited for a cut, which usually precedes a market crash. I don't know if it precedes a market crash or it... I have the chart that does. It's no question. So I think that if you look at the chart,

I think the last one, the last massive rate cut was 2008. And then they had to cut rates to save the housing market and they had to do stimulus. And then I think if you look at the time, I think in, I don't know the chart in front of you, but if I remember correctly, both last times that there were fast rate cuts was because something in the economy collapsed and broke one was the house yeah yeah and so maybe tips before i mean it may craft stock market but we've seen the stock market disconnect from bitcoin already so um yeah but they tend to reconnect when all things go down. If you zoom out, if you zoom out.

All relations go to one in a risk off event. If you zoom out, rate cuts have been incredibly, incredibly, incredibly bullish. If you zoom into the short time frame, it's not. But if you zoom out to the long time frame, they are incredibly, incredibly, incredibly bullish. And proof is, just look at what happened to the stock market at the end from the end of rate cuts we went on the biggest bull market ever until we got to covert yeah i mean i'm looking at the last three so we've got uh obviously november 2000 basically hold on hold on let me think they cut yeah i've got it they cut rates and the stock market bottom so that was november 2009 the stock market bottom two years later uh the great recession

hold on wait 2000 2000 2000 november okay they cut rates do you remember why they cut rates yeah i mean it was the dot-com boom and bust of course i'm not saying i'm just going with just the data we can determine what the reason is obviously they cut rates? Yeah, I mean, it was the dot-com boom and bust, of course. I'm not saying, I'm just going with just the data. We can determine what the reason is. Obviously, they cut before the Great Recession. They cut in July 2007. The market then topped in October 2007 and obviously didn't bottom for another two years before slowly gliding back up. And then we had sort of a very brief yield curve inversion. And people remember in August of 19, the Fed pivoted in August of 19 and the stock market crashed December 19 to, we'll call it crash to June 20th.

So that was a six month. And then, of course, continued to climb. And that was a very short sort of, I mean, that was a very, very brief yield curve inversion. But those last three and now we obviously the yield curve has been historically inverted. We've been inverted since basically June of 22. It's crazy that it's now over two years and Fed obviously still hasn't pivoted. But that's the last three times that we went. Yeah. So, I mean, if I look at the 2008, the stock market's up 20x since 2008 and the cuts in 2008.

So, again, I think you've got to look at the reason why the cuts are happening. I think unlike other rate cut scenarios, this is one of those rate cut scenarios where, I mean, I hate being the one to say this, but Powell has actually engineered a soft landing. It might not be the perfect landing, but it's certainly not a hard landing so far. It's a soft landing. You've got to look at

each one. That was my question. Is it different? Obviously, the scenario could be different yeah i think i think that in both the previous cases you discussed i don't think that they were engineering a soft landing and they weren't this far into the soft landing yeah red so dennis porter just uh showed up hi dennis sorry man um and i know we were dming and i didn't see if you responded, but I definitely want to get you on here today because we have some huge news and you've arguably been a driving factor behind it.

What I'm talking about is that the Republican Party platform came out, obviously mentioned crypto, but a lot of the language and the specific parts that were mentioned are clearly from the efforts you've been making on the state level with the satoshi act fund uh and the legislation that you've had passed in a number of states so i mean very interesting to see it sort of echoed very clearly in the national platform here and now i'm not sure i i i tossed the ball up i'm not sure if I, I, I, I tossed the ball up. I'm not sure we're going to get the alley-oop now. I'm just trying to plug my Bluetooth in, but it's refusing to, to, to function. So you're going to get it.

You're going to get it no Bluetooth today. So hopefully my voice comes through. Okay. Sound great. Yeah. So very interesting news coming out of. Here we go. Not so great. It's my bluetooth is trying to do it now it's trying to connect after i uh disconnected it uh the the very interesting news coming out of the gop um you know they have decided to add crypto to their to their party platform and this is um you know a huge huge shift honestly, because it's one thing to, you know, have Donald Trump or various people in the party, tweeting about it, writing about it,

even passing bills about it. But to have the entire party, get behind it this way is really interesting. So what happened, what seemingly happened was you have, you know, party platform committee, which meets and it's made up of what's important here. It's made up of delegates from each state and they all come and meet and start to try to like debate what is going to be a part of the platform. You know, I've been to party conventions before, not the not the big one, but like the state ones. And it's typically that these state conventions are even a little bit more so like hard right, hard GOP, because it's just a collection of like the most like strongly pro-GOP, strongly pro-Republican people that get together in each of those states. And it's interesting that enough people in each of these states have shown that they are interested in cryptos. So it's not a top-down. I think a lot of people are sort of like taking this and saying,

oh, well, this is the top-down thing. This is a result of Donald Trump. Now, no credit taken away from Donald Trump from the sense that he's the first true viable candidate running for the office of the president that is very, very much so standing in support of Bitcoin and the digital asset ecosystem. But it also requires the party and people in the party to be favorable towards this. And the reason why I bring that up is super important because for now, what I would say, two and a half years or roughly just over two years, myself and my team at Satoshi Action Fund has been working diligently to educate lawmakers all across the country at the state level. We have had active legislation in over 20 states. The vast majority of those, well, I should say all of them practically, almost every single piece of

legislation we've introduced has been in a red state or Republican state to date. The latest ones are probably our most purple, which is Pennsylvania and Ohio. I think those are really important because it's key battleground states during the presidential election, but I'll leave that aside. Dennis, just before you carry on, why do you think that most of the legislation that you've passed has been in red states? And why do you think the blue states have been less supportive at a state level? You know, I have a long, sort of a long thesis on that. But just like the basics of it are that Republicans are the first movers on this issue. We don't think that

and I don't personally believe that Republicans will always be the only pro crypto party in the country. But they certainly are the first mover. My theory is that, you know, the people that first jumped into the Bitcoin ecosystem were predominantly libertarians. And in the current political dynamic, libertarians, by far and away, they speak to Republicans. The Libertarian Party doesn't have any sort of like formal or informal interaction with Democrats whatsoever, from what I can tell. Now, some Democrats do actually, you know, quietly say they have libertarian tendencies, even like some of the most powerful Democrats

in the Democrat Party will say that. But they don't tend to like hang out in the same rooms very often from a party perspective. And so a world where you have libertarians talking about it, and then you have Republicans talking about it. And so it's sort of this unfair advantage that Republicans have had. I do believe that Bitcoin and crypto is truly a nonpartisan thing and that both sides will ultimately be favorable towards it the way that we're, you know, we were favorable towards the Internet. Right. Both sides like the Internet. We just hotly debate like how we regulate the Internet. We don't we don't ever talk about not having the internet. I think the Bitcoin and the digital asset space will head there eventually. Hopefully that answered your question. But I think the great and most fascinating thing was

not only is our efforts clearly been fruitful in educating the masses. I mean, we have educated over 1000 lawmakers on Bitcoin digital assets and the benefit of it, like in person, like talk to these people. And that includes little small efforts, which was no small fee, but small efforts like handing a copy of a Bitcoin book to every single member of Congress by hand. Right. We took a Bitcoin book based on their political affiliations. So for some people, it was the Bitcoin standard. And for some people, it was a progressives case for Bitcoin. And we hand delivered those to every single congressional office in Washington, D.C. That's 535 right there. But we have been going state by state and meeting with these folks. Every time our policy gets introduced, we're talking to

them, we're meeting with them, we're engaging with them, we're educating them. And so not only are we doing it from an education perspective, but simultaneously, they actually are using our language from our bills in the party platform, specifically when they say that they defend the right to mine. That is like quintessential Satoshi action policy. We passed our right to mine law. We introduced it in seven states last year. We passed it into law in two states in Montana and Arkansas. And then we went on to expand that policy and not just include right to mine, but also the right to self-custody. And you can see right here on the party, people have been favorable towards protecting self-custody and protecting access to digital assets. But nobody has ever spoken about them as if they are rights until Satoshi Action started to do that in 2023. And then in 2024, we expanded it to Bitcoin rights, digital asset rights, right to self-custody, rights of mine. We also protect the right to run a node, as well as many other things. So it was truly amazing to see this take place. This is sort of why we've always told people why we

exist and why we believe our impact is going to be extremely valuable. And this is really sort of a manifestation of all the hard work that we've put into everything that we believe is important for this country and for this industry. Now, we can't take all the credit, of course. We weren't sitting in the platform committee room with these lawmakers when they were designing this stuff. But it's pretty clear that you can see the tie between our policies and the states that we have educated on and the language that they're using in their party platform. Yeah, it was pretty clear from a third party perspective. Yeah. And so pretty clear from a third party perspective.

Yeah. And so now what the next steps are going to be for the party platform committee is going to submit this during the convention, during the RNC convention, and they will vote on it. Now, of course, it's theoretically possible that they could make changes on the convention floor, but that's very nonstandard. I mean, the last two times it happened was 1992 and 1976. That was because there were like actual internal feuds within the Republican Party. There is no real internal feud in the Republican Party right now, at least not one that is of meaningful effort. You know, Trump has a full grasp on that party and he also is pro-crypto. So we're of the mind that this is sort of a done deal and it's going to get adopted at the convention floor and it's going to become the official RNC party platform. But yeah, I'll post a tweet up top.

I talk a little bit more about it and sort of why we believe it's such a big deal and why we believe that it was rooted at the state level. I think another thing to remember to keep in mind is just that these party delegates, the people that are voting on this, they're from the state level. These are not like people that Trump or the higher-ups put into place. It is very much a bottom-up party and a bottom-up approach. Both sides do this, but the Republican Party tends to be even more bottom-up than the rest of them. Makes sense. So then at the convention, you think that we will see crypto mentioned and discussed quite often?

It's possible. I mean, more than likely, they will just come together and they'll say, you know, they'll have probably the chair of the committee platform come up and say, you know, I'm officially introducing the party platform and there may be some pageantry about how they talk about it and how they reference it. I can't say for sure that they'll reference crypto. I think that would only happen if there was a significant concern around it being in the party platform. Other than that, generally what happens is it's just kind of like a arbitrary moment where they say, you know, here we go. Let's vote on it. And everyone says, yay. So I think that that that's really interesting. Does this affect the strategy of going forward at the state level for you?

I mean, you still need the laws at the state level, regardless of what the federal government does. Right. So it doesn't I'm assuming doesn't change much. I think what it does is it actually emboldens us to reach further. So when we passed our first two bills into law in Montana and Arkansas, we, you know, we was in the middle of the bear market, it was FTX was collapsing. And everybody was highly concerned about, especially in the political world, whether or not they should even come anywhere near this stuff. And so as we moved into 2024, we thought, okay, maybe it makes sense to expand our policy because we're headed towards a bear market or we're headed towards a bull market. We are, you know, people are feeling a little

bit better about this technology. They've received more education. And so maybe we should include things like the right to self-custody and the right to run a node, the right to transact in digital assets. That was clearly a smart move on our part, it ended up panning out well, lawmakers were even more receptive to the policy, we went from introducing our policy in seven states to having it in over 20 states. And so we think that, you know, it's my view that if the whole republican party is baseline wanting to you know pass our policy which is the right to mind the right to self-custody uh then what what can we do that maybe makes them feel a little more uncomfortable than again about where we are with the policy and i mean that in a positive way but like maybe we need to be shooting

further for uh some sort of capital gains exemption. You know, I'm a belief I'm a believer that Bitcoin needs to have no capital gains over the long term. I don't think that's going to happen overnight. It's a long time time horizon that we're going to be on. But even Senator Lummis agrees with putting a de minimis exemption. She includes it in her bill and we include it in our model policy. And we'll, we'll continue to expand that because I believe, if they're going to say, well, we'll do right to mine, we'll do right to self custody. That's just a no brainer, like, okay, well, then what's the next big policy move that you would make that Satoshi action can support and make sure to get across the finish line and isn't necessarily in the party platform.

It makes a ton of sense. I mean, I think it's fair to say at this point that we've got nothing but tailwinds on the political side versus what we would have expected even just two or three months ago. Yeah, and I'll certainly like, I'm sort of occupying the mic quite a bit. So I would love to give other people a chance to speak here in a moment.

But yeah, this is a huge move. And we're going to continue to fight at Satoshi Action Fund to ensure that these states have the ability to be competing over Bitcoin, competing over digital assets. You know, we really truly believe in the laboratory of democracy that the states offer us, which is that they can experiment with ideas and move much faster than the federal government. And that when the states move, the feds tend to follow. This is a strategy that's been utilized. We're not the first ones to do it. The most recent one is the cannabis industry. But you can even go back as far as a woman's right to vote. And all those things came from state-level action,

state- level activity. And so we want to continue to fight for innovative policy solutions at the state level. And and we're you know, we've never been more well positioned. But to my my Democrat friends, my progressive friends, my liberal friends, do not do not worry. We are very much interested in ensuring that both parties are putting this into their platform. And so we are actively searching for Democrat ran states. very much interested in ensuring that both parties are putting this into their platform. And so we are actively searching for Democrat-ran states. I mean, I'm from Portland, Oregon, so I'm already speaking to lawmakers in my own state and then to other blue states about how we can make sure that the entire country with Bitcoin and digital assets, we head into the future.

Amazing. Yeah. I think that it should cease to be as contentious on a partisan level once this election passes, personally. Maybe that's my wishful thinking. I hope so. I think one good thing Trump did was encourage Democrats to stay down.

We can just chill for a while and they can stop screaming at us all the time. That's right. That's right. Did you listen to the space, by the way, yesterday, Scott, that we did with Senators Hagerty, McCormick and Brown? I didn't because I was traveling, but I saw it. Pretty, pretty, pretty cool. Yeah, I think it's definitely worth a listen you know i'm not i'm not in that whole regulatory world and it's not a topic that i really enjoy as much as you do

but i think it's one you'd enjoy listening to it was last night but um yeah i think anything else on the discussion or i can get it i think we covered it cool well i'm going to get into a discussion that i enjoy more than probably dan dennis tom probably tom as well and most of the speakers he don't like and scott definitely on top of that list and that's on web 3 gaming because we do have mars for today with us and it's a world that i geek out over it's a world that i like to talk about whenever scott is not here and then whenever scott is here kind of shut up and never bring it up i just don't like me when was it like no it's not a meme. What does memes have to do with Web3 gaming?

I just said you're painting me incorrectly. I love Web3 gaming, et cetera. What's the last game you invested in? Oh, Godzilla. It's going to be huge. Oh, yeah, true. We invested in that one as well. Congratulations.

Huge. It is. Nick, how are you, man? I'm doing good, thanks. And yourself? Good, man. Good, good. Congratulations. Huge. It is. Nick, how are you, man? I'm doing good, thanks. And yourself? Good, man. Good, good. Ignore Scott. Just talk to me like Scott is not here. So don't stress at all. Hey, what's up, man? Nice to see you. No, no, I like it. I like the hostility. Keep stuff in check.

Would you let Scott on your cap table if you asked? Yeah. Oh, shit. It's actually a badge. It's actually a badge of honor scott is on a web 3 game or a meme coin captain oh there's a meme coin with my name by the way yesterday scott uh popped up and there's another one i think there was another one yesterday with the round table a round table meme coin that popped up and then two or three days ago mario no for me going that popped up as well i'm not sure if there's any dance no i don't know i didn't check it someone messaged me saying mario i lost please tell me

this is your coin i put all my money into it something like it's just a heartbreaking message um unless they're lying please tell me it's your coin i put all my money into it and i want to you know i want to make some return so i can feed my family blah blah one of those messages and like shit yeah it's not my coin, bro. So hopefully you'll lose money in it. But let me get into discussion. Nick, I appreciate you partnering with us on the show. Appreciate you having us on your cap table.

We're invested heavily in Web3 games. We're still investing despite market conditions while other investors are kind of chickening out. Would love to know more what you guys are building. You've got a listed token. You've got some pretty interesting investors on your cap table but you've also um you know that the the similar to all other games you know you've been public for a long time i think it please correct me you've listed your token correct uh we actually have two tokens listed at this point oh shit okay can you tell me more about the before digging into the the what the game is

the concept behind a dual token ecosystem? Because I feel like the game mechanics are so complex just for one token, let alone two. What's the benefit of having two tokens so early on? Well, we launched with one token originally. The second token we launched quite recently, and that was when we added a new game into our ecosystem. So what the way our ecosystem works is we have what we call the Mars Control Center, which is a browser based game where you can interact with all the NF T's you own primary NFT being lands on Mars, like NASA accurate lands

on Mars, you can build on them, expand them, build a colony on Mars and profit from that. And the reason why when we decided is that when we launch and when we add a new game to this ecosystem, in this case, it was Mars Battle, which was like a high octane first person shooter, third person shooter, sorry, arena battle. When we added that in, we want to add another token, so that we could differentiate a little bit the earnings and activities between our other game, our other survival 3d game, and the shooter. But the key is that on the Mars Control Center, we use both tokens there. So on the marketplace

there, you can sell any item by any item for either one of the tokens. so that acts kind of as a bridge because market conditions change and especially like different networks change the network that we chose for uh uh the mars four token is built straight on ethereum obviously that has some downsides when dealing with uh lots small transactions, et cetera, due to gas prices. So we've built into our ecosystem that we can support more than one token, more than one chain, because the market's always changing. We have to be able to adapt with it. Yeah. Can you dig into the game a bit further? You said it's a third-person shooting game again?

So within the ecosystem, we have three games. we have a browser based strategy game where you're building and upgrading your lands, but it's a very minimalistic style. It's I consider it more of a gamified investment hub. Then we have a third person colonization and survival game on Mars, where similar like Pal worlds are survivor of all like that genre of game where you're exploring your lands on Mars, you're building bases, you're mining resources, you're crafting weapons, you're fighting with

hostiles on the land, and then you are able to sell all that work that you've done on the marketplace. Then we have a recently released shooter game, which is a, in contrast to the colonization game, is also a full 3D AAA graphics third person shooter, which is more for that like quick match, like get in, play like 15, 20 minutes, high risk, high reward kind of battles. And then we also have some other projects in the pipeline as well yeah so so for people a lot of people listening now that were listening to the discussion earlier and are people that probably wouldn't invest in a lot of these startups and they might not understand the use case behind web3 gaming is like why do you need the blockchain for gaming let's go back to basics like talking about mars for like the mechanics of your game. What can you do? And I'm guessing you come from the Web2 gaming world.

What can you do on Mars 4 that you wouldn't be able to do if you built it as a Web2 game, as a traditional game? That is a great question that not enough people ask. You are right. I come from Web2 gaming. I worked at Wargaming and I've been in such world of tanks and stuff like that. And I've been in the web two and free to play MMO game space for 17 years now. And what web three offers isn't what I think most people think, like having stuff on a blockchain is cool, but that's not the core of the value. The core of the value is really more in the business case of it that up until this point, if you want to launch a

game, you need to work through a publisher to get funding, you have to sign yourself over to multiple levels of investors and other stakeholders. With web three, it allows us to decentralize that and also optimize and streamline how profits flow and how both users and investors are able to interact with the project in just a far more streamlined and efficient manner that's more comfortable for us as developers sorry yeah no no simplify it a bit further the use case it's like for a, where is the difference when I'm playing the game? What benefits do I get playing it in a decentralized fashion? nothing. We don't force them to be involved in it. We don't need them to be involved in it.

At that case, they are purely a consumer of a product. The fact the product has Web3 is unemployment. But yeah, true. Unemployment from a kind of knowing that there's a Web3 backend to it all. But from a use case perspective, and I'm going to keep it focused, we're talking about Mars 4 here. so keep it focused on Mars 4. If I'm playing Mars 4 as a gamer, what are the benefits that I get that I don't notice is linked to Web 3, but they're benefits I wouldn't get in a Web 2 game, whether now or planned? Because a lot of them, like interoperability, et cetera, is more long term. So the biggest one is, interestingly enough, it's something that players could always do in web two games, but was way riskier and harder. Ever since the dawn of MMOs and online games, you had gold sellers, you had people who were working around the system, trading items for real money and gold for real money. But it was

all fighting against the developers to do it. Most of its were scams, you'd easily lose your money, you'd be like PayPal in some random address somewhere and then hope that someone would come into somewhere in the game world and give you what you bought. Web three gives us a way to allow those players if they want to pay to win if they want to not exclusive pay to win if they want to pay to progress, they want to buy anything in the game, or they want to trade real world money for any form of progression in the game there is a clear structured uh decentralized way to do that and that is the greatest value and

you have some people who have tried this like valve has some elements of a marketplace to be able to do some similar things but web3 just allows you to go so much further in the sense that the coin you're using in the game, the tokens you're using in the game, you can also off-ramp at will and you don't have to do some crazy back deal. Let's dig into it a bit further. So essentially you've got your land within your game is represented through NFTs, correct? Yes. Okay. Now that land is finite, correct? Yes. Okay. Now that land is finite. Yes. Okay. So that means that gives the value to the NFT. Now, if someone comes to you and says, all right, if I want to buy land in Mars for one,

it's fine. It's represented by an NFT. By the way, I'm a big fan of the concept of metaverse. And I still say, I don't give a fuck if the price is down 99%. I love the technology. And I love, I think NFT, in-game NFTs is one of the most undervalued assets at the technology. And I love, I think NFT, in-game NFT is one of the most undervalued assets at the moment. And I've been saying this for a while with egg on my face, and I'll continue saying it. But let me go back to the example here. If someone comes and says to you, Nick, cool, but how do I know you're not going to create new land within that game? And then my NFT is worth half as much because you've doubled the amount of land. Because the core unique element to our land is that they're physical plots on Mars. So like we took the NASA data, like the scanned all the data from of Mars, generated it in full 3D, like realistic graphics and cut it up and gave each person one of those lands.

There's literally no way we can add one. Okay, that's pretty cool. We could technically fraction something. Like technically, I guess we could take some NFTs that exist that aren't owned by a person and cut them up. Yeah, but that's only NFTs that are unsold. You can't do that for NFTs that are already owned by someone. And fractioning, it doesn't reduce the value

because you're not increasing the supply. You're fractionizing. Okay, fair enough. But that's pretty cool. So essentially what you've done is by replicating Mars and i i almost worked with a project that was doing the same thing for the planet earth i ended up not working with them because the founder wasn't you know didn't meet my expectations but they got the they they kind of they leveraged some technology created by google maps and they created a replica of earth and then you could buy land in their game that's linked to Earth.

And then as the value on Earth, if there's a plot of land, let's say some event happened on that land or some historic event or some new building came up, the land within the metaverse they have increases in value as well. But I like the concept. So that project I think is flopped from last cycle. like the concept so that that project i think is flopped so this is from last cycle but the concept is really interesting because essentially what you're doing is you're kind of creating a link a bridge between the physical world and the gaming the virtual world and you've done that in to a lesser extent unless i'm there's something i'm missing but you've replicated mars and then when you buy an nft of mars you're actually buying a representation of a piece of land on mars but that piece of land is within a whole virtual ecosystem with a lot more utility and there's a lot more mars has life there has a lot of things happening on mars battles happening on mars correct

yep and there is there is actually another interesting point although we don't have that link that you were just giving the example of like, if, if some historic event, but that doesn't, but there's nothing on Mars. So we do have what we do kind of have, which is cool is that because it is all accurate to the actual NASA data, and you can walk around it in full 3d AAA quality, and explore the lands at one to one scale, the entire planet of Mars means that

people are finding really cool stuff, like stuff we didn't know were there. It's scanned in the data, but like fucking gorgeous valleys and kick-ass environments and stuff like that. And that does affect the value. And that we do see people showing off cool environments. Okay, so is it updated as well as they scan other...

There's more scans, et cetera, as they discover Mars further? And there's updates to the map of Mars. Does that get represented in your game as well or not? When we do have any new data from Mars, like then we'll see how we'd integrate it. We'd obviously like to. But what I'm referring more to is that we have like a one-to-one representation of mars there's lots of bits of that that like people just haven't looked at yet yeah like the data is there but just someone hasn't combed through it and they didn't see it there's actually like this really kick-ass looking cliff that overlooks like

four craters that has just a mind bottle in view no one ever thought i want to i want to ask you i want to ask a question that's a lot more direct so there's a lot of games like you guys um and if you look at mars 4 right now you're sitting at um a market cap of 1.8 million um and you i don't know what your fdv fully diluted is 2.8 million so you've got a lot of your so is there any unlocks left for your token that is a question i don't know the answer sorry i'm a development guy i'll pin someone i'll see if we can get an answer to that yeah it's interesting the reason i ask is i feel like i want you to help me make the argument i'll let you write the message to your team but then i want you to help me make the argument and obviously not financial advice blah blah blah but the i've been saying to a lot of people, especially internally

within my team, there's just a lot of these incredible games, a lot of these incredible projects that have been building, they've been creating, they don't give a fuck about their token price, even though it does impact the business. And they're just being neglected because there's so many more projects launching on a daily basis and saturating the market. And there's just the market is just too fearful. They're just waiting for things to pick up. And there's a lot of these gems. Now, I've got a two-part question to you. Give us some metrics, like what makes Mars for one of those gems? Because it seems you're building, the concept makes a lot of sense. And obviously, we've partnered with you. So we believe that you could, you have a chance to pull it off. Give us some other metrics, whether it's daily active

users or certain partnerships that you have, certain awards you've won. And to say like, hey, this is why we're far ahead of where our price is. I think, yeah, there's not two questions. We'll just keep it at that one. So from my perspective, the thing that I'm most proud of, as I said, like there, we are still building, but the the metrics of how long an average play session lasts of a user are insanely high, like right now, like total user count and stuff. It's decent for web three, but web three doesn't have amazing total user counts in general, of like active people genuinely playing games. But the average time like when someone sits down to play on Mars, the sessions easily

last like six to seven hours. And that's like I think the average I believe is last time I looked at the data, which was a couple months ago was like four hours. And that's pulled down by people who like launch the game and then walk away after 15 minutes just had something else come up. So like there's a lot of people in like the eight hours of play retention retention is really impressive correct yeah and that like coming from web 2 that is crazy high numbers like we lost our shit at wargaming when we got the averages up to like an hour and a half per play session two hours per

play session was a massive fucking win and here when we're still missing a lot of quality of life stuff, like we don't we don't have a tutorial in right now, like there's very complicated mechanics that like aren't streamlined yet for average users as it's still actively being developed, even in all that situations, the like the retention like that average playtime of a session is crazy high, which means that people get in and start playing and they start, like they don't

want to stop, they keep getting engaged by what's happening next. And that's purely emergent gameplay. They're not following a storyline. They they're on their land, they are exploring their land, they find something fucking awesome. And then they start building a house and then they start getting into that and then they like get attacked by something they the emergent gameplay, like that cycle is just working at even at this like state which in my opinion is still quite rough like by web 2 standards by web 3 standards it's crazy polished but by like web 2 standards it's still

very rough in my opinion and we're still seeing those numbers is there so respect for that so what's what's what's what's limiting people from what's that what's limiting from organic buying pressure for your token is it just not enough people are playing the game at least not yet my personal opinion uh which is like i as i come from web2 space like them i am a game designer and developer i'm not a experienced trader or anything like that. But my guess is just discoverability. Discoverability is really hard right now. And specifically in Web3, as you said, there's a new game launching every 15 minutes. And every one of them has a really cool cinematic trailer or something like that.

And then you try and actually find the build and like get to play something. And best case scenario, you find something to play and it's nothing like the trailer. And much more common, there isn't actually anything to play. And I think due to like the really fast speed and short due diligence cycles in the current market, like what we've seen before as well, people don't aren't getting to the point in due diligence where they see that oh these guys like product is genuinely even better than their marketing you know because like we're putting our effort into making the product and the marketing materials like we have great marketing materials but it's you know what we

should do so discoverability yeah discoverability is an issue so one thing we've done on our end to kind of capitalize and support projects with is capitalize on the demand for it and also support our projects with it is we started like a gaming stream um like a weekly or bi-week i don't know how many times a week we do it on my channel all the round table one of the two but we just do live gaming streams of different games um we started doing that last week and i think this is you're right like i think a lot of these games are sitting there. Created great game mechanics, great tokenomics. Your retention on the game is high, so the fundamentals are there. Obviously, I'm biased as an investor, but I'm kind of basing it on what you're telling me here. The fundamentals are there, and then what you're missing is discoverability. So my next question is,

when you look at some of those other games, like Hamster Combat being one of them, and Pixels, and we're invested in Pixels as well, being another, and there's another one now called, we've invested in a new one, they're going on Binance Launchpad, but they've got massive numbers when it comes to daily active users.

What do you think they have that other games like you, you included, don't have that gets those massive amount of users? Did they just happen to kind of get some traction and there's games like yours are just waiting for that kind of aha moment? Is it a different type of game that's a lot more user-friendly, a lot more addictive? What do you think games like yours

that are pretty good, damn good games, are missing from that virality? I think there's two elements to it. One of them is obviously a focus on marketing. The Hamster Combat one's a great example. I don't mean anything against them. I don't call that a game. I don't call that a fucking game. I don't know how they did it. I didn't know about what Hamster Combat is. I keep hearing about it, and congratulations to them. I'd love to be involved somehow. I'm sure they're building more on it. But I'm like, everyone's talking about it.

So I go in there, and I open the app. I download the app. And I just – it was on this show, I think. I think it was on this show a few days ago. And I started downloading Hamster Combat for anyone that doesn't know. It's the third fastest-growing app ever. I don't know how many hundreds of millions of you. It's mental, mental numbers.

So the numbers speak for themselves. My opinion is pretty worthless compared to the numbers. But I go in, you press a hamster. That was it. Now, I think there's more to it. I think you can upgrade and stuff. They might expand there as well. This is a different type of game.

It's not me criticizing them. I'm saying I'm kind of making your point it's a very different game to what games like mars 4 and other uh top tier gaming projects you know we're invested in a whole bunch of them luvium big time star atlas etc these top tier a uh you know a list games are building but i'll let you say i've kind of spoken on your behalf instead. I think I'm right there with you. I think the big difference is, obviously, take my comments as well with a massive grain of salt. Their tokens, they're growing crazy fast. But it seems to me that almost all investment is focused on marketing, gaining users, and the retention of users and entertainment of users.

Like the product they're selling, like we distill it down to like the product, the product they're selling is profit to users, but not everyone can be profiting. Like it feels very unsustainable in that sense. Whereas I think a more like a more sustainable game looks at in a traditional like like web to perspective, what's the product, the product we're selling is entertainment. So

someone has to be willing to pay to be entertained. And I think that the hype for like some of these things like the hamster combat or like not coin as well, like those kinds of things, I wouldn't consider them by they don't kind of fit that mold. They don't have a product that there's that people are willing to pay for as much as everyone is following the hype, thinking that the product is them making money, but at a moment that that stops working.

Sorry, I forgot to unmute. Yeah, and so we're done with the AMA time. So I'm kind of geeking out a bit further here. It's a fascinating discussion. And I think it's since Scott left the mic, so I'm kind of taking advantage of it. But I think the point you've made is really interesting. It's like, I'd add to it one more thing.

I think a lot of money is going to marketing. Retention is kind of the holy grail because once you crack retention, I think onboarding new users is very difficult. Don't get me wrong. But once you crack retention, the onboarding is an easier path to success. But if you get onboarding right and you don't crack retention, it's much more dangerous. That's like my two cents on it um you're absolutely right and this isn't a new thing like this is from the beginning of the game i i remember like at ward i mean an example that uh one of my first bosses there and and mentors in

the industry gave me is that retention is your bowl and then like onboarding is your cup of water if your bowl is a fucking sieve it doesn't matter. You're just wasting money because you buy the water. You buy users. It's a very clear cost. In Web 2, at the moment, a user costs about $1.50. So you need to have good enough retention and monetization that you earn that back. And that's it. It's a very simple formula, but the retention is the key to it.

The holy grail. Yeah, I agree. I agree. Look, man, I've got a flight, and I'm already late for that that flight but it was a great discussion and i really appreciate and i enjoyed like the organic discussion i think it brings awareness not only to mars ford what you guys are building which again much respect happy to be part of that journey with yours um and deadline but i think the discussion was also interesting more on web3 gaming in general because there's just a lot of these games that i just think are underappreciated and then when they blow up when they become the next axis whether it's yours or

others that are building like you guys kind of focusing on building something incredible once they blow up everyone's like holy shit where'd this come from but they were just sitting there building building building building focusing on the right metrics and then when they start putting money whether you're raising doing you around etc launching you talk whatever it is or just people start paying attention to you more, or just do it organically. When the users start to flock and you retain those users, and then the numbers are like,

holy shit, where'd Mars 4 or whoever come from? You know, this is, hopefully, this space is kind of an explanation for that. So, no, I appreciate that discussion. It's really cool. And, you know, congrats on what you're building. And for any other Web3 games, we know we're investing heavily.

We're partnering with games and other projects. We're investing on a daily basis and partnering with projects on a daily basis. So we're still very active in the ecosystem, but Web3 gaming is one area I'm the most bullish on. So yeah, I think it was a great discussion, man. Really appreciate it. For everyone else, we'll see you again Tuesday.

So we'll see you again tomorrow. And yeah, have a wonderful day. Thanks a lot, everyone. Thanks, Nick. I appreciate it, bro. Thanks for having me, Mario. I appreciate it.