The Wolf Of All Streets - Tribalism In Crypto | Interview With Charles Hoskinson, Cardano

Episode Date: June 23, 2022

Crypto is a very fragmented industry and tribalism is a very big issue. If we can solve the problem of tribalism and bring people together, encourage them to build new products and support each other, crypto will thrive. I sat down with Charles Hoskinson, the founder of Cardano at Consensus in Austin, Texas, and we talked about why the bear market is a good time to unite the industry and how we can actually achieve it. THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSOR ►► Have you ever had your exchange go completely offline during days of high volatility? Of course you have. We've all been through it. Those days are no longer with Bullish. Bullish is a new breed of digital asset exchange that empowers users to trade with deep and predictable liquidity across highly variable market conditions. They also have incredible automated market-making and industry-leading security. I can't get enough of this platform and it's fully regulated. Sponsored by Bullish. Sign up here https://thewolfofallstreets.info/bullish/youtube Bullish is licensed by the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission. Virtual assets and related products are high risk. Consult your investment advisor and trade responsibly. Bullish is available in select locations only and not to U.S persons. Visit bullish.com/legal for important information and risk warnings. FOLLOW SCOTT MELKER • Twitter: https://twitter.com/scottmelker • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/wolfofallstreets • Web: https://www.thewolfofallstreets.io • Spotify: https://spoti.fi/30N5FDe • Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/3FASB2c 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.

Charles Hoskinson was one of the original creators of Ethereum and has moved on, of course, to create Cardano. Now, Cardano has been one of the most popular tokens in the crypto space. It's been, of course, surrounded by the normal tribalism and controversy that we see in this space. I addressed this directly with Charles and we talked at length about why tribalism is such a problem and why we need to all come together for a common goal to push towards mainstream adoption. This is one of my favorite conversations that I have. Charles is absolutely brilliant and truly made me believe that we can come together and get this done. So Charles, this is the first time that I've ever had to start an interview with an apology. But on my show one time, David Hoffman came on and called Cardano a scam, which I sort of shrugged off and continued on, but it obviously went viral.

And to be clear, I do not feel that way. And actually, I believe it's massively damaging in this space that people call anyone a scammer or a scammer when it's not the case. So I do apologize that that happened, and I obviously don't believe in censoring people. But I'm curious why you think in this space there is that level of

outright tribalism, competition, general hate. It's my feeling that we're small enough that everybody should be working together. Yeah. Well, it's an interesting space. It's almost like being in politics. You know, we focus so much on technology and science and we build and we've built this incredible community. There's three and a half million people in the Cardano ecosystem now and we had a community event uh the day we came here

1200 people showed up for it some people came from australia and singapore and the level of passion and enthusiasm was just overwhelming so i think it works probably on both sides that if you can't have one side without the other so if you have a lot of people that really love what you do and what you build and and the things you think So if you have a lot of people that really love what you do and what you build and the things you think about, you'll have a lot of people for some reason, they go beyond dislike and they go into active hate or name calling or accusations and it's bizarre.

And I always ask, well, what is a scam? You know, we wrote 140 papers. We've been doing this as an ecosystem for over six years. We've delivered Byron and Shelley and Alonzo. And you might disagree with what we do. You might think what we do is not commercializable or it's the wrong strategy. But where exactly is the scam? Explain that to me. They never do. They never can, at least in a reasonable way. And there's some tribalism around doctrine. There's proof of work versus proof of stake there's questions

about distribution there's questions about use and utility and there's just some people that are radically misinformed and they and they take a really harsh step forward and they use language that you'd never use at a commercial context the CEO of Microsoft doesn't say all Tim Cook is a criminal it doesn't happen this way. They of course say, oh, well, the iPhone is not very good, or this or that. And that's commercial puffery. But to go beyond that and say someone is a criminal or is dishonest, meanwhile, you have

the VC distributions. Meanwhile, you have the collapse of Terra. Meanwhile, you have all these things that happen that are very much predatory to very innocent people. This behavior is pervasive throughout the industry, but apparently that seems to be excused in many circles. But then when you go and write 140 research papers, you're the worst scammer in the entire world.

So I don't understand it. I really don't. We just live it. We deal with it. You can't let it bother you. You have to move on. It's very hard not to let it bother you because obviously negativity just is amplified, I think, in the human mind. Do you ever experience that in person or is it really just anonymous behind a screen trolling?

I mean, some of the people obviously are not anonymous. Oh, I've seen it in person. I was at conferences years ago and people would say, sit at another table, you fucking scammer. You know, things like that and i've had toilet paper thrown at me when i was at the bitcoin conference uh last year in 2021. um you know you see certainly see it but on the other hand you see a lot of love too you know people give me gifts from all over the world people have tattooed our logo on their body so again you get you get a mixed bag and these types of things and maybe it's because the stakes

are so high because the reality is if crypto works you're a mixed bag in these types of things. And maybe it's because the stakes are so high. Because the reality is, if crypto works, you're literally changing everything in the world. It's a deeply political system. You're changing voting and supply chains and how money works and ultimately fundamental concepts like your rights and your identity, these types of things. So I think that's worth getting passionate about. It's not just an investment. It's not just a token and, you know, when moon. Literally, this is what you get to do as a human being

as you move through the 21st century and what fundamental protections you have and where you don't have those things. So winners or losers matter a lot more than whether the iPhone wins or the Samsung Galaxy wins or these types of things. I mean, it's always been my take that we're going to live in a multi-chain world. There probably won't be one singular winner that does everything, especially if we're trying to scale to billions of people. So again, to me, it just may be all of these chains succeeding

and really solving interoperability would be a move forward that would be huge for everybody. I mean, it's like, when do we ever have one of anything? One religion, one language, one culture, one country. It's like it's never happened. You don't have one of anything. It's this concept of one chain to rule them all. You can't because there are design tradeoffs. There's different people in control.

There's different philosophies about control. There's different scale. And some things are very well suited. You have different philosophies about control. There's different scale. And some things are very well suited. They have different monetary policies. So some, for example, like Bitcoin and Cardano, they have deflationary monetary policies, fixed price, well, fixed supply, excuse me. Others, they have inflationary monetary policies, persistent linear inflation, demurrage in some cases. And so if you have different monetary policies, different designers, different design purposes,

and they cover different demands, it's absurd to say that somehow despite all of that, it's all going to just collapse down into one chain. Usually they say it's Bitcoin. That's the team orange and everything else is a shit coin. So no, it's got to be multi-chain. So what matters more is the connecting tissue, the standards for interoperability.

So how do you move users and value and state and information between the chains? Because that is what's going to allow us to consumerize and get billions of users into the system. And it's also what's going to allow us to eventually merge with, connect to the legacy banking system. They're upgrading everything. It's called open banking. You'll see standards like ISO 222 and so forth. So they're trying very hard to create a better communication infrastructure

for the world banking system. Where's our ISO 222 for our industry? And it's, no, I'm sorry, the solution isn't go, you know, buy Chainlink. I mean, it's a token. You can't have that. You can't have one team financially win if a standard is adopted. That's not how standards work.

You need different technology. So I think that's where the industry needs to go. And unfortunately, the tribalism does tend to hurt that. It prevents people from talking to each other or creates unnecessarily latency. For some reason, I don't understand why Gemini hasn't listed ADA. I don't know. Everybody else has. I think there's more than 200 exchanges.

They listed, I think, Terra before. They listed ADA. They've been always friendly to me. I talk to them. They list dog coins. I know. And so maybe that's tribalism. There's somebody who's a Bitcoin maximalist or an F maximalist.

Who knows? But just little stuff like that. It's like there's a Bitcoin maximalist or an F maximalist, who knows? But just little stuff like that. It's like there's an open standard. It's obviously a decision as a business. But Cardano has a GraphQL API, REST API. We integrated Cardano Rosetta, which is Coinbase listing API. So very easy to deal with it, very easy to work with it. It just doesn't happen.

In other cases, companies are embracing us very strongly. For example, Ledger just announced Ada on Ledger Live, you know, and they actually did that completely with the Cardano community. They never talked to me. They went to Catalyst and they dealt with everyday people and Cardano in a very decentralized way. So it's also a mixed bag, you know,

some people are very collaborative and they work well and others, it's also a mixed bag. You know, some people are very collaborative and they work well, and others, it's just bizarre what decisions they make, who to embrace, who not to embrace, or what to do. And they really love spiking the football. Anytime someone has any misery, they just get so happy about it and say, oh yeah, that's it, we told you so, and so forth. It's bizarre. I'm a huge football fan, and I always liken that to Leon Lett celebrating before he went into the end zone and the guy knocking the ball out of his hand and spiking the ball too early. Because inevitably, when you do that touchdown dance, as you sort of just mentioned, it comes back around, and eventually it's going to be your project or your community that has some sort of incident or failure.

Yeah, you know, if you have an update, there will be a down day. You will get hacked at some point in some capacity. There's going to be a screwed up upgrade. Something will happen. It's software, and they're humans, and humans are fallible. Software can be broken. Now, there are things you can do to mitigate and manage risk and prevent them from becoming cascading, and there are things you can do to try to prevent risk. But at the end of the day, there's always going to be some risk, regardless of how much preparation that you do. So there's good fun.

You know, every now and then you kind of rib people a bit. And, you know, spiking the ball usually is in that mindset. But then there's just downright malicious and mean things. For example, with the Lummis bill, there were a lot of Bitcoin maximalists who reached out, like I think Jimmy Sung was one, but there were others to that office and said, oh, you need to make everything that's proof of stake a security and ban it. Why? Why would you devastate the industry like this?

First off, half of all crypto value is in proof of stake systems now. Less than half is in proof of work systems. So you're just going to cleave off half the space and put it into a really weird regulatory space that no one knows how to comply with just because team orange can't compete fairly. This is bizarre when you see this type of behavior, but they're actively doing this.

They're actually saying this and advocating this. And that's harmful for the industry as a whole. And it has to stop. Just because you can't win fair doesn't mean you get to go to the government and try to get them to win for you. That's the whole reason we created cryptocurrencies as an industry, because we were pretty tired of the banking industry doing that to us. We were pretty tired of too big to fail. We were pretty tired of regulatory arbitrage, of corruption and nepotism. And the fact that these same patterns are now being amplified and repeated in our own industry

is pretty sad. Yeah. The underlying consensus mechanism has nothing to do with what's being built on top of it. Saying the framework makes something a security is absurd. It's agnostic technology. Maybe some people are creating securities on top of it. Exactly. And they change too, like Ethereum's securities on top of it. Exactly. But. Yeah, and they change too. Like Ethereum's going from proof of work to proof of stake. So you carve out a legislative exemption for Ethereum.

So does that mean regardless of what Ethereum does and what they change to, they're always a commodity? Does that make any sense? It's like, what if they decide that Vitalik is just going to control the entire ledger tomorrow? And they fork to that. Obviously, it's not going to happen, but it just gives you a thought experiment of why would you give a legislative pass regardless of a property or a test? I've been a big advocate for things like a decentralization index. I've been a big advocate

for things like a consumer bill of rights or these types of things, because those are philosophical and foundational. And in many cases, you can use them as the basis for enforcement and measurement so the case of like sufficiently decentralized well what does that mean we have this notion but it's like the definition of obscenity so the the Amish in Pennsylvania are gonna have a very different definition than pride in San Francisco I mean these are this is where we're at And yet it's the same notion, obscenity. So analogously, when you look at decentralization, there's over 10,000 crypto projects.

So, you know, what's your definition of decentralization? What's mine? What's Vitalik's? We're all gonna have different notions. But in the absence of that, you can't make policy. You can't say, well, that's the litmus test for moving from a security to a commodity. You have to provide some more clarity above and beyond that.

So I'm hopeful that through the process we can get there. On our part, we're setting up a lab at University of Edinburgh and writing some papers. And we'll create an index. And we'll be able to actually measure, for the first time ever, a cryptocurrency and create a number. And more is better. The higher the number the you know the Better the more decentralized it is but then you also have to have policy discussions of what are the consequences of decentralization?

What does it mean? You're not saying it gives you magical properties What you're saying is that you tend to have less information in cemeteries. You tend to have less systemic risk you tend to have more resilience inside the system, these types of things. And that is probably pretty good from a regulatory viewpoint, from an individual viewpoint, meaning you don't go and point to a particular actor and say, you have a lot of responsibilities. On the other hand, commodities still have regulation. You know, there's the CFTC. Why? Because market manipulation still happens. Exchange manipulation still happens. Cartels still form and so forth. So it doesn't mean you go from some or a lot of regulation to no. It just means you go from one type of regulation to another type of regulation because

you're looking at different structures. So this is kind of where we're at. And hopefully the industry can get his head out of its own ass and kind of move to a different higher water and have a more philosophical conversation. What rights do people have? What is the definition of decentralization? How do we do algorithmic regulation? What is the merger of value and identity going to look like? And where do we need to do that in the industry?

And then once we accomplish these things, then you can write great regulation and move forward. Or the industry can be great regulation and move forward. Or the industry can be very tribal and fractional and throw hand grenades at each other. And everybody's a scammer. And everybody I disagree with is wrong and evil. And in which case, what's going to happen is adults are going to show up. And they're just basically going to hobble the industry permanently and hand it to a

different collection of custodians. And they'll look a lot like the tech companies, the Google, the Facebook, the Microsoft, and they'll look a lot like the big banks, the Morgan Stanley's, the Golden Sacks, the JP Morgan Chase's, and so forth. And what have we then achieved with these 13 years? Everybody knows that there are advantages to trading on both centralized and decentralized exchanges. But why not choose an exchange like Bullish that offers the best of both worlds? Bullish's total trading volume recently exceeded $25 billion in just seven months since they launched, and they have the best liquidity in the game when it comes to Bitcoin USD.

Now, Bullish has released the first major upgrade to its liquidity pool technology with the introduction of a concentrated range-bound liquidity pool for the Bitcoin USD trading pair. This upgrade triples the order book depth within a range of 2%, making it one of the world's deepest Bitcoin USD trading pairs. This industry-leading order depth means you can trade confidently at scale with clearly understood price impact. You should check them out immediately at bullish.com slash melker. There's this level of cognitive dissonance that you basically just described, which is originally we were shorting the bankers long Bitcoin, right? That was the ethos. We wanted nothing to do with the government. But now everybody cheers institutional adoption and government getting involved because maybe it makes the number go up when institutions buy

more of our coins. but it really is counter to the original ethos. I'm not pretending that we're going to live in a world without regulation. It's coming. But as you said, the only way for that to happen properly is for everybody to come together and craft a framework before they get the chance to do it themselves. Yeah. And we can't even do it on the policy.

You've got the Blockchain Association, the Digital Chamber of Commerce, you've got CoinCenter. There's like 26 of these guys and tons of PACs. And some PACs are connected to a particular founder's lifestyle desires and others are connected to a single issue and so forth. We went to D.C. and we were expecting, oh, OK, who are like the three guys that we need to talk to? These are the people getting it all done, or three gals. And instead, it was just very fragmented.

And everybody has an agenda. And some are very pro. Well, let's make everybody look like a bank. And other ones are very anarchistic. And there's no regulation at all. Just ignore it. Others are, well, some regulation's OK. But as long as it adheres to our particular cryptocurrency, we're fine.

And so that's just sad. But it's in the vacuum of leadership, leaders conform. And so the challenge for us in the next 12 months to 24 months is to set the differences aside and move on and get to higher water. And I think we can. I think people are very tired. Bear markets are much easier to collaborate in

than bull markets. Bull markets, everybody's on a land grab, everybody's poaching each other's people. In bear markets, you don't have to have those same optics. And you can just say, okay, let's go build. You know, let's go collaborate. Let's go talk to each other. So now that we're entering into a bear market,

it's the right time. And we can have some real conversations about systemic risk, macro and micro prudential policy, sanctions, compliance. We can have real conversations about a litany of things. And to be frank, some things need to be compromises, not just on our side, but also on the government side. The United States can't keep living as if the world ends and begins at its borders. The United States can't keep living with this perspective that it can regulate everybody, everywhere, every time and has absolute say in the movement of all value if people touch a dollar.

It's just untenable. Maybe 35 years ago, this was fine. But we've moved beyond that as a world. We're multipolar. There's regulatory arbitrage. There's Singapore and all these other jurisdictions. And if the U.S. is not wise in what it does, it won't shut crypto down.

It'll just simply offshore the entire industry. And we're talking about jobs. Solidity developers making half a million dollars a year. We're talking about trillions of dollars of economic growth and value. And the entire industry will leave the U.S. if they're too harsh about this. So certain compromises have to be made.

You can't have 26 regulatory agencies. You can't have millions of pages of things. You can't have an expectation of hire a super expensive law firm and spend a quarter million dollars and then your answer is maybe. And let's hope you don't get regulated. I mean, you can't have that. When I was in Switzerland and we did the Ethereum ICO, we went to the government of Zug, talked to them for a few weeks, and they gave us a tax ruling. And then that was absolute clarity. And it was a very fun process. There was back and forth.

Some of it was done in bars. I mean, it's just like, wow, I love working with these regulators. They're great. It wasn't like there was no regulation. I mean, FINMA is there. The tax authorities are there. But you can ask them. You can engage with them, you can talk with them, negotiate with them. And what was nice about the negotiations was that I really felt that they were fighting for Switzerland. They said, tell us what's good for Switzerland here. Who are you hiring? Where's the money coming in? What are you creating here in Switzerland? What industry are you creating? So I felt like they're fighting for their country. I met a guy coming and I had to really make the case that this was going to create an industry for them, which it did. It created Crypto Valley and now there's

more than 40, 50 foundations and ventures that are there, billions of dollars of value in Switzerland. So they took a chance on us. But I'll never forget when they signed the tax ruling, the mayor of Zug said, welcome to Switzerland. Don't make it our problem. And that just shows you their mentality. And so I said, why can't the US regulator be like that? The first person the entrepreneur talks to is some sort of financial innovation group within a regulatory agency and says, well, this is what I'm thinking about doing. And they act as kind of a back and forth sounding board. And you work work together and then eventually you come to a pretty good plan and then you bring a lawyer in at that stage. And they said, well, this is what we want.

The lawyer can write it all up and take care of these things. Instead it's go hire a lawyer, mind read the agency, try to figure all this stuff out. And then after you've mind read them and figured it out, let's just hope you got it right. Cause if you got it wrong, you have catastrophic consequences and then we won't give you any clarity. You can't ask.

You don't get it. And they might litigate without or threaten litigation without even telling you why. Like in the case of Coinbase going and saying, hey, we'd like to offer a yield product. Yeah. No explanation. Why not? Just we're going to sue you if you do that. Yeah, exactly.

And also people are afraid to talk because if you talk to them, what happens if they sue you? Yeah. You know, so it's, it's a bizarre reality. It's counter to everything that should be done for an innovative culture. So I say compromises need to be made on both sides. On our side as an industry,

you cannot have the unrestricted flow of trillions of dollars of value in a global economy when there are dangerous people and dangerous activities that go on. Yes, dictators exist. Yes, dictators exist. Yes, criminals exist. Yes, scammers exist. Scams happen.

Problems happen. Conduct happens. There are Bernie Madoffs. There are BitConnects. These things occur. To say that all regulation is completely unnecessary and wrong is just such a bizarre way of thinking. There's got to be a middle ground where we say,

okay, let's agree on principles, consumer protection, consumer bill of rights, and let's agree on definitions, like what is decentralization and these types of things. Then let's innovate. The meeting in the middle is that you can have algorithmic regulation. So for example, settlement can be compliance. What if you lived in a world where you ran an exchange where if you actually get the

money in your account, it means you're in full compliance. You can bake that into the transaction itself. That's amazing. I mean, I run a company in 60 countries. If we do crypto payroll and we do one transaction and send it to everybody at the end of the month, I've just created a transaction under the jurisdiction of more than 60 countries. Which law do I follow? Who's in charge? What if there's contradicting laws?

You have the Schrodinger's cat transaction, where it's both legal and illegal at the same time. It's a bizarre thing. So algorithmic regulation kind of gets you out there. You can bake into the transaction itself all kinds of protections and principles and disclosures. And it's maybe private globally, but confidentiality is breached with

certain escrow keys. There's all kinds of things to do. But here's the radicalization of space. You say these things, and then there's this immediate visceral reaction that certain people have. They say, oh, then what you're saying is you want the government to be completely in control. It's like, that's not what we've said at all. I said, how about we be in control? Let's f***ing lead. Let's write the code. Let's write the, how about we be in control? Let's lead. Let's write the code. Let's write the standards. Let's write the laws.

Let's lead. Oh, but we can't because we don't want to work with that guy over there because that guy is proof of stake and this guy is proof of work. And our tribe is proof of work. And we can't talk to proof of stake people. That's so absurd. And the consequences of not collaborating is somebody has

to write the laws. Somebody has to lead. And if it's not our industry, it's going to be the bureaucrats. And they've never done anything right. I mean, we have a baby food shortage, for God's sakes. You know, the one thing I've learned in life is if you want to create a shortage or screw up a market, put the government in control. Of course. You know, and that's where we're at.

And so we have an opportunity, as I said, 12 to 24 months. There's the Biden executive order. There's the Lummis-Gillibrand bill. There's a lot of transnational discussions at IMF and BIS and FAT and so forth. And if we as an industry come together and we agree on some basic principles, they can get done. And if we as an industry come together, we build some foundational technology, we can have a renaissance where you have an ability as a small business to comply. It's very easy to do that. You have consumer protections and ultimately we can get to the business of changing the world and making things better. So I guess the final question then is how do we actually do that? Right. I think we all agree that we need to come together and do that do it um we obviously have sam bankman freed clearly out there uh talking to legislators and regulators on

a very irregular basis but how do we get everyone to come together it's great to talk about it so how do we actually make that happen when we know that it's extremely tribal and divided now i think you start on some basic principles that don't economically value one person over another. So we really do need a definition of decentralization. That should be something, regardless if you're Ethereum or Bitcoin or otherwise, you have the conversation. And so from our part, we'll create objective, neutral academic labs that kind of act as an aggregation point and try to encourage as many blockchain projects as possible to collaborate with those labs.

So that's one. Standards are another component. So for example, smart contract standards for the verification of smart contracts and these things would be $10.5 billion of hacks last year. Maybe we should do a better job at securing smart contracts and protocol design and so forth. Again, that gets people talking to each other. and what's good for us is good for them, it's good for everybody inside the industry.

So that basic trust and those basic relationships I think are really going to help. Then you also need to have an agreement that there are problems in the industry and we have to be intellectually honest about those problems. Just yesterday I saw a letter that 1,500 scientists signed that they sent to the Congress saying, just because it's innovative doesn't mean you shouldn't regulate it. 1,500. That's not a small group of scientists sending an open letter to Congress. So you see these types of things and you say to yourself, OK, we have to be intellectually honest about that. And then as an industry, we have to hold to higher standards.

And hopefully here at ConsenSys, hopefully at a lot of trade events, people would be willing to come and collaborate, cooperate, talk. The other thing is we have to be better at who we consume from and who we lift up. If there are leaders in this space that all they do is they say every single person who disagrees with me is evil and a criminal and you should never talk to them. Why do we keep inviting these people to all these conferences and these things? I'm not saying you de-platform them.

Just why are we listening to them, though? Why do they have status? Why do they have influence inside the space? I think more people care about certain books that are written and documentaries that are made or other things than they actually care about certain books that are written and documentaries that are made or other things than they actually care about the technology and what it does. We should focus much more on the use and utility and much more on the people that the technology helps. Every day we wake up, we talk about concepts like RealFly in Africa. And we say,

OK, there are 3 billion people that don't have bank accounts or not reliable access to them. There are 3 billion people who pay usurious interest rates. They can't get insurance. If people send money to them, 15% disappears right off the top for the remittance. Let's talk about how do we help those people. Let's talk about the products that are helping those people. Instead of complaining about things, lift people up, build things, and so forth. And then that gets people into a solutions mindset. And then it's less of a question of how do you collaborate with people. It's who wants to help me with this solution?

Who wants to work with me on this solution? There's a lot of good people in this space that do amazing work. Bit Pesa is an example of a venture, and she's been working for almost 10 years on it. Really hard work going throughout Kenya and other jurisdictions, and had to deal with a lot. And hundreds of companies like that where there's honest, great people, and there's a lot of great technologists in this space. The Starkware people are great, and they're doing very interesting work. Zcash just did an amazing update that was years in the making.

There's standardization groups for SNARKs. There's tons of consensus research that's happening across the board. And, you know, I like what Silvio does at Algorand. We may disagree on certain things, but that's okay. And so I think that's how you get people to a more collaborative mindset is anytime you're in an interview, say, don't focus on the top three you hate. Focus on the top three things you like and the top three things you'd like to do and you'd like to accomplish. And then you're bringing people up. You're bringing people together and so forth.

Some people will never do that and subscribe to it. That's okay. Just stop listening to them. It's like the Simpsons. Just don't look. Just don't look. I love that perfect way to end. I think we all have the same end goal in mind. So it would be nice if everybody would just, even if they disagree on the path, like you said, sort of agree that we're all looking to get to the same place and come together and make that happen. But I could listen to you for hours,

but unfortunately we both have to continue. So thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.