The Wolf Of All Streets - Why Bitcoin's Biggest Threat Just Divided Wall Street

Episode Date: April 29, 2026

Wall Street just split on the biggest threat facing Bitcoin — and it's not regulation. Goldman Sachs walked away from quantum computing research while JPMorgan doubles down with a 50-person team. Coinbase is warning the industry has 5 to 10 years before quantum machines can crack blockchain encryption, and one Bitcoin developer is already proposing a hard fork to reassign Satoshi's coins before that window closes. Meanwhile, the Fed is expected to hold rates steady in what could be Powell's final meeting as chair, DeFi is scrambling through a $300 million bailout after the Kelp DAO hack, and the Treasury just froze $344 million in crypto tied to Iran. We break it all down live. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Need a vehicle that isn't afraid to make a splash? That's the Volkswagen Taos. Capable and confident, the Volkswagen Taos is fit for everyday life. Nimble in traffic, agile and tight spots, and still spacious enough for weekend getaways. While available 4-motion all-wheel drive gives confidence in rain and snow. The capable Taos, you deserve more confidence. Visit vw.ca to learn more. SuvW, German engineered for all.

Today we're going to talk about why Bitcoin's biggest threat just divided Wall Street. Of course, we're talking about quantum, which has been the major topic of conversation over the past few months. There's been many proposals from the Bitcoin community on how to handle it. But it's not just unique to Bitcoin. J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs both have very different approaches to what's coming with quantum. On a slower news day, perfect time to talk to Chris Tam, a quantum expert from BTQ. We're going to dive into that right now. Let's go. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the show. Before we get started, like and subscribe

and do all the things that you're supposed to do. That's twice this month. I've now asked you. It's supposed to do it like 30 times. Twice. I'm nailing it right now. I'm going to go ahead to just bring Chris on right now. Good morning, sir. How are you? Hey, Scott. Very good. Thanks. Thanks for having us here. So there's a lot of things we can talk about. We can, you know, blow V8 on the Fed or DeFi Hacks or all the things that have just been exhausting, but today seems like the perfect day to zoom out and talk about quantum. I dove into it pretty thoroughly on my show, The Daily Wolf on Yahoo the other day, talking about the fact that someone had somewhat entered the arena with their paper on it.

So it seems like we have a very wide spectrum of ideas as to what's coming and what to do about it, right? I mean, some people think it's decades away, some people think a decade. Google had the paper that set everyone on fire 2029. I mean, where do you stand first on the quantum threat? generally and then we can zoom in on how that, you know, affects Bitcoin and what's do about it. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's a bit of an elusive topic. I mean, it's sort of, you know, at the front of the headlines, but at the same time,

there's no real consensus or, you know, united thought and how to think about and how to think about the solutions here. Because in one respect, it's so widespread. I mean, if we think about, you know, quantum risk in general, there are so many ways. in so many really ways that quantum can permit into our cyber security. But as it relates to crypto, even, there's so many different blockchains. Bitcoin has this own model, Ethereum has its own model, Salana its own. And what we're seeing in this past week, Salon released its quantum readiness report,

sort of on the tail of Ethereum releasing it earlier this year. And the Bitcoin community has been sort of lacklaster. they've, you know, Adam back is trying to talk more and more about it, but it's, there isn't any real clear sort of, you know, clear, clear solution at, on the table yet. Where does quantum stand? I mean, this is, this is, this is the position, you know, that we take, which is that'll be, you know, around 2030, I think is, is a decent benchmark. If you're looking at, you know, where quantum resources are at right now, We've seen the progress that they've gone through over the past three to five years. And if you sort of, you know, follow that trajectory onto the curve, it seems relatively plausible that it could happen in or around 2030.

And then you had today, earlier today, Scott Aronson, who is sort of one of the more acclaimed and esteemed computer scientist by trade. But he's been really writing about quantum risk for a very long time. And his blog today in sort of bold writing said, well, you hear to hear, you hear, you know, is real and it's and it's coming. And it's something that we definitely ought to pay attention to. It's interesting. You talk about the multiple blockchains and their plans. So the best part about crypto is the decentralization specific to Bitcoin. Decentralized, no, you know, CEO or.

founder impacting what's going on, but in a situation like this, that's also the biggest challenge. I know Ethereum has, you know, four full teams, I think, working on this. Like you said, Solana has a plan. I know, like, Al-Garan was already quantum-proofed or everybody has their own plan, but most of them have someone at the lead to handle it and Bitcoin uniquely, which is, you know, a blessing and a curse, really like get it done in the same way. Yeah, you hit it on the head. I mean, that's, I mean, that's, that's been in its entire value proposition today, right? Which is that it's actually quite a slow-moving machine.

If you try to push an upgrade through Bitcoin, you're not going to see that happen overnight. Like you might see that happen in Salonah, for example. Bitcoin's whole engineering apparatus is designed around stable and high guarantees that something will work. And when it comes to quantum risk, that's sort of the last thing that we get. that we're nowhere, at least, we don't have a sort of concerted thought into what a solution might look like.

And that really is sort of Bitcoin's Achilles heel when it comes to coordinating this massive upgrade, because not only do you have to get consensus from the developers, but once you do, then you need to push out changes to all of the miners, anyone who's running a node. And of course, all of the wallet holders, many of whom have not been active in, you know, over a decade. So that's the largest challenge. Wallets are the main issue, though, right?

I mean, it's my understanding as a non-quantum expert. There's no real threat to Bitcoin's existence. It's that's, you know, 6.7 as of right now, I'm sure most of those will end up being quantum proof. But those millions of coins that are in wallets that may be lost, not even have owners, not even have accessible, the ones who do have owners. Really our threat is that those will be hacked and sold on the market.

I mean, that's kind of the worst case scenario, correct? It's not like Bitcoin. That's right. No, that's right. Yeah, Bitcoin will exist, but the value of which, the value of which it will carry is sort of, is up for question once you factor quantum into the equation. But you're absolutely right. There's been sort of, you know, two conflated ideas of quantum risk.

One is to the signatures, either one is two. the mining of Bitcoin. And something that our team had done last month was show that the mining algorithm, the Shaw-256 proof of work that secures Bitcoin, is actually very secure. And we anticipate we'll be secure long into the future, long into the quantum era.

But it's really the signatures that are at risk. And when we talk about signatures, we're talking about people's private keys. And so being able to have the assurance that your private key is, actually securing your crypto goes down significantly as soon as a quantum computer enters the sort of arena because it's plausible that a quantum computer, a quantum adversary, will be able to take one of your signatures on chain and derive, reverse engineer your private key from it

and therefore move Bitcoin freely as they choose to do. Before we get more deeply into Bitcoin, I want to kind of dig into the title here, because this was sort of a headline this week is Goldman JPMorgan Show Wall Street split in quantum computing race. So effectively, Goldman was taking this very seriously for a while. It came to the conclusion that it was going to take them a million years to figure it out. I think that was literally something like the quote, and they gave up. Meanwhile, J.P. Morgan now has ramped up to 50 computer scientists and physicists that are actively

working on the quantum problem. Can you put this in context of what a threat quantum computers are to all systems and not just Bitcoin? Because we have a lot of simple soundbites, I think, that are a large. inaccurate like and I'm guilty of this one by the way you know like this isn't a Bitcoin problem they're gonna hack our banks and the nuclear codes right I mean I don't say that anymore but I used to say that okay right so like is this a threat to everything so our echo chamber is really concerned about Bitcoin or is it a

unique threat to Bitcoin because of the structure and the decentralization we talked about before right yeah so so quantum threat is to cryptography we're at large writing by cryptography we mean We use encryption all day, every day in the technology around us. Governments use it, businesses use it. Encryption can relate to transmitting messages over WhatsApp, over, you know, over I message. But a lot of this cryptography and really all of the cryptography deployed across all these different industries still comes from the same family of mathematics.

And it's this family of mathematics that's particularly vulnerable to quantum attacks. And so quantum risk as a result is very much sort of, you know, relevant to all of these broader industries. It could plausibly break nuclear code, as you said, you know, hopefully the NSA is and, you know, the top government agencies are doing things that are upgrading the cryptography to secure those. But, you know, as it pertains to more sort of, you know, commercial and everyday life things, things such as banking records, medical records, again, anything that's transmitted over the internet where that's sensitive data, all of that is at risk of being broken if we don't upgrade to post-quant cryptography. And it's really this migration that's the most important key here

because it's not like it's impossible to defend against a quantum threat. We have solutions and in fact several solutions on the table now. We have the U.S. government and cryptographic cryptographic standards body coming out with algorithms that people can use and choose to deploy to upgrade to. So it's not like we're without recourse here. It's really just this process of migration, but it's that migration that's particularly hard for blockchains and especially blockchains like, decentralized blockchains like Bitcoin. Ethereum is decentralized to a degree, but it still has this, you know, a relative cohort at the realm where you have the Ethereum Foundation and sort of, you know, led by Justin Drake and Vitalik and, you know, they're able to

coordinate efforts down. The Salon Foundation, you know, a bit tighter of a sort of a chain of control. But for Bitcoin, that's really the crux of the problem where it works, again, comes back to their decentralization and their ability to coordinate the migration. That's not a positive or negative for Ethereum, but if they can pull off the merge, I think they can probably pull off quantum proofing. I mean, if they made it from proof of work to proof of stake without something, maybe not even unique to them, that means blockchains that have a plan and work on it for years can get massive things done. I guess that's sort of the example there.

Yeah, I mean, I think that's a really good point. I mean, that is a demonstrated track record of going through a large scale protocol upgrade. But I do think this quantum migration is a little bit larger than an L1 upgrade. Because think about all of these sort of derivative products, applications, chains on top of Ethereum. We have this sort of layer two ecosystem where you have all of these roll-ups and you have even layer three's roll-ups on top of roll-ups. And when it came to the proof of work to proof of stake migration, I mean, you were really

just upgrading that bottom layer, that core Ethereum EVM layer. And this was the security of all those other layers on top, the layer two's, layer three's, they'll inherited their security from that proof-of-stake layer. But really what we're talking about for this quantum migration is we need to go into every wallet. We need to go into every application, every custody holder, every custody provider, and upgrade the cryptography there. I sort of analogize upgrading cryptography to, you know, thinking about it like a like a

like a set of pipes underneath the city, sort of like a plumbing system where you need to, you know, if you need to upgrade the pipes, you need to, you know, you need to dig up the roads and you need to, you know, these pipes feed in different buildings, you need to upgrade, you know, you need to go into different people's homes into their bathrooms and upgrade all of the, you know, all of the, all of the infrastructure there. So it's actually a very sort of deep and and sort of non-trivial task at hand. And I think it's, you know, It's, you know, compared to the proof of work to proof of stick, I think it's actually a little bit more difficult. Okay, so obviously everything kind of happens on an exponential curve, which is why it's hard to handicap how long this will take.

It's just a matter of how steep the hockey stick goes, right? Like, quantum is obviously a massive threat. When I read about AI and mythos and anthropic and getting out of the sandbox and hacking everything, like, is that a more clear and present danger at the moment? And I guess as a corollary of someone who watches this, what happens when mythos, just starts, like, everything I see about quantum is like what people are doing to develop quantum computers. What happens when this thing goes rogue and escapes the matrix and like starts developing quantum itself? Like, are we going to have quantum in 20 minutes and be plugged into the batteries? Like, I don't know. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, we're finally

sort of getting adjusted to thinking on these exponential timelines, right? As you say it's because I mean, we're already experiencing it to a degree with AI, and we're seeing all the things, all the incredible things that the AI is able to do. And there are real cyber security risks that you rarely raise with mythos that we should and ought to be thinking about in the, really in every industry, including crypto. But when you sort of stack that on top of the computational speedups and the gains you get in quantum computing, it becomes really, really steep really quickly. And, you know, there certainly is a world where, I mean, there's, I saw, you know, a

couple weeks ago, which is a research paper that changed my perspective on the quantum AI world, which is, you know, where you basically apply quantum processors, quantum technologies to machine learning and building AI so that you're able to, you know, get the same speed up. And it actually seems like it's, you know, it's actually quite plausible. now where for the past five years there was seen as this, in the research field, there was always this sort of, you know, this ceiling on how fast, on how much you can incorporate quantum into using it to process machine learning and AI, whereas now it seems like it's completely feasible. And so, yeah, we're on this really, you know, this steep trajectory.

And there's almost no better time than ever than to start thinking about large-scale cryptographic. migrations and to try as best as we can think about what are the you know what different features and areas look like and how do we put things in place today that can help us with that and you know one of the things that we can do for example is we can start thinking about crypto agility which is that that's this premise that you can actually start to swap cryptography on the fly this is not something that we've done for the past 20 30 years we've always assumed that the same cryptographic algorithms would remain the same and so this is you know what

one example of a new paradigm of thinking that we can start to engage with as we think about where the future will go and how to best protect ourselves from that. I would just like to go on record and say to our AI overlords in case they're listening that they calm and will not fight back. I always use pleasing thank you my prom, so I think I'm on the right side. Yeah, I feel bad about yelling at my AI now. use all caps and using all caps because I feel like they're keeping a record and it's going to be used against all of us

when they come to take over. It's terrifying. I think it's seen so much of the internet at this point that whatever you're saying, it can't possibly be as bad as what it's already seen. Yeah, way too much content on me. There's nothing I can do.

So listen, I guess maybe it's worth talking about what the actual solutions are, right? I mean, you alluded to the fact earlier that Adam Back is talking about it. I think he was one of the very dismissive who has now somewhat come around, which it blows my mind that people give him so much shit and anyone who changes their opinion,

but, you know, strong opinions loosely held. You can think for a while something's not a big deal and then be presented with more information and change your mind. I know that's crazy to people. I credit him for changing his mind, right? We obviously have the, I don't know that it's quantum adjacent,

I'll say e-cash, right? where we have a Bitcoin developer who's been trying to, you know, fork, I guess, Bitcoin for years, basically floating that they do a fork and, you know, you have a fork called eCash. BTQ, you guys obviously have your own sort of theories on what's to be done. My view is probably try a whole lot of things. Yeah. You know, like if you're going to fork it and if that's the ultimate answer, right, we should also be trying to quantum proof wallets in the meantime, right?

I mean, because even if Bitcoin gets forked, the original Bitcoin doesn't go anywhere, right? It's still there and there's a religious belief grounding it, so it's not dying. So, I mean, what's the solution here? Yeah, I mean, I fully agree with you. I mean, just my personal perspective is diversity of thought is probably the best way to approach any solution, right? You want to sort of take every angle possible to think about a problem. And that has really manifested in the way that we've gone about building our solution. What we're building is, we call it a quantum canary network for Bitcoin,

sort of alluding to the old canary in the coal mine where, you know, these coal miners would send out a little bird into these caves and figure out, you know, which parts of the coal mines would contain toxic gases. And it would essentially serve as, you know, sort of future warning, future indication of risk to come. And the same thing can be said about solutions. You deploy a solution, but you think is a good solution, and you actually battle tested in a live network, and you realize that it has some problems.

And how often is it that we get a solution perfect right on day one? And, you know, it's not often at all. And so the idea behind, you know, this quantum canary network is allowing us to have this deployed, quantum resistant version of Bitcoin that people can interact with today that anyone in the world can ship and try solutions on and for that will plausibly be quantum resistant and gives us sort of this open environment, this playground for us to collaborate and experientially trying to find this elusive solution together. Because again, it won't happen overnight.

This will take many years of putting our heads together and collaborating. and thinking between many groups of people, miners, exchanges, people, everyday people. And so, yeah, there's a lot of work to be done. And our belief is that we shouldn't be sort of constrained by whatever politicking is going on in Bitcoin today. As you said, it's always going to be around. So let's spin up a new environment and start experimenting there. Yeah. the Satoshi coins are the biggest question, right?

I mean, or I guess Satoshi era, there's probably a lot that, you know, qualify. But, you know, we just had Adam Beck was supposedly Satoshi again, according to a New York Times article. Then the moving time, Satoshi just came out, and they said it's Halpinney and Len Thassman, which actually was a really good movie. I really enjoyed it and makes a decent argument. Those guys are dead, so that's a very convenient choice. But there's really no solution for,

for those coins in the current environment, right? So I guess we have to talk about the worst case scenario is that someone hacks those, which by the way is illegal. It's not like you're just allowed to hack them. But I'd say, you know, hacks those and sells them on the market, right? And there was an article that sort of said, you know, $150 billion problem or whatever it is. And it basically pointed out that, you know,

if we're down to 1.6, 1.7 million tokens by the time quantum hits, assuming that a lot of those have been quantum proof, our worst case scenario isn't really even as bad some previous bare markets where over 2 million coins were sold into the market, right? Okay. I get that. I, you know, as a Bitcoiner, I'm like, hey, sell, you know, sell those coins, crash the price 80%.

Let me buy it. We move on from the quantum. You know, life is good. But I'm just trying to kind of figure out what happens to those early tokens that are definitely, assuming that Satoshi doesn't come back in quantum proof his wallet. Like, there's no full solution to the wallet side, I guess. my point. Yeah, I mean, I think, I think that the sort of best and safest assumption to make, the most conservative assumption would be to assume that those are gone, you know, that that,

that they will be hacked at some point. And as we think about, you know, what are the implications of that is, you know, as you point out, if, you know, a $150 billion problem, it's not the end of Bitcoin, but that assumes that the rest of Bitcoin was able to fully migrate to, to be post-quantum. And I think that's sort of where the challenge is. So when it comes to, you know, Satoshi's coins, you know, optimist, I mean, there's been some, some, some, some, some, some, some, some, some, a recent BIP 361, which talks about, you know, perhaps, you know, sort of shaving it off, severing it from, from, from, from, from, from the existing supply. Some people have been talking about, you know, to shave it, do we, do we, do we print new new, new tokens into existence? I mean, I don't think either of those are, are, are very plausible just because. it breaks sort of first principles in Bitcoin, which is a fixed, a fixed supply of 21 million.

And I mean, sure, maybe you can try, but even severing it off sort of impacts the supply. So I think sort of the best way to think about it for now, the one that will likely prevail is just assuming that those will be lost forever and will be sort of susceptible to quantum attacks. and there's sort of enough problems to think about outside of that where we still need to have this large concerted effort to migrate the rest of the Bitcoin. What should, okay, so there's a lot of things that are going to be proposed for Bitcoin

by the developers and such. What can I do as a person holding Bitcoin right now who wants to continue holding it 30 years down the road? Yeah. Well, I mean, this comes back to the idea of grassroots activism, you know, but it's like if something really matters to you, then you can start best be vocal about it. And if you care about your tokens,

if you care about your coins, cryptography is really the only thing that's securing them. Even if you're hiding it in the best place in the world, it could be, you know, 10,000 feet underground. If a quantum computer comes, it'll still be able to hack it. And so advocating for post-quantum migrations and also participating in them, I think, is probably the best way to go about it.

Is it post-quantam migration a fork? I mean, Bitcoin quantum is what you guys are developing, right? I mean, is it effectively a fork? Yeah, so exactly. So what we've done is it's a code-based fork of Bitcoin. So it doesn't fork this state. So it's not like we branch off at the current Glock of Bitcoin. Different than he-catch.

Exactly. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. So ours is a code-based fork, which is that it maintains the same history of code. But what we've done is we've replaced all. the vulnerable pieces of cryptography with post-quant cryptography. And so in that sense, it is the exact same protocol, but just one that is quantum resistant. So it didn't have to quantum proof their own wallets if that was the solution,

because everything would be updated at the protocol level? Is that accurate or would you have to do both? Well, yes. So this Bitcoin quantum wallet wouldn't be compatible with existing sort of Bitcoin legacy Bitcoin as it stands today. Yeah. Exactly. So sort of the best, or maybe not the best, but one approach there would be, okay, well, why don't I just sort of, you know, hedge my risks and, you know, whatever, 1% of whatever I hold in Bitcoin, diversifying into quantum safe assets so that if Bitcoin doesn't get its stuff together and the value is ever adversely effective, you have, you know, basically a quantum hedge in order to offset that risk.

Really interesting. So how can people, well, first of all, I mean, so BTQ obviously you're working on specifically Bitcoin, but you guys are a publicly traded company, right? I mean, with a significant market cap. So obviously it's bigger than just Bitcoin quantum, I would imagine. I mean, are you guys effectively working on post-quantum cryptography for all of these systems that we discussed? Yeah, that's right. Yeah, exactly. So this is This is sort of a, I mean, it's a wonderful project of ours, but it certainly isn't the extent to where our, the bulk of our company spends our time and energy. Where we do spend a lot of time is in actual hardware. So, you know, we've talked about how, you know, cryptography is everywhere and really whatever you're running, whatever software you're running, whatever application you're using, and it always boils down to hardware, no matter what you do.

There's some computer, there's some server, there's some chip running in some place of the world that's actually hosting the application that you're running. And that's really where we're spending a lot of our time, which is developing quantum secure hardware that has a lot of these interesting properties that we think will make it sort of dynamic and adjustable in the future as we're on this exponential curve in order to adapt to changes in technology, changes in regulation, being able to be able to. to devise hardware that's performant and agile enough in order to keep up with his changes is a very large task and that's what we spend a lot of our time doing. Man, if it comes by 2029 or 2030, I have very low confidence that there's going to be any consensus or that this is going to get done. I said, like to me, I'm a glass half full kind of guy. So from a Bitcoin perspective, I just think, okay, so someone might hack them and they'll sell a lot of and it'll be a really rough pair market.

And eventually it goes back up. So okay, but I don't think people want to hear that. You're buying Bitcoin in general. Yeah, I mean, but it'll expose a crack and a flaw that will, I think, you know, really adversely affect people's perception on the store value. Yeah, crisis. Exactly. Right.

I mean, because this was an asset, you know, that has traditionally been talked about as being, you know, something that you could pass down to your, to your, to your grandchildren. And if it's, even if there's a sort of mild blemish, which Bitcoin actually has an excellent track record so far, but if you talk about a sort of a mishap as large as not being able to adapt for this, this sort of Q-day, this quantum event,

you know, people's confidence will start to dissipate. And I think that will be negative for crypto-rich large because, I mean, this is still, you know, today the best sort of sovereign, sort of free form of money that we have and to see it go down in a way like this would be super unfortunate. So I think it's really on all of us to help find a solution. That's the beauty of this type of thing.

We can all shine in. Sometimes I look over at the comments, which is rare. This one's funny. Why can't we just tell Claude, 4X, my USD, too? in 10 minutes. Sounds like an easy prompt to me. You know? Like wait, wait, well, do this quantum tire advantage, you know? Well, surely, surely.

Quantum into my clod and print some money. Yeah, I think the inflation will be pretty tough to deal with, but absolutely. Let's do it. Yeah, so we got big problems, man. So are you guys testing this? Can people try it? Is there a test net? I mean, how can people, I guess,

touch and feel what's being built over here at BTQ. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So we have our test net up and running. We have about 160 people on it right now. Oh, wow. If you go to BitcoinQuantam.com, you'll find all the information with our test net and

how to start a miner, how to create a wallet. We have, you know, you can find us on on X, BTC underscore quantum. And yeah, I mean, really, we encourage anyone and everyone to get involved. We're at this point now where we've been running test net for over four months. and we are progressing well. We actually, a couple of months ago, we merged BIP 360, which is sort of like the hottest. And really, actually, apart from BIP 361,

which just came a couple weeks ago. Up to then, it was the only quantum-related BIP. But we merged that into the code base to a lot of people that actually, again, like feel and experience what these quantum upgrades can look like to Bitcoin. And so now we're able to transact using this Pater, numerical route and everyone's on everyone, actually not everyone on the network because we don't force quantum, we don't force quantum secure signatures, but if you want to use quantum, which it's

strongly preferred to, you can and you know, you can experience in real time what it's like to transact, how fast it is, how expensive it is, what mining is like. So yeah, we would love for more people to come on board. I'm glad people are working on this because I'm way too dumb. These conversations do not make me feel like a smart person. It's not a lot of my head, but I, you know, some confidence that somebody's working on it and that there will be some fixes. But, man, I watch Bitcoiners argue over the dumbest things, and it definitely concerns me how big of a problem this could potentially be

and how hard it's going to be for them to come together. Yeah, we got 99 problems and quantum's probably the biggest one. 99 problems and quantums, all of them. Yeah. Great. But LaCroix, LeCroix ain't one. Got that. No, that's gold.

It's a great conversation. He told you guys where you can check out what they're doing. It's down in the description as well. So if you want to check out what Chris and pizza you're up to, I will look forward to having you back on soon as quantum continues to eat the world. We'll need good updates on how we can protect ourselves. So thank you very much for joining him for your time, man. Yeah, thank you, Scott.

Keep doing what you're doing. It's an essential piece of the puzzle. So we appreciate it as well. And otherwise, you've got Twitter spaces, Cryptotown Hall at 1015. And then, of course, the Daily Wolf on Yahoo Finance at noon, for those of you who can still tolerate looking at my face another time today. Thank you, everybody. We'll see you tomorrow. Later, Chris.

Thanks, ma'am. See you. Thanks.