Unchained - The Chopping Block: Are Layer 2s Stealing Ethereum’s Thunder? - Ep. 484

Episode Date: April 22, 2023

Welcome to “The Chopping Block” – where crypto insiders Haseeb Qureshi, Tom Schmidt, Robert Leshner, and Tarun Chitra chop it up about the latest news. In this episode, the gang plays “guess the chart” and takes a deep dive into the booming world of Ethereum Layer 2s. Show highlights:  how much Layer 2s are spending to post data to Ethereum whether L2s suck up all the value of ETH the challenge of providing a good user experience across multiple rollups how the underlying technology of security is not improving but attackers are getting more sophisticated whether centralized lending in the industry is dead why crypto users still hold stablecoins that yield much lower than Treasury bills the new approach to bringing real-world assets and tokenized yields to blockchains whether all L2s are running via proof of authority whether alternative Layer 1s are dead or are actually more important than ETH L2s Hosts Haseeb Qureshi, managing partner at Dragonfly  Robert Leshner, founder of Compound  Tarun Chitra, managing partner at Robot Ventures Tom Schmidt, general partner at Dragonfly  Disclosures Links Hildebert’s charts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Not a dividend. It's a tale of two quond. Now, your losses are on someone else's balance. Generally speaking, air drops are kind of pointless anyways. Unnamed trading firms who are very involved. D5.Eat is the ultimate pump. D5 protocols are the antidote to this problem. Hello, everybody. Welcome to the chopping block.

Every couple weeks, the four of us get together and give the industry insider's perspective on the crypto topics of the day. We're doing a special late-night episode. It is midnight here, and we're all very tired. but we didn't have an episode for the chopping block this week, and so we thought we would record something for you. First up, we've got Tom, the Defy Maven, and Master of Memes. Next, we've got Robert, Crypto Connoisseur, and Captain of Compound.

And we've got Tarun, the Gigabrein, and Grand Puba at Contlet. And you've got myself, I'm a Seeb, I'm the head-hyped man of Dragonfly. So we are early-stage investors in crypto, but I want to caveat that nothing we say here is investment advice, legal advice, or even life advice. Lacey Chopin Block that XYZ more disclosures. So we're coming at you late at night. How are you guys doing on this very late, very... Well, a long-time listener, first-time caller,

just really excited to be here and chop it up. I just hope Tureen gets his pizza. I'm worried about him and his stomach. That's kind of my big... I did dye my hair at least one of the colors that won the pole. Which color won the pole? Well, first of all, it happened. of my head was shaved.

That's true. There was one that shave it off. There was one that shave it off one. And I think orange or green one. I forget which one. So I had both. It's a strong choice. It's Max cipherpunk right now.

I'm glad that you're deferring to the chopping block Dow, unlike arbitral. You've learned a lesson about on-chain governance. It's very good to see. I don't want Gary coming after me. I know. That's right. Well, so, okay. So this week, the news this week,

is all about regulation and legal stuff in Congress and people yelling at other people for being securities. Honestly, it's all kind of boring. And we were talking about, like, hey, do we have to do another episode about more kind of legal, naysaying? Like, there's nothing that important

that happened this week. And so, and we're also pretty tired. It's just been a pretty grueling week as well. And so we thought maybe we'll shake it up today and try a little bit of variation in format. Instead of just rattling off the news and giving you vague opinions about them, we decided instead

We're going to try something different. So Tom, what's on the menu tonight? So this is actually inspired by a tweet by Hill Dobby, who is our data scientist here at Dragonfly, where he had a nice little dune chart, but with some of the key information, such as the title scrubbed out. And guess people guess what the chart was. And so we're going to play a little guess that chart right now. So apologies to any audio listeners, we'll try to get some nice descriptions of what the chart to pick. So are you guys ready? Do you guys know what geogessor is?

Yeah, of course. We're basically, this is the on-chain geogessor. A little bit. For anyone listening, Tom has the charts. Haseeb, Tarun, and I do not know what chart he's about to put on the screen. I don't know what chart I'm about to put on the screen. But here we go. All right.

Let me see if I can describe the chart. So the chart, oh, this is transaction fees per chain. You're so confident. Okay. So the chart, okay, so the chart is, it starts at January 2020, and it like shoots up, basically up through July 2021, and it comes down quite a bit in January 22, comes down again in the summer, and then like kind of hits a local bottom around beginning of 2023, and then starts going back up again.

The biggest contributors, Ethereum by far, then there's B&B chain, then Polygon, then Arbiturum, and Avalanchinosis, optimism. And there's like tiny, tiny little contributions from everything that's not Ethereum. Right. And the key thing here is that, okay, so I read too quickly. I was trying to do geogessor style. I am not rainbow. It's in black and white and it's pixelated. So you might not be able to. So the y-axis, it goes up to 1B and halfway up there, it's 500M. So we're going with like $1 billion, $500 million. All the different chains are shown, but Ethereum is like 99% of this chart. And there's like a little bit of activity from like whatever's true. and Polygon. But it's basically a chart of Ethereum.

Yeah. So basically, okay, something that daily maxes out at a billion and now is somewhere around $250 million. Could it also be stable coin volume? I think it's way higher than that. No, because there's no Tron on here. Tron, Tron has got to be a huge representative here, right?

And it's not even on this chart. Do you guys want a hint? No, no hints. No hints. No hints. If we don't get it in one minute, you're going to explain this to us. At the end, you're going to educate the listeners on why this chart's interesting. Yeah, I like that.

Because you picked it out. I'm going to guess that it's transaction fees. That was my first guess, and I know I'm wrong. Because there's no way that there's a billion of transaction fees a day. Yeah, that doesn't seem right. Total fees paid, maybe? I don't know. That does seem too high.

Yeah, total. Is it maybe it's issuance? No, a billion issuance a day. That doesn't make any sense. Yeah. Could it be like native assets moved? Like the value of the native, like the value of ETH, value of B&B, value of Polygon, moved per day?

Bad investment decisions per day. Lock that in. Lock that in. I mean that billion a day must be anchored then. Yeah. Yeah. That's the peak. No, your time is a bit off.

Tarun. You got to look at the time series down here. Is your no hints? All right. I was last guess It's one hand Give us a hand. Give us it

We're clearly way off. It's it's it's a TVL metric A TVL metric. A TVL metric Daily per chain Bridge activity Maybe

per day Bridging in As is bridge in per chain Bridging in L metric TVL metric Uh Eviel metric Maybe like borrows

Like daily boroughs Borrow's No that Borrow's got to be Last than that All right I formally conceding give up on this.

To ruin. Any last guess? Go for it. All right. What do we got? Puzzle master stumped us. This is, this is, this is again, this is Hillbobby. This is tornado cash TVL by chain. Oh, wow. Oh. Oh. Oh. You see that big drop in August

when the sanctions hit. So we did come back to regulation a little bit, sorry. And then these other chains, so sort of popping off it. Obviously, it's highly correlated with the price of ether, but you kind of see you know, it's like the daily per chain really threw us off. The daily per chain really got. That's true.

TVL and daily don't go together. That was. That is true. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm going to give this feedback. So actually, one interesting question to me is where is the BNB bridge hack? What do you remember when that was? Because like I'm curious if you notice the BNB percentage is going up toward the last.

I'm wondering if like the B&B bridge hacker is part of the reason for the. Well, the B&B part also does look pretty stable, actually. And so I think it was just like that's when B&B launched, because initially it was Ethereum only. It doesn't look like B&B grew or changed that. It grew a little bit, I think, after July, ironically after the sanctions hit. But overall, it's like, it's, I think, around the same slice. That's natural, though, right?

Because, like, the B&B deployment was not sanctioned, but the Ethereum deployment was, which doesn't really make a lot of sense. So, oh, true. Oh, I didn't think about that. It's the only legal place where you can interact with tornado cash is on B&B chain. Legally, yeah, sure. It's not, not illegal, or it's not not legal. Yeah.

Okay. Understood. O-FAC loves Binance. Yeah. I think they're trying to advantage foreign actors. So there we go. That was one. Do you guys want to do another one?

Is that too painful? Let's do one more. I'm sure the audio listeners are loving this, by the way. This is like a very audio-friendly format. There's going to be a lot of editing for the subject. Yeah, hide your private keytone. Yeah, you know, there's a big, there's a big hack going around. It's true.

Should we talk about it? Can we talk about the, the ledger ad, the chain thing? Oh, yeah, where Ledger is telling you to buy a new jewelry necklace and hang your ledger wallet around the neck. That might be the greatest guerrilla marketing ever. Okay. What are we looking at? This is a time series with a bunch of layer ones.

on them from January 2022 to April 2023. Yes, we have Arbitrum, Starknet, optimism, loop ring, Aztec connect, Polygon ZK AVM, ZKSync Lite, ZK Sync Era. And then trend-wise, it's kind of neck-and-neck, Arbitrumb and Optimism, you know, both hovering around this in aggregate, about 2K, each contributing about, you know, 1,000, kind of dips during the summer of 2022. And then going into 2023, Stark growing again, Arbitrum growing a little bit more. and some of these other layer 2s contributing more to the pie,

exceeding 3K in March and April, 2023. All right. So this looks like a TVL of Layer 2's chart, except the units are off, right? The units go from zero to 3,000. That's correct. Maybe it's like TVL and Ether turns. There's like Ether.

Number of contracts deployed. Yeah. Daily users. No, the daily user is higher than this, right? Yeah, there's a least. That's too low for daily. 3,000 is definitely way a lot more than 3,000. Also, there's a lot of activity in the most recent month on ZK Sync.

Well, ZKSink grew in TVL a lot, so they're like a $250 million now. That's also where all the people are trying to airdrop farm the most. Oh, speculative air drop. Yeah, speculative air drop farming, yeah. It looks very proportional to TVL. So there's something that is, they haven't correlated with TVL, but is very different units. active developers. You can't track that on Dune.

How are you tracking that on Dune? All right. That's a good meta argument. Good meta argument. There you go. There you go. The only reason I'm not sure about whether this is total amount of ETH is that not all of these chains pay gas and ETH, if I remember correctly. Right now.

It can't be ETH. But they got to be moving easily. They can be wrapping ETH. Yeah. Keep pulling that thread. Keep pulling that thread. Keep pulling that thread. Deroon, pull the thread.

This is like a chart murder mystery that's unfolding the audience in real time. I'm like the dungeon master right now. That's good. Roll a D20 to see what happens. Is it inflows? Maybe it's like monthly inflows because all these, I mean, I think that numbers have been going up basically pretty continuously. But no, that doesn't make any sense. Maybe it does.

September 22 is sort of like the bottom. bottom of this chart. All the Solana TVL clearly moved here, wherever this is. Because like, no, okay, so 1K Ether is like a million dollars.

Like, that is not, it's way too small, right? So, like, what is this 1K thing? Is it bridge in events, maybe?

No, that's too small. I kind, I do kind of like this new contracts deployed or number of contracts interacted with or something. There's, that, like,

kind of could be in this range. Contracts deployed does make sense. Unique contracts, maybe? Unique. Or contracts touched. Contracts touched. per day. You can, yeah. You can, yeah, you can count which contracts were touched. And maybe this is

bridge contract, like, I was going to make a joke about where Turin touched the contract, but it's not funny. All right, I'm going to go. Final answer. You need contracts interact with per month. My guess is going to be number of contracts deployed per month. My joke guess, because I sort of thinks it's one of the latter two, is a number of rug pulls per month. That is correct. Terun. It's a number of rug pulls per month. No. It's cost of publishing transaction data to a layer one by the layer twos per month. What? Wait, what? I was thinking along those lines, but I was like, I don't know if they would actually be able to get that. Oh, the total price paid in aggregate of posting call data to layer one over that month. Right. Right. I see. I see. Okay. So,

oh, that's actually quite interesting. Are we saying Celestia is going to be making, getting to a three million run rate per month. Well, no, the price is much lower, right, for the same amount of demand. Just to get the benchmark numbers right now, because it's actually kind of interesting. If you go back, I think it's about 1,000 on Arbitrum. Arbitrum's paying about, what, $2 million a month to post-call data? Optimism posting. Right now it's $1,800, so almost 4 mil.

Oh, okay, so closer to 4 mil per month. Optimism is about 1,000, so that's about 2 mil. And Starknet, Starcnet 93, Eth? So that's like, what, 100K? or 20K? Yeah. Fascinating. What's ZKSync?

Okay. ZK Sync is at... 500. Yeah. Era is at 500. By the way, we should maybe explain what this payments are for. Layer 2s have some state management that they have to do in the layer 1. The sequencer who's managing the state of the layer 2 has to post storage calls

and other type of calls if there's a fraud proof, but there's not in any of these. And so that's what Haseeb was referring to as call data is sort of the data that they have to post. It's kind of interesting that ZKSink had like such high state, like cost growth relative to Polygon. A polygon still has very low use of it, I think. Yeah. I think they're, like $30 million or something compared to ZKSync's like $250 million. But I mean, everything, all of these are like super young still. Here's a trivia question for you.

If all of these L2s are spending about $3,000. ether a month on the L1 Ethereum. What do you think the total ether spent in transactions on the L1 would be in the absence of all of these L2s? The question is how much are they siphoning demand from the layer one? Yeah. I kind of believe in like the induced demand theory where it's like a lot of the shit that's happening on layer twos is like goofy like NFT stuff for people that like would probably

not happen, you know, on on Ethereum today at these gas prices. And so it's like you actually just. capture this new market that would just would be priced out otherwise. It can't be that there's nothing siphon, but there obviously is some, you know, new activity that is only, that only makes sense at a lower price point. Of course. It's funny. I was getting an argument with Kalsamani about this over Telegraph, which is always the best place

to have arguments. He's a big layer two token bull short eth. Yes. He was making this big argument that like the trade to do is to go go long the L2s and go short ether. And he thinks like the L2s are going to siphon all this, but they're going to like suck up the value because ultimately they're closer to the user and users are going to interact more with L2s. And basically like, Eiff, like the floors is going to drop out from under it because it's ultimately

the L2s that are going to be valuable because they're directly user facing and they own the applications. I thought this was kind of nonsense. And so my counterpoint to this, well, first of all, I'm curious, does that hold any valence for you guys, this idea that the layer twos are actually potentially going to accrue more value than the low one? If like that's where the applications live, that's where all the users interact with? It's possible. I mean, you know, I'm not going to say that his theory is automatically a good one.

But if the applications are living on the L2s and to Tom's point, you can have applications that couldn't exist on the L1s, then there'll probably be a lot of value occurring to the L2. But is it stealing value from the L1? Is it adding more usage and importance to the L1? I don't know. I mean, with the switch to full proof of stake, you could also argue the exact opposite, is that the L1 is the economic security for all of the L2s, and it will be significantly larger. Another thing to consider here is the main layer ones themselves are actually quite worried about this. And there's been a bunch of designs of things where the fees from the L2 flow back more to the L1.

So there's a thing called a based roll-up from Justin Drake. And the idea is basically to have some revenue share between the L1, in ETH's case and the L-2s, and sort of like trying to force that. So it is interesting that some of the ETH researchers are actually sort of in the Samani camp that the L-1 needs to get some revenue from the L2. I would say that if you believe that's true, right? if you believe the L2s are siphoning value from the layer one, then that means you should, it sort of implies that you should also believe that lightning

makes Bitcoin less valuable. Because lightning is ultimately siphoning transaction fees from the Lerner, it's got the same kind of substitution effect, which makes Bitcoin less valuable. That would be true if Bitcoin had transaction fees. Yeah, I was about to say it. Yes, but it's supposed to, right? It does.

And ultimately, like, Bitcoin is used to pay fees with. But you don't really use it for, like, data availability in a dynamically posted manner like you do with Ethereum, right? Like lightning transactions are like, I do a, you know, a time lock at one point and I close a time lock. Another point, everything stays off chain. It's not, there's not as much like dynamic state updating. I mean, there's basically none. There's like two UTXO.

Sure, but it is in the end, siphoning demand for layer one transactions, right? Like otherwise you'd be directly transacting on Bitcoin if you couldn't use Lightning to settle Bitcoin. That hasn't been Bitcoin's problem for years, though. that is. I agree. I agree. Look, I'm not arguing that's the Bitcoin's problem, but I am saying that if you are going to be consistent with that view, that a substitution effect for demand for transactions lowers the value of the underlying layer one, then you should believe that lightning drives down the value of Bitcoin. And that doesn't seem plausible to me. The other thing, of course, that on these layer two's, ether in its sort of cash flow element, which is just, you know,

how much ether gets burned because of transaction fees on layer one. But then there's also the element of ether as a form of money, which I would argue today is where the lion's share of its value comes from because the transaction fees demonstrably are not that big. And on the L2s, like, ether's money on all the L2s. Heath is what everyone uses. People don't use rap Bitcoin. They don't use, you know, ARB token on the L2s as their form of money. They use ether. And so if anything, these are etherized economies that are actually expanding the universe through which ether is used, right? In the same way, like, look, there are many ways to make the dollar valuable. One way is to grow the GDP of the U.S. economy. Another way is increase the tax rate. Another way is to get other

people use dollars. Do you think ETH held on layer two's is like a euro dollar? It's sort of like, yes, totally. That's a great analogy. That's a great analogy. Yes, but only if the time and cost bridge is full of friction. If it's literally extremely low friction to move ether in and out, then it's the same asset. I agree with this seems a bigger point here, which is like, if you think about what factors go into either's value today, it's like 95, 95, 90s, this moneyness and then like a small percentage of the transaction fees and the burn and you know, a lot of the economics that go into it. And it's like, you know, crypto people always sort of fall for this. Oh, well, like this asset has these flows and like let's do like a discounted

cash flow analysis. And it's like maybe that's true for a very small number of assets, but for the most part, it's sort of this other thing. I mean, one question, and I was talking about this with a bunch of people working on who believe in the like there will be five million rollups world. How does the user end up managing the, the UX for this. Like, none of the wallets that exist can really handle multi-roll-ups right now at all. Like, it's so clunky, right? You're like going in, changing RPCs.

Some of them make you pay gas in native tokens. Some make you pay in E. Some, you know, like that part is still very confusing to me. And that's where I kind of can agree with the salonomaxies of like the U.S is much easier at Monolithic for the world. Yeah. This is not a dunk on Cosmos, but I personally find the Cosmos ecosystem UX. with multiple different chains to be like literally impossible as a user.

I think to To Rune's point, if you have, you know, a thousand L2s, it's going to be the same user experience where it's like, yes, it's possible to move between any two of them and like all of these things. But, you know, what wallet software is going to make this easy and intuitive? And like, how are you going to do it? Like, it's already hard. Like my network drop down, you know, just on the EVM chains and Metamask is like too long. And if you think about it, there's like, you know, in Ventureland, there've been sort of tens of companies founded for doing roll up as a service so that developers can start their own roll up like the way they start an Amazon web service.

Great. You can make your own blockchain easily. But then it's like no one is really funding like wallets focused on or like even just like some layer for making it easy for the end user. So I think that's going to be a big thing now. Part of the, so I totally agree with you, Tron. We actually, we funded a company recently called Caldera that does exactly this, does like Lair 2 as a service. The difficulty, like you said, is that getting a bunch of Lair 2's up and running, now it's kind of doable. We have the open source stack. Obviously, optimism is today

the kind of hot stack de jour that people are using. But actually managing assets across a cajillion chains, like super sucks. And of course, you know, we just had a tax day in the U.S. very recently. And obviously, like, if you're trying to pay taxes across assets in like 16 different ecosystems,

it's a horrendous task, much less just being able to manage your own assets across all of them. And so I do think that at some point, when the landscape settles down and the number of stacks settles down, there are definitely going to be software solutions that pop up that start to get smarter about managing your assets, where you pay gas with,

meta transactions across different chains, like consolidating assets for you and also helping it making it easier to do accounting across all your different chains, that stuff will come up as the, the kind of space of chains stabilizes or the number of stacks stabilizes. But right now, there's still like super high flux. And so anybody who's like, okay, I know exactly what I'm going to build for,

I think people still don't know. Like, it's still very much a moving target. A lot of people are like, okay, well, Salonnas winning. I better build a bunch of tools for Solana. Or other people were like, oh, well, you know, cosmos needs to be taken over the world. I should build for Cosmos chains? And now roll-ups are the thing. It's like, okay, should I build this tooling for roll-ups?

I think if you give it a couple years, we're going to see some stabilization. in the chains that people use and less turnover in the top 10 chains by TVL. But over the last couple of years, it's been so volatile. Like, I don't know how you would know what to work on. My suspicion is that there will be a lot of venture funding going into the moving up the stack. Like, you know, there's been so much money focused on infrastructure in the last 12 months. And like, people are going to be like, oh, shit, we actually need to really fund like the basic, you know, new wallets and stuff like that instead of, because like it doesn't feel like the existing

wallets are willing to change their experience enough to handle this type of world. Part of it is fear too, right? Like the deeper you get into the guts of making decisions on behalf of users, the more risk there is for mistakes, for hacks, there's just more surface area to like mess things up. I mean, there was all this news this week about like really crazy hacks that nobody seems to know where they're coming from. Taylor Monaghan, who was on the show recently, was talking about this like crazy web of old addresses that don't seem to have any ostensible connections

to each other, many of which were super sophisticated, quote unquote, cold wallet, quote unquote, addresses that have been just getting sweeped by the same attacker. I've been getting more paranoid over the last, just like last month, I guess. I don't know if you guys are feeling similarly, but more and more I just get paranoid about like, I don't know, attackers are getting better and smarter and more sophisticated than before. Well, they absolutely are. I mean, you know, the underlying technology of security is not improving, but there's more sophistication outside that is improving. We were joking around about, you know, Ledger putting a really stupid ad on Twitter of like, buy the necklace keychain for your like crypto hardware wallet. And that's like, you know, obviously like security moving backwards. But like security in my mind is moving flat. And there's more sophistication around how to. a break security every single month. And I think a lot of it falls, you know, like is rooted in human error in a lot of places. And I think a lot of it's in like, you know, exposing zero days, so to speak. But, you know, I definitely think that over time security is not fundamentally improving.

And there's not enough work spent on fundamentally improving the security architecture of crypto. I also think that large language models are going to be really good at attacking contracts. and they're going to be, like, I think the natural advantage to attack versus defense is going to grow with large language models because I think it's a lot easier

for a large language model to find a vulnerability than it is for a large language model to fix a vulnerability. Finally, the Cardano Stans can win. Wait, what, why? Formally verified. Oh, oh, oh, I see.

Peer reviewed, formally verified. Okay, got it. Well, that's Cardano itself, right? Yeah, yeah, well, the programming language that no one could use, and at one point only had one transaction per block because the EUTXO thing was mixed up. But yes, Cardano. Okay, okay, Cardano. These charts seem to have brought out the animal spirits.

So what's the next one? They're doing a good job waking us up. I didn't know you guys wanted another chart. Chart number three. It's kind of like one of those Roar Shock tests where like you look at a chart and it like brings up all the stuff inside you. That is true. That is true. Yeah, I like it.

I feel like this is a good psychological test for how you feel about crypto. Yeah, it's the least fun party game that you can try at home. You have no idea what Tarun's parties are like. Did we need a disclaimer for the listeners to trigger warning? We're going to be playing the worst party game, but we're saving you from playing it. Do not attempt on your own. I actually would be super down for this party game if it was actually like a party game. I mean, we're like four crypto venture investors.

Like we're like, I think some of the only people I find this amusing. Wow. I think I got a new one. Yeah. Actually, this one, I don't even have the labels on it. Are you going to be okay with that? Is that going to be too hard? Otherwise, I think it's too obvious.

Let's go no labels. I'm feeling risky tonight. I will say one thing. My first boss ever, very nice guy was billionaire. The one thing he would fire people for on the spot was no units on their labels. That's legit. But if you can see a series, no units fired on the spot. I'm okay with that.

So if it just said like 100, 200, 300, he was like, you're fired. Yeah. All right. So is Tom fired? This really is a party game. Wow. I mean, no, there are, well, there are units on the on the X-axis. Yeah.

All right. Let's describe the charts so the listeners can understand what we're looking at because we all just said, like, whoa. So the chart starts in January 2009. So my hunch. This is called a whale fin chart. I believe that's what this is called. Or Shark Finn, sorry, Shark Finn. Shark Finn, chart.

My hunch is that we're thinking something in the Bitcoin ecosystem because the chart starts in 2009. And I don't think we would go all the way back. If we weren't- Very student observation. In 2000. So it looks like there's like no activity for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2012, 2013.

There's basically no activity on this until 2019. And then it starts to go way up. It peaks in like November 21, December 21, and then it goes back down to about half of its peak, and it looks truly like a shark fan. It's very symmetrical. It almost looks like a normal distribution. And there's also four colors, but we don't have the legend. So we don't know what those four colors correspond to, but it's mostly one color.

It's like 90% one color. Yeah. Okay. We were talking about lightning before. My hunch is that this is a chart that has something. to do with lightning or like a Bitcoin type of transaction. Number of lightning nodes by client? It could be, yeah, it could be based on client.

It could be like 300,000 lightning nodes. It maxed at 300,000. That's too many. It could be a Segwit thing. Well, the Segwit was 2017. Yeah, I don't know. Okay, like I'm just throwing ideas on. No, but actually, I remember Binance only supported Segwit deposits and withdrawals in like

2020. I remember there are a lot of people on Twitter, Bitcoin Maxi's complaining and yelling at CZ about this. Yeah. Yeah, but the chart looks like zero. It doesn't even look like. It does. The chart looks like zero until like 2000. How about number of channels

instead of number of nodes? I guess he channels. I think channels makes sense. But channel by client? Like that's what I'm trying to figure out. Or maybe by like capacity of the channel. And like gray is like zero to 100 or something. And then 300K

BTC is like 1.4. billion? No, no, no, no. I'm saying that that's the number of channels, but the colors are the capacity of the channel. They're like class sizes, right? So like small, medium, big. Has lightning capacity ever been over a billion?

Because 300K BTC is a lot. No, no, I'm saying the units are not way to see. The units are number of channels. The colors. The colors are corresponding to the size of the channel. I don't think there's that many channels. That's a lot. I don't think there's that many channels either. Because like, aren't

most of the channels like bit refill and like nothing else that's what i remember yeah i mean it goes up to 300 000 whatever the also like what's this green thing that is like was like eating up demand through 2021 and then trunk indeed i feel like this the green thing is kind of weird is going way down right now okay tom you want to give us a hint you are correct it is something related to the bitcoin ecosystem or related related to bitcoin okay oh what about rap wrapped, Rapt BTC type thing. Oh, that's an interesting guess.

I don't think there's 300,000. There might be 300,000. There were more. Yeah, a RAPBTC could have, could have, could have been, it might have been more, but like. Maybe REN, REN BTC? No, they never got that high. 300,000 Bitcoin is a lot of Bitcoin.

So, yeah, yeah. Okay. All right. Tom, next hint. I don't think I can give another hint because that was, I thought that was a pretty big hint. I'm tapped. What is it? Yeah, what's the answer?

Boom. It is. Bitcoin on Ethereum. Okay, yes. We were right there. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right. So WBTC plus RenBTC plus everything.

Okay, so it's like wrapped Bitcoin. Plus HBTC. Do not forget HBTC. Also the, uh, the WBTC numbers off etherc are sort of, messed up post-FTX, right? Because they minted a bunch of stuff that wasn't collateral. No, that was solid stuff. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So that's not. But the weird thing is the solid and WBT pools were sort of like drained to zero also. It got a little dicey on. Oh, interesting. Right around. Good chart. That one was good, right? Yeah, well, okay, that's solid.

I was also about to be like, like, the Dune Index Lightning. no way. Yeah, actually, now that you say that, I'm like, it doesn't seem like that would be an easy thing for doing an index. I don't think of lightning, but do you have just general Bitcoin data now. So I want to look at ordinal stuff.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's right. There were ordinals. Well, I'm actually most interested in the fact that that chart has basically halved in like the past year or so. There's a lot of BTC that was on Ethereum that is no longer on Ethereum,

which is probably the most interesting takeaway. Yeah, where did that BTC go? just back to Bitcoin? FTX, for sure. Alameda, SBF. I don't think it's half of the outstanding Bitcoin. That was a joke. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Because it peaked in April, 2020, or May 2020. Oh. And then it was, HPTC is basically nothing now. And then WBTC also felt quite a bit. It must be tied to lenders in some way. Yeah.

Like a lot of the lenders probably had to, like a lot of the lenders were using this stuff to get yield on Bitcoin? Yeah, exactly. They were farming, farming on your behalf. Exactly, exactly. You could probably go check too, right? Because the WBTC redemptions are on chain. You can just see who's redeeming it. That probably was Celsius and FTX and Genesis, BlockFi, all those guys who are finding ways to get yield with their BTC. The dinosaur graveyard of... Indeed. Indeed. Yeah, that's very sad. How, do you, do any of you guys know, like how is lending making a comeback? Are people like putting their boots on again and facing the world or is lending just like kind of dead.

Centralized lending? Centralized lending. Yeah. That dead, dead, dead, dead. E-Fi lending is like going up a little bit because of Stakeety. Yeah. Interesting. I would think that like, okay, there's like an extinction level event. There's no more yield anywhere. Like now it feels like a time that like somebody should come in and start cleaning up and like just offering like fairly low rates, pocketing big spreads, you know, like just the lack of competition seems like it would be a great time for somebody to come into the lending space. Why isn't that happening? And also like, okay, the risk-free

rate on dollars is high, but like the rate on crypto assets is low. So like, well, I guess one of things that would make it hard for a centralized lender is the fact that like right now borrowing costs in defy are like hilariously low. It's cheaper to borrow in defy than it is. And you, like, borrowing costs and def are below the Fed funds rate. Like it's literally violates a lot of lot of the laws of like financial physics. Yeah, I think you basically need need rates to go down a bit. I've actually been thinking about this recently, Robert, you know, to your point, there are hundreds or millions or billions of dollars in USCC sitting in AVE and compound earning 1.5% are these people who are using these as collateral? Are these people, the USC that stuck?

Like, why is this here? Yeah, it's a great question. So, I mean, there is so many stable coins earning so little in defy. I think the reason it's there is because it's better than bridging it back to TratFi to get 4.7% or 4.1% on your Apple account or whatever is in the headlines lately because it takes days to go back and forth typically. And people want to have their stable coins available to buy the dip or like invest in crypto. They don't actually want to leave the crypto.

asset purchasing ecosystem. Because crypto is still so volatile that if you can buy crypto, you know, and sell it for 1% higher, that's more money than you're expecting to make off a rates anyway. And like you have all these people like buying and selling crypto and just having it so readily available to take advantage of like, you know, I mean, today Ether dropped 6%, right? That's more than a year of interest, you know, for someone who was instables and was able to buy it and is looking to sell it higher.

Like just in terms of that like human market making, you know, the expected returns are probably higher than the difficulty of like moving it to TradFi, missing an opportunity, you know, whatever. Like if you have Stables, it's because you like crypto. You like crypto assets. You like to be able to trade in them and participate in them and all of these things. And it's like it still is super high friction to move it back to Tradfy and back to crypto. And so there's a glut of stable coins in crypto that. earn way, way less than the risk-free rate. And I think people are mostly okay with that, where they're saying, hey, I'll just earn

1% or 2% because I know I can just turn it into ether and Bitcoin, you know, in a second's notice, you know, in one block if I need to. And that's like extremely valuable. And the reason why they're not bringing it out of crypto. One funny thing, right, is like we're pretty close to the all-time high, actually, of total stable coins, right? Yeah, it's like $118 billion right now, I think. Yeah, 131

according to Defa Lama. Pull up the DeFi Lama chart, Tom. Yeah, this one, the DeFi Lama stable coin chart is actually kind of, I mean, you can just see Tether completely crushing it. Like, that's the number one thing here. You just see, like, Tether and USDC going in, like, complete opposite directions at the end, yeah.

Because, like, it's crazy. Tether's near its all-time high. It's like not very far from its all-time. It's only a couple of billion dollars away. Yeah. And USC is quite far from its all-time high. It's about half of its all-time high.

I mean, the other interesting thing is that there seems to be a pretty perfect substitution effect. Is that like the pie seems to be fixed of demand for stable coins, or at least in any given moment in time? And so when one's going up, the other's going down, it doesn't ever seem like they're that correlated, except when the whole market's going up. Yeah.

mouse over April 22 one year ago. What was the total table coins a year ago? Because there's 131 now. Let's add these up in our head real quick. It's like 160. 175, yeah. Yeah, 175. So it's not down that much in compared to say like BTC and Eath being down 50%.

Yeah. Yeah. No, it's demath anymore. Look at that. Oh, wow. We were off. Okay. It's $200 billion.

So it's down about what? No, no, market cap. Market. Not TV, yeah. Oh, oh, market cap, sorry. Because, like, did they include UST? That's, like, that's sort of one of the weird parts of the data. Oh, yeah, terrishly.

Do we count U.S.T? I'm guessing they did. Yeah, I just don't know whether, because I just don't know whether we should. If you go back to the non-aggregated, it'll show. It does show USTC, which is USD Classic, which is, I guess, the successor. Yeah, yeah. Look, 16 bill right there. Yeah.

Yeah. Wow. Dramatic. Dramatic. Okay. All right. So if you ignore that $16 billion, it's still down April 22? April.

April. April was 187 and then now we're at 131. So, you know, it's down 20 mil, 20 bill, something like that. Yeah. Minus. But that's still not crazy, right? Like, it was down a lot more. Yeah.

It definitely feels like it's not so, so crazy. Yeah. Actually, it looks like right when TerraClafs was the all-time high for stable coin market cap, the total circulating supply. And since then, it's been, like, pretty stable after, I mean, it's gone down. It's like kind of trickled down every month.

It's trickle down every month. 20 million. Yeah. But very slightly. Yeah. Not a very significant drawdown. I was just looking at this up. You were talking, Robert, you were talking about, like, the risk-free rate and, like,

the ability to entertainously transfer stable coins in and out. I was looking at what are the rates that big banks are paying on cash deposits as kind of, as kind of the analogy of like, okay, you can instantly turn, you know, you get the optionality. Chase is paying 0.02% APY on cash right now. So actually, like, if you consider stable ones to be cash, then actually they're getting higher yield than a bank account still. That's true. Chase might be unique.

Anyone with access to a brokerage account can get higher yield. Yeah. Which is why right now commercial bank deposits are kind of flying out. Yeah. And it's why the profitability of the biggest banks like JPM should be. going up, unfortunately. Yes. According to FDIC, the average APY across banks nationally is about 30 bibs.

That's so pathetic. That's crazy. Yeah. Yeah, well. Turns out USC is actually pretty good for being like an instantaneous cash account. When do you think we'll be talking about tokenized treasuries over tokenized stable coins or like something that's like close to off-chain yield? I mean, I think over the next two years, some incredible things are going to come to market

that change how we think about tokenized dollars versus tokenized yield, right? I think it just needs to find a clear regulatory framework. I think the issue with real world assets, broadly speaking, this is like super kind of thousand-foot view is that when we started, like, I mean, I remember when I first got into crypto, People used to talk about real world assets all the time. And that was like 2017, 2018, right? It was a big narrative. And that's six years ago now.

At that time, like, I remember when people were tokenizing, like, apartment complexes and they were putting them on the blockchain and being like, why are, why isn't anyone buying my, like, Miami apartment complex? And the reality, people, like, found these, like, very random things that were totally illiquid and very hard to value and had a lot of local knowledge and were annoyed that, like, okay, I brought this thing on chain. It did all the legal work. And like, why isn't it magically liquid now?

So I think people had this mental model that, like, blockchains magically make things liquid, which is obviously bullshit. Like, that's not, you know, there's nothing magic about tokenization that makes illegal things liquid. And I think as a result, like the order of operations through which blockchains approach real world assets was kind of inverted. We started with the most illiquid, hard to value things that very few people want to own,

like a specific piece of real estate and a specific apartment complex or whatever, as opposed to like treasuries, right? treasuries are the biggest market in the world, they're the biggest asset in the world, huge amounts of demand. Nobody has trouble underwriting treasuries, but they haven't existed on the blockchain, basically at all for the last like five years.

Now, a big part of the reason for that was that yields on treasuries were terrible, right? They were basically 25 basis points for the longest time. And when on-chain yields were dramatic, who cares? Why would you want to bring treasuries on-chain? Now it feels like that's reversing, right? There's now clearly more demand for treasuries on-chain.

There are a few projects that are doing it, and there's a lot of, you're seeing a lot of on-chain growth. growth in the demand for treasuries. But more importantly, I think it's like it shows that we're now thinking in the right order of operations about what kinds of real world assets seem to build on chain and in what sequence they should be tokenized as opposed to starting with a PE fund or some random piece of real estate or some other random thing that nobody else wants and nobody else knows

even what it is, starting with the biggest and most liquid assets and bring them on chain and following that sequence of optionality such that, you know, eventually the more marginal investor who's living in some random country around the world. It's like, oh, okay, great, treasuries. I know what that is. I can see why I'd want that as part of my portfolio. And then I might want this other thing and this other thing and this other thing. And you get this menu forming in a sensible way that builds up this impression of like,

hey, I can go on chain and I can buy the kinds of assets that I understand and care about as part of a sound financial portfolio as opposed to I go on chain and I can find dollars and then really random stuff that like some random entrepreneur decided they wanted to tokenize, and then basically, you know, the crypto casino. And in between we have NFTs, which I think are a really fun approximation of assets that are sending liquid on chain. Yeah. Well, we'll soon have the World Coin orb identities.

When are they coming on chain? I think they are on their own L2 right now, right? But there's a POA. I think it's POA, though. I think the goal is for they'll be posted. They'll be. wait, they're on an L2 that's P-O-A, that how's an L-2? Well, there's a plan to convert it.

Okay, I see. I see. You know what's funny? Like, we haven't used the phrase P-O-A in, like, years. Like, I feel like it was, like, a phrase from, like, 2017. But in a lot of ways, like, a lot of the L-2s are kind of P-O-A. Just we don't use that phrase anymore. I think the term L-2 is a little bit aspirational at this point, right?

It's like, L-2 kind of means, like, we, We have the goal of no longer being a multi-sig at some point. But basically pretty much all of these L2s, deep down somewhere, there's a multi-sig, and the multi-sig basically, if they wanted to, they could control it, whether it's like controlling the fraud proofs and like the fraud proofs are whitelisted, or, you know, the code can be upgraded, or there are no fraud-proofs in the crazy optimism stack, or these ZK roll-ups are all obviously super experimental, so there's everything is super protected. The reality is like today, L2 is more like the destination.

as opposed to a description of the present. Well, I agree, but that's because I think it's technically extremely challenging to decentralize them fully safely, right, for all the different reasons. For sure, yes. Right. I think it's correct that they're this way. I don't think if they should skip a step. If we go back to our first chart, I mean, the question really is, like,

is that amount of revenue that has to be spent going to worth decentralizing, right? Like, there's some sense in like, yeah. You missed the second chart, which was. the profit, the delta between the fees that they're charging people and what they're paying to settle. And so, you know, some of them are making, what, like a thousand eth per month on the spread. So, like, that is pretty attractive. But, you know, it's also, like, going back to the POA thing. It's like, you know, it's their levels to security. I think this stuff is all obviously better than, like, you know, any sort of, you know, P-OA network.

and it's you're really what you're what you're risking is the difference between the last the last proof that was posted on chain so it's like you know okay sure it's not ideal but like we're getting there it's it's iterative by the way for those who don't know p oa means proof of authority which basically means a multi-sig more or less yeah it means you have the keys but but i will say there have been some successful chains have transitioned from p oa to their own chains like nosis chain which started as x die which was p oa but now now you can run a nose chain validator. Yeah.

I've been wanting to write a blog post about this, and I've been caught up with a bunch of stuff, but I'm going to write it eventually. But I want to get your guys take on this in real time as I think through this thesis. So I feel like over the last six months, so we've been, you know, so we invested into ZK Sync.

We've been, you know, big bulls of layer two generally. But I feel like lately the conversation has become, and I see this more and more, especially among like the kind of crypto intelligentsia, that like, layer ones are basically irrelevant now, because, or Altil ones. Altil ones are basically relevant now because we have the roll-ups, the promised land is here,

we can finally get off this like intermediate step or like this ship that we were using to get onto the beautiful, you know, promised land of roll-ups. And I guess my thesis is something on the lines of like, the Alt-L-1s are still really important and they're not going to go away and I think they actually still have

some structural advantages over L-2s. So before I go into why I think that, I'm curious just to get your gut level reaction, or do you think, especially the EVM-based Alt-L-1s, do you think they're like basically done once that Layer 2s are like fully feature-complete? Well, I actually think the Alt-L-1s are long-term more useful and more valuable than the L2s potentially because... Okay, interesting. Why? And maybe I'm tripping in, like, we didn't talk about this on like the last episode or

like I'm just imagining this, or maybe we did talk about this in the last episode, or maybe this was a conversation I just had with some crypto people, like, on the streets of Brooklyn or something. But all the L2s are just EVM chains. And when it comes to being an application developer, even if there's 100 L2s, they're not really offering you any new capabilities that you don't already have for launching an application. And I give kudos to the Alt L1s that are actually like providing different capabilities to application writers, mostly through choice of language or text specs or whatever. But like Solano legitimately offers something different than Ethereum.

Avalanche offers something different than Ethereum. You know, Pocod offers something different than Ethereum. All the L2s offer basically the same thing. And every L2 offers basically the same thing as every other L2. Even if you have 400 of them, it doesn't really, fundamentally change the toolkit available to application developers. And at the end of the day, the whole point of all of these platforms is to enable applications to be built on top of them.

And so I think all the different Alt-L-1s are more useful in that they offer different tools to developers that L2s don't. And so I don't think having 100 different EVM chains is the promised land. Like, 100 different EVM chains in my mind is almost exactly the same or equally as good as having like one EVM chain. I think it's a lot of wasted effort and a lot of wasted resources as a society. And I think there's so much more value that comes from totally different approaches that get tried than having yet another L2, which I think adds fundamentally nothing. So I would say that another interesting fact is that, you know, a little bit like Ethereum last bear market where the Bitcoin maxis were constantly hounding them, but the developers were like dug their toes in, like, fuck you, we're still going to keep building things here. I feel like Solana does have that and no other all L1 does have that where there's this community of people who are like, they're just, they're like almost like a cult in belief on the developer side because like we.

believe in these particular attributes. Cosmos has that, but everyone in Cosmos likes to cut each other. You know, like it's a knife fight constantly. A, B, anytime someone is like, hey, how do I make something easier for a user? Oh, guess what? Make another Cosmos chain and add another token. It's like the equivalent of that, you know, the XKCD, the comic on the standards and technology. Like, hey, we have 15 standards.

I'm going to make one that rules them all. Okay, now we have 16 standards. And, like, Cosmos has that problem, like, inherently in a way that I think is difficult. People are definitely working on trying to homogenize things. But I think, you know, sovereignty comes at a cost. Polano is actually weirdly, the developer community is so adamant there in, like, a way that reminds me of Ethereum developers to the bottom of the last bear market. Which is good.

Yeah, I think it's honestly true for any chain. Like, your time about, like, legit chains or, like, legit communities and legit, legit developers, but like go down Coin Gecko and choose any random like 2017 era L1. And like, dude, there will be people in the Discord, in the telegram on the Reddit, hyped about the chain for some particular reason. And it's sort of like a, you know, religious in some way. And like, it's not just number go up. People talk about like applications and like there are random depths.

People who got like married to like a particular like chain ideology in a same way. Like I just think they don't with like a, you know, L2. Maybe on a tangent from this topic, but it's been. I was thinking about is like it seems to your point around these layer twos as a service or like stuff like base popping up they kind of get co-promoted or like heralded by sort of like the chain like optimism but these feel very cannibalistic right like now optimism has to and or any layer two basically has to make an argument as to why they you know why you need to sort of co-locate on their chain with the other apps versus like running your own you know fork of it and that

seems like a harder case to make over time. We're building a base for that matter, right? Isn't base, like, directly cannibalistic from optimism? I mean, it's, it's point zero sum, right? They're the same damn stack. But one of them has corn base distribution and one of them has, like, O.P. I'd be pissed if I was optimism. I don't think they're not.

I don't think they're not. They definitely are not. Yeah, they're clearly celebrating this. I mean, I think it's not obvious. And the other thing, too, like I think in a lot of these cases, the token, at least in the short term, it's kind of a meme token, right? Like, obviously the fees for these layer twos, I mean, except for like the, like you said, the sort of the spread between the fees on chain and the call data they have to actually post. It's reasonable, what, like 20 million a year

run rate or something like that? It's like not a crazy amount of money, but it's like not nothing. But it's obviously not worth like 10 billion FTV. So take Adam, for example, right? Like Adam, obviously, there is de minimis value going through the cosmos hub, which is what the atom token actually is claim on. Adam is doge coin for nerds. Yes, it has no utility other than stroking J-Quan's ego, other than J-Quan's stroking of ego with it. There's really nothing else.

For a lot of these things, it is just the model, right? So I think like for O-P token, I don't know that there was a rational reason why, like, when base launched, OP token should go up when base and the optimism, you know, whatever it's called, like the optimism canonical distro, I don't know what you'd chain, whatever you'd call it. Like clearly these are in competition with each other

and they use the same stack, and you're going to deploy on one or you're going to deploy in the other. Base did say, well, we're going to give some of the fees to the optimism collective or whatever, but then they walked back how many fees they're going to give. And like, obviously, they're not going to give the majority of the fees because it's their chain and they can change it at any time they want. It's up to them unless there's some contract, which would be kind of weird. So end of the day, and obviously they could always change, right?

Like if there's going to be an alternative layer two stack that is open source and is totally license free. And they're like, oh, optimism wants to extract more rent from you. Or I'm basically going to be like, okay, well, never mind. will switch and do some regeneresis or something. It will create a transition plan to go to something else where somebody else gets the fees. So I just don't know. In the short term, I think nobody cares.

In the short term, it's all meme warfare. And maybe appropriately so. Maybe it's right for them to think about it as meme warfare. But I don't think the market's thinking about it this way because clearly when base launch, that was like super, that's considered to be super bullish for optimism, despite the fact that now, okay, there's a third competitor on the layer two space.

Well, I don't think the market thinks that much in general. in crypto. Like, I don't think we have these, like, extremely rational markets where, you know, there's fundamental analysis done on all the different. Arguably, base not launching with a token, though, is very positive for O.P. In the sense of securities stuff. No, I mean, it's going to be, you know, Coinbase runs a sequencer and the revenue goes to Coinbase Inc.

Like, I don't think that's complicated. Well, I think, I think, to his point is also a good one, is that the demand for investing into layer two's, there's only really today two tokens you can invest in, arbitralmon optimism. And if Bayes had a token, there would be a third. And I think that's a simple enough analysis to be correct, that that was good for optimism, that BASE did not launch a token. It's just buying B&B in late 2020. OPE is the proxy for better or worse. It's strange. It's strange. AQ move, but you know, I am agreeing with the thesis that Haseeb was, I don't really have a strong view on that thesis,

but I will say I think that's the logic people's, you know, the left curve logic is literally what I just. Right. Yeah. Well, there's no token, so they'll use OPE, but like. So I've, obviously, none of us are traders, as far as I know. Robert, you can see yourself a trader? I feel like you're the most active in markets of any of us.

I am not active at all. I am not a trade. Okay. So none of us are traders. So to be clear, we're all totally incompetent. making these kinds of evaluations. Yeah, nothing here is investment advice because we all saw. Obviously, nothing investment advice because we're all terrible at investing in short-term

trades. But I will say the longer I've been in crypto, the more that I've learned that the obvious thing is usually right. That's just like the number one piece of advice that I give to everybody in crypto. Ape token trading at $4 billion FD, you know? Hey, they're going to ship a Metaverse. Ape is necessary to power the ecosystem. I'd be, I'd be bullish if they launch their

an optimism for it. Yeah, what, ape is essential for the future companies. Yeah, when is they going to launch their own layer too? Okay, I think we've, we've technically hit an hour. This was a very experimental show. It's also very late at night, so I hope you're feeling the late night chill vibes. Let's go ahead and sign off.

I think next week we'll do something a little more sensible than this, but I hope that this was coming out with a slightly different flavor of the chop in the top of the law. To be clear, this is what we used to do. do. Back when we were doing the like, before the chopping block was a thing, we used to do Twitter spaces that was like the robot ventures, dragonfly, like, what was it, like happy hours, like Friday happy hours? And we would just like talk about random stuff. And this was the vibe back. Yeah, we'd have a mirror and just, you know. Exactly. And then now we've gotten so professionalized and we

have an agenda and we like talk about the news. We thought we're going to talk about Gary Gensler. And we didn't. See, we're all. always mix it up here at the chopping blog. That's what the show's all about, keeping you guessing. Okay, that's it. Turun, I hope your food has gotten here. I hope it's not too cold. What did you order, by the way?

I think it was turkey burger. Turkey burger. That's very healthy. We're not editing this out. We're going to like deep in. That's what you would say. If you ordered like two pizzas, you'd be like, I got a turkey burger. Look, Zooko's not listening, you know.

Do you remember how Zerunka? was like a big meatitarian and, uh, it's like always crowding, eating carnivore, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But, you know, I feel like turkey burger is like a cheap, you know, something people don't, don't, don't respect as much. Tarun, you know, that is a very feminized meal as a turkey burger. I can't believe you would. You don't respect it. I love it. You're showing hate. All right. Signing off. Thanks, everyone. Good in next week.