Unchained - The Chopping Block: Can Exchange CEOs Like SBF Be Crypto True Believers? - Ep. 416

Episode Date: November 5, 2022

 Welcome to The Chopping Block! Crypto insiders Haseeb Qureshi, Robert Leshner, Tom Schmidt, and Tarun Chitra chop it up about the latest news in the digital asset industry.  Show topics: Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter – and its effect on DOGE the irony that people working in centralized companies want to decentralize Twitter whether Twitter is going to become like Facebook why Twitter has been the most pro-crypto among big tech companies why Tarun thinks Binance Pay is an impressive product whether it is possible to run a decentralized social media for billions of users the debate between Sam Bankman-Fried and Erik Voorhees about crypto regulation whether crypto exchange CEOs are true believers in the philosophy of crypto why Haseeb believes Sam Bankman-Fried is a very honest person how Reddit used a simple strategy to gain massive adoption whether it is necessary to rebrand NFTs Hosts Haseeb Qureshi, managing partner at Dragonfly Capital Tarun Chitra, managing partner at Robot Ventures Robert Leshner, founder of Compound  Tom Schmidt, general partner at Dragonfly Capital Episode Links Twitter acquisition What Are the Potential Impacts of Musk’s Twitter Purchase? Sam Bankman-Fried, founder and CEO of FTX, will receive between $50 million and $100 million from Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter. Vitalik Buterin said Musk’s idea of charging $8 a month for a blue check on Twitter could “damage the blue check's anti-scam role.” Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao said he would join Twitter’s board if Elon Musk asked him to.  Crypto regulation Industry Leaders Debate How to Regulate DeFi Bankless debate between SBF and Erik Voorhees  Alameda’s Balance Sheet Sparks Controversy Trojan Horse of NFTs? Reddit Onboards 3M Wallets as Trading Volume Soars Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Not a dividend. It's a tale of two Kwan. Now, your losses are on someone else's balance. Generally speaking, air drops are kind of pointless anyways. Unnamed the trading firms who are very involved. D5 protocols are the antidote to this problem. All right. 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. So, we start with intros. First of that we got Tom, the DFI Maven and Master of Means. Next, we've got Robert, Crypto Connoisseur, and Captain of Compound. Next, we've got Tarun, the Gigabrain, and Grand Puba at Gauntlet. And finally, got myself, I'm a Seab, the Head, Hype Man at Dragonfly.

All four of us of early-stage investors in crypto, but I want to caveat that nothing we say here is investment advice, legal advice, or even life advice. So it's been a wild week. The big news of the week, so I'm in San Francisco right now, and all of SF is a buzz about this. Finally, Elon Musk was forced to buy Twitter. And I was here on Friday. I think Friday was the day that, like, he came into the building and started cleaning house. And there were a bunch of reporters outside the Twitter office, which is usually like kind of a dank part of SF. People were just waiting for employees to come walking out with like all their stuff in a box to try to interview them.

So it's been, it's been crazy to see. Everybody is kind of a combination of scared and excited. It turns out there's a lot of interesting crypto elements that are weaved into the story. So for one, part of the investment syndicate included 500 million from finance. CZ was interviewed about, hey, what do you think about investing in a Twitter? And he was like, oh, it's great. I love free speech. Apparently, Sam Bankrupt Fried was a shareholder in Twitter.

And so Sam Bankrupted made some quick money. I think he said he owned somewhere between $50 and $100 million in Twitter. And so the buyout obviously did well for him. Pocket change. Dogecoin, true, for him probably. Dogecoin has gone nuts, best performing asset in the last week. I think it's up well over 100%. What do you guys think about the Twitter acquisition?

We're here now and everyone's worried about it. Well, let's just start with the Doge piece because I think that's the most relevant and fun and interesting for the crypto audience. So one of the documents that I saw that was released pursuant to the lawsuit was actually a conversation he was having about the future of Twitter as a blockchain asset. Obviously, you know, leading up to the acquisition, there was interest from a lot of crypto people to participate. CZ participated. There was interest from SBF. There was interest from a lot of other people. Obviously, Alon Musk is well known for espousing an interest in crypto. And so one of the documents that came out was actually him being asked about how Twitter could work on a blockchain. And even though it was probably an offhand comment and it was like, you know, discardable and it might even been a joke.

He said that the tweets could themselves be posted onto a blockchain, like, like Dogecoin, and you might be in the situation in the future, which you're actually paying Dogecoin, you know, as a transaction, to republish the same content or to retweet. So a retweet would potentially cost Dogecoin. So I actually found that one interesting that he was talking about, how maybe it could exist on a blockchain, and two, that, you know, whether it was a deliberate, you know, wink, wink, you know, nod to the community or not,

that he referenced Dogecoin as an example of how Twitter could integrate. And so, you know, I think that's what was one of many things that fueled a lot of excitement over last week from the Dogecoin community. You know, it might have been a joke. Alana is truly the master of trolling in every sense of the word. But I found that interesting that it has been a conversation about how Twitter could integrate and that, you know, he was using Doge as the example. So these were in text messages, right, that like came out in discovery or something?

So these were not intended for public consumption. to be clear. So I saw another Elon Text League that came out, also came out in Discovery, where I forget who was talking to him about, like, running a decentralized Twitter. And he was like, very down on the idea. He was like, no, like, that doesn't make any sense. Like there's not nearly enough scale to be able to process that. You have like state float, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And so it's like, I don't really know where his head is at. And it also reminded me, like, what's happening with blue sky? Blue sky is spun out, but I'm assuming Twitter still owns some of it. So, like, you know, what's the latest with that project? How does that relate to the Twitter acquisition? I don't know. They did release their first version. And yeah, I'm friends with the person who runs it.

And I haven't talked to her in a while since she actually joined. But before that, she was more afraid. They're actually doing something. I mean, their model of the world is like they want everything to look like Git. And they want everyone to be able to clone their own Twitter repo and, like, you know, be able to do, you know, like, forks of it. It's a little bit like, I do feel like it's way too developery in the sense that it's like, I could kind of, it's, I find a hard time imagining a non-developer using it. It's like, why did Git take a long time?

You know, Git was invented in like the 90s. Like, Linus Torvalds committed it. I think the first commit message was like 1990, 1921. But it did take Bitbucket GitHub, whatever, to actually make Git useful. before that people were using like perforce mercurial things like that and so there is there's kind of this trade off of like if you make it a little to get like and like need everyone to manage their own local forks it's like really it's like yeah theoretically a wall is supposed to do that for you but it's like really hard with a social network at least in my mind well isn't that what masadon is supposed to be and

like there's there's been this talk about people migrating away from twitter to masadon as like protest of Elon I assume this is like massively overrun my my favorite thing is like you know I would say, like, if I had to describe myself and be, like, the groups, the not really intersecting groups in Twitter I'm in, it's like crypto Twitter, ML Twitter, some of math Twitter, some of physics Twitter. And, like, physics Twitter and math Twitter are just like, we hate Elon, but whatever. And ML Twitter is like, oh, my God, there's going on this huge rampage. And then it's ironic because I'm like, these are people who are like the head of ML at Amazon. or head of ML at OpenAI or like researcher

at a professor of university. And I'm like, it is kind of ironic that the people who are working on the like most centralizing technology in the, in the history of mankind are like, we want this decentralized chat platform. Like I still

can't get over the irony of that. Well, but here's the other irony. Here's the other irony, right? Is that a lot of the storytelling about why we wanted decentralized Twitter was that Twitter was that Twitter was making all of these unilateral decisions censoring people, deciding which viewpoints are okay and which ones are not. Elon is now explicitly saying Twitter's going to stop doing that. We're going to be the platform of free speech, blah, blah, blah. If that actually happens,

which I'm skeptical that it's going to happen and they're going to be able to retain advertisers, but let's say that, in fact, it's going to do what Elon says it's going to do. It kind of defeats a lot of the ostensible value proposition for why you care about censorship resistant Twitter if Twitter massively tones down the censorship. On the other hand, the people who are mostly complaining are really more on the left. There are really more people who just don't like Elon Musk, think that he's an asshole, thinks that he's like bad for the world, don't like the idea of billionaires owning platforms. So their protest is like a very different kind of protest than the kinds of protests that are previously animated calls for a decentralized

alternative to Twitter. Now, of course, the actual decentralized alternative to Twitter today, which is de facto Macedon is still like a tiny nothing that nobody really cares about. I mean, it's cool. It's an awesome project, but in reality, it's so small

compared to what Twitter is. I don't know. It feels to me a little bit, it feels a bit too shrill right now. And obviously, we don't know what changes Elon is going to make. He's talked about

freezing moderation decisions until they construct some kind of council, and that council is going to be making very large, important moderation decisions for the platform, which is basically

exactly what Facebook has, if I recall. And so essentially Twitter is going to become more like Facebook, which I'm not sure really how radical that is. And also, for some reason, do people perceive it as radical on both sides? Like I think on the right, people are like, wow, that's like a radical change of open free speech. And on the left, they're like, oh, that's a radical, you know, reversion to allowing hate speech and all these other horrible things happen. To my mind, it's basically turning Twitter into Facebook. I mean, my favorite thing right after the announcement was all of the larping of like, oh, look, I see no bots around.

look, I see more. There's a lot of, like, misinformation about misinformation, which was kind of one of the most hilarious things I've ever seen that happened over the weekend, I feel like. Yeah, there's a tremendous amount of virtue signaling going on right now around the Twitter acquisition, or not acquisition. But the best thing about it is all these people who are tweeting about how to go follow their Mastodon server, and then you go back to their Twitter the next day, like, oh, no, no, no,

actually, like, hey, you come to my Mastodon server. And it's like every day they're writing a tweet. Go over the Mastodon. I find those tweets I find the funniest. There was actually a really good like Hacker News comment. Someone was describing how to set up their Mastodon server and do all this. And then someone was like, yeah, you could also like write out your, you know, message on the notes app and screenshot it. And it would have the same effect because no one's going to see the fucking Mastodon post.

And you can save yourself some time. That was pretty good. Yeah, to be clear, we're talking a lot about Mastodon. It's probably worth explaining what it is. So Massadon is a federated social media platform. It's kind of like you can sort of set up your own server that acts as your own sort of mini Twitter and many different people can have their own servers and servers can reference each other.

So it's like a federated version of Twitter, but it's entirely kind of self-sovereign of smaller servers. And so it's existed for a very long time. It's been kind of niche. And now people are talking about it because they're, I think mostly because they're virtually signaling about Elon Musk buying Twitter. So we'll see what happens here. There's been some rumblings about, so beyond the Dogecoin stuff, there was also a potential leak. It's speculation, unclear, that Twitter has been building a product to have a wallet integrated directly into Twitter.

Were there any more details than that, or was that, was that it? It comes from a tweet from Jane Wong, who I've followed for a long time. She's great. Generally, I think her strategy is she, like, decompiles app store binaries and sort of pokes through it to find features that are in development. And they tend to be pretty accurate. and sometimes you even gets like screenshots of stuff that's in development. So I would assume there's something in the current Twitter App Store binary that alludes to a wallet or as some sort of prototype for a wallet. So I mean, Twitter has been like the most pro-crypto of the big tech companies, which is kind of strange.

Well, I mean, they have the crypto user base. There's some feedback loop there. It can't just be one way. Like during the NFP boom, I think I remember the interesting thing was like watching all of these accounts that had, you know, 150K to a million followers on Instagram coming to Twitter for the first time because they wanted to sell NFTs and they like couldn't, like no one on Instagram was buying any NFTs. And so I thought that was like, that's a pretty interesting dynamic of like, hey, the market actually is like, if Twitter has any monetization vehicle that

isn't just charging more for verification, it probably has to use crypto. I don't really see. I mean, to be clear, Twitter, remember Twitter was banning crypto advertising, right? So, like, they were making money on Twitter users by showing them irrelevant ads. But if they were showing crypto ads,

I think Twitter would become a crypto company. They would have made so much money. Yeah, last cycle they should have, right? Like 90% of NFT marketing probably was Twitter and Discord. And if we look at the two companies, did they make any money off of that? Like, I'm sure their stock went up a bit

based on some numbers. But I don't think that they made any, like on a direct accountable revenue basis. You know, imagine if they had an affiliate marketing thing with OpenC where any, any link that went to OpenC from Twitter, like OpenC paid them like two basis points of the fee,

five base points. I mean, they could have done a lot of the things. Could be more aggressive. Possible they are doing that for the PFPs. Yeah, they could be doing that for PFCs. That's true. Yeah, I mean, think about how much money Metamask makes on, you know, charging 87 bits or whatever,

you make that into Twitter, like, I don't see why not. Yeah. Unfortunately, Elon kind of took this thing over at precisely the wrong time to get, to ring very much out of the crypto industry. Finance is like, hey, let's put BUSD pay in Twitter. I thought that was hilarious. These really been pushing that. Basically, finance pay, however, is the most impressive product of the last three months

that I've seen period in crypto, right? I've not used it. Wait, walk us through what it is because I have not used it. Yeah, so Binance has basically been, actually, Tom, if you want to get up the BUSD market cap or BUSD versus USC market caps in the last three months, I think that tells half the story. But Binance has really been working on getting BUSD, their USD like stable coin, which is actually held in New York, bizarrely, because it's sort of issued by Paxos. And they've been working on getting that integrated in a lot of places and also, you know, actually removing USDC pairs on by finance and like trying to encourage people to use BUSD. Yeah, I think that's a bigger story, right?

It's like you basically are getting forced converted into BUSD if you have USD. I don't know how much B-Binance pay is driving that conversion. But finance pay though has had like $10 billion of actual volume that's just people sending BUSD on BINC to each other. There's actually like quite a bit of like payment stuff that seems to be happening in BUSD terms in Latin America and Africa. Actually, in Columbia during DevCon, I walked by a little, like, almost like local Bitcoin's like place that would like take local currency and give you BUSD. And I was like, as the first time I'd seen that.

I've only seen that around amongst like local Bitcoin's type of thing. I've never seen that for like the USD stable. Wow. And so I think BUSD is, I mean, yeah, you can just see the market cap growth. It's like clearly, you know, they're really pushing on trying to get it to get used. And it is 50. it's almost 50% of circle of the USCC's market cap is pretty close. And it was like nothing before.

So I think CZ's been actually saying like literally since the access stream closed, like, hey, like I'm going to keep trying to push like finance pay to get integrated into Twitter. Which is just using BUSD settlement. Kind of like the way Solana pay is doing USC settlement, like similar. Yeah. I can see some of the growth here. Yeah, there's kind of loosely related. One of the things I've seen some.

hand-wringing about coming back to the Twitter story is the fact that there's so much foreign ownership of Twitter. And of course, CZ is one of those actors. He owns a significant amount. I think some of the Saudis own a very significant chunk of Twitter. And then, of course, Elon Musk himself has significant business interests in China and has relationships with the governments of many other countries. What do you guys think about the kind of free speech and or?

you know, making something like a neutral, a neutral ground for public opinion being potentially jeopardized by all these foreign interests having a big stake in Twitter. I mean, I think there's a lot of interest that held Twitter before it was taken private, you know, you know, as a publicly traded company, there was a lot of people that owned it. You know, I don't think it's going to change. I, you know, I don't think, you know, it's going to increase necessarily, you know, they call it the intervention into what content's allowed and not allowed on Twitter. I think in general, Alon seems like he wants to take it in the opposite direction,

which is way less control over what content is allowed. And so I think in general it's going to, you know, you can call it free speech or you can call it, you know, whatever Alon wants it to be. But I mean, there's going to be less moderation. I mean, the other thing to keep in mind, so Tesla is worth $670 billion. Twitter is worth something, you know, fair market value is probably somewhere in the order of 30-something billion. So it's 1-20th, less than 120th, the value of Tesla to say nothing of SpaceX. And so very much from the perspective of Elon, I have to imagine that his,

I matter exactly what his interest in Tesla is, but has to be much larger than his interest in Twitter. And so to some degree, Twitter might just become subordinate to his business interests in... He did sell a lot of Tesla. I mean, not a lot relative to his holdings, but like 10% something to fund this. Yeah. But he still has more, like net overall. Yeah, it must be a lot more. So like, look, if China's leaning on him and China basically says, like, look, we're going to cut your contracts or we're going to make life much harder for you to do some of your manufacturing here or to access our markets unless you blah, blah, blah, blah with Twitter, I think that that does seem actually pretty seriously concerning.

And that might be in some sense the best argument that we have left for why Twitter. why a decentralized version of Twitter is potentially more compelling at a moment like this. Anyway, okay, let's move off from Twitter. We'll probably have a lot more to say once we actually know what's going to happen. Can I ask a quick question? One around the horn thing for each of us answer. Do you think if Twitter moves to this $8, you have to be, your verification is paid for? You will have less spammy blue check marks.

Do you think it will increase, stay the same, decrease? I think decrease. Yeah, I don't, so I don't actually understand the concept here. Is it yet like if you're already verified, you now have to pay, or is it the idea that anybody can pay to get verified? I think it is actually, I think you have to pay if you're already verified, but I think they're going to change the verification process. At least that's what, yeah.

Yeah, it does seem a bit too vague. It seems a bit too vague right now. What exactly is going to happen. What I saw was that people who are verified have to pay. I think it's ever anyone. I think the problem is the current verification process is literally like, do you know someone who works at Twitter, ask them to give you a blue checkmark and then they'll vouch for you.

Are you saying this because you're the only one of us who's not verified? You sound a little salty. You know, some of us are men of the people. Okay, that's right. That's right. I just, I'm never joining this blue checkmark cabal. That's like, that's like, that's like the Knights of Columbus of online media. Yeah, I mean, obviously the purpose of the verification, right, is to prevent, you know, fake accounts and bots.

So giving that to everyone seems kind of silly. But I think the big question is just like why this monetization method, like I understand maybe the desire to get away from advertising if you're going to be cutting down in moderation. But like if you just do the math, like this doesn't really scale up to be meaningful to Twitter's bottom line. You know, Twitter made like $5 billion last year in revenue. Like you're not going to be able to make $5 billion charging people $8 a month, assuming sort of certain opt-in rates and certain usage patterns.

So it seems kind of like a weird side show. Yeah, obviously a very big. very small number of Twitter users are verified. Now, if they do open up verification and say, verification now means you're a real person rather than that you're a notable person, or maybe there's like a two-tier system, there's like a gray checkmark for you're a real person, and then a blue for you're a notable person.

I think there's just no way that they're going to get rid of the blue checkmarks being a separate and special group of people. That just seems like kind of intrinsic to how society is organized. Every single social media platform, even Discord has this concept of like the blue verified checkmark that, like, yeah, you're like a special notable person. It's on Facebook. It's on pretty much every single social media platform has this concept. So I'd be very surprised if Twitter gets rid of it, but they may add another thing, which is you are a real person and everybody is going to be filtering

your ability to engage with Twitter based on whether or not you can pass this real person test, which is basically just civil resistance, right? It's just like pay eight bucks a month. So it's almost like you're asking, do you think paying eight bucks a month is like a good civil resistance mechanism. I'm like, yeah, probably. Because like, there's no way that the average bot is making more than $8 a month. Bought IRA. It's pretty low. That's why it's so, that's why it's so, because it's so cheap to spin up a bot on Twitter. That's why all these things, that's why they're there, you know, when I was at Airbnb. I had this friend who actually worked at Spotify and then left Spotify to make a bot farm, like one of the phone farming farms, like the, and they, they, they, they,

said the highest highest return is Spotify for sure because musicians will like pay way more to get moved up the ranks because like they have direct economic ties to it like record labels will sign you based on like those metrics so like it's literally worth money to them.

Oh yeah that makes sense. So I was when I was at Airbnb I used to work on payments fraud and so we had a pretty deep view into the economics of you know basically what it costs to spin up a fake account. Usually it involves like some kind of supply chain. If you go on the dark net, you buy, you know, compromised email, whether it's like a Gmail or a Yahoo or whatever, you use that compromised Gmail that has some reputation to like create an account of Airbnb. You buy a, you know, a fake passport.

That's like the most expensive part of that supply chain if you actually have to KYC. And that's why KYC is often the gold standard is that it's just the most expensive to fake. Yeah, for the most part, like it gets you into the several dollars. and unless you're on a very high value marketplace, like Airbnb, Airbnb is very, very high dollar value if you can scam someone on Airbnb because these transactions are, you know, hundreds or even thousands of dollars, but doing it on a much smaller scale or much smaller platform, just doesn't, the unit economics just don't work. So I'd imagine during the, during the heyday of crypto, it would have been worth it because

a single mark can net you so much money if somebody falls for your scam. But today, with many fewer eyeballs on crypto and people just being more, just being less crazy and less kind of maniacal about what's going on in the space, my guess is that conversions and ROI are super down for even scammers across the industry. Actually, I guess this brings back one other question. Amongst the current crypto-native, actually I saw this in the YouTube questions, which is why I wanted to bring this up, which is like amongst, you know, lens and farcaster, and where do you, how do you feel about the, like, native crypto-social

network? So I think we've actually never talked about them on the show. All right. What are your opinions on them? Because I, you know, I feel like I don't have a fully formed opinion other than I've definitely heard a lot of people saying that like, Farcasters like the VC, is a VC Twitter just migrated and Lens is like the DGens migrated. But like that's like the highest level thing.

And I've used lens. I've never used Farcasters. I don't have much strong in terms of strong opinion. I feel like that's right. I don't know. Is anybody active on either Farcaster or lens? I check out a Farkaster sometimes, maybe once or twice a week. You go on twice a week.

That's pretty good. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I feel like with these crypto social media plays, I feel like they're mostly, there's a great piece by Eugene Way called Status as a Service. It's like the quintessential piece on understanding how new social media platforms come into existence and like how they compete with each other.

And I think the primary thing that matters when it comes to. giving life to a new social media platform is understanding what is the status game that's being played on this new platform and what is the crew or the community or the vibe or the um the you know just the group that i'm going to be joining if i join this platform and so i think it's much less about the technology it's much more about the community and the people and the and the kind of status that you're afforded by getting on this new platform and so i think to ruin you're absolutely right ones for de jans once for vc's um if they can make that work maybe that's a good way to see to community. But I think it's tough, right? Most social media plays fail just, you know, kind of on the,

from the beginning. Yeah, Farcaster reminds me a lot of early Reddit, like kind of 2007, 2008, when it was like seated by all the YC people. And so similar kind of thing, like people, mine what is already happening on a social network. And so that's kind of the vibe or the culture that's like been seated on Farcaster. Yeah, I don't know that people are fundamentally driven by, I like this thing because it's decentralized. I think maybe for Macedon, I think Macedon is actually a good example of people who are really ideological

and are using something because it's decentralized or because it's federated or whatever, you know, whatever you want to call it. I think vast majority of users don't make decisions that way. They make decisions based on a value proposition. And for social media, the value proposition is social. So it's like, who's there? What's the content that's there?

That's what's going to make people make these decisions. But I can imagine that starting from the place of we are going to be this, you know, maximally decentralized place, attracts the right people, attracts the right crowd, builds you the right culture. I think it's possible,

but, you know, you have to prove it. Here's my extremely naive and extremely macro perspective on this. So if you look at like what tech companies have been in the business of doing over the last like 10 years, like in general,

it's been a massive struggle to build enough server farms to even like host and keep up with their platforms. because they have, in some cases, actually a billion users, which is incomprehensibly a large amount of usage. Google and Facebook and Twitter, like, everyone who's like been in this market has just been investing so hard in just keeping a platform like up. And, you know, when I look at centralized versus decentralized, just like data and compute and hosting, it's like, yes, all of these platforms are amazing when you have 10,000 users. Like you literally can run anything on a blockchain with 10,000 users.

You really can't run anything in a decentralized or distributed way when there's a billion users unless you make like radical changes and compromises. And so, you know, I think all of these, you know, alternatives look amazing when you're counting users in the tens of thousands. I don't necessarily expect the, you know, function that, you know, when there's 100 million or a billion. I don't know if 100 million or a billion people want to use something just because it's. decentralized. But like the hardest problem is building something that a hundred million or a billion people want to use. And that's unbelievably hard. And once you do that, it's just an unbelievably complicated and difficult tech problem of being able to serve them without going down instantly. I mean, I will say one thing I think that's interesting about the lens version of the world is like

it sort of implicitly assumes that there's going to be hundreds of roll-ups and each community is going to like run on its own roll-up and like, you and it's sort of in my mind like if the multi-chain thesis and like people are willing to have their own coin for validation works like you i could see that being a better version of um sort of blue sky or macedon yeah like like i i can kind of see that the incentivized version of those for many small communities could work versus like the one big melting pot type of thing and and i like it's cool to see the experiments with that I mean, that's basically the difference between Reddit and Twitter, right?

Like, Twitter is a giant public forum. Reddit is like a bunch of little communities. It feels like, I mean, I'm not, I haven't spent that much time thinking about these things, but it does seem like those are two almost different categories of social media. And I don't think you're going to end up in a similar place where the kinds of conversations that happen on Reddit are very different than the kind of conversations that happen on Twitter. And sometimes people complain about that. Like, oh, the idea that anybody can jump up and reply to.

Igui you when you're on Twitter. And on Reddit, like, you're in these very specialized forums. Oftentimes, they're very different rules, very different etiquette. People often try to create those sub-communities within Twitter and say, okay, well, this is like, this is the part of Twitter where we talk this way and we do this kind of thing. But you kind of always know that, like, you're not an enclosed space. You are talking in public. And that, it feels like one of the different categories of how social media and how these sort of digital spaces effectively are going to be horded off and how we're going to think about the rules around them. Like, if you look at the way that people, the way that people use the decentralized social media stuff today,

the interesting thing about it is that it's mostly starting, almost all these communities are starting with very high value users, right? So they're very wealthy, they're usually accomplished, they have a lot of free time. These are not like the person who's joining Twitter today is very likely a very low value user. they're really, you know, kind of wealthy, knowledgeable, connected, elite people, they're already on Twitter. They're already on social media. And so in some sense, I kind of feel like a little bit of what's happening with these decentralized social media plays is they're trying to attract a very, very wealthy, high LTV community. And if you can do that, then it's plausible.

It's long term value for users. Or lifetime value. It's plausible that if you have like really, really valuable users, because they're all like kind of the crypto. intelligentsia or the crypto super wealthy, and they hang out in one particular place, that their eyeballs will be way more valuable than other eyeballs, right? But fundamentally, that's how social media platforms monetize. They monetize on eyeballs, and they advertise stuff to you, right? So you can imagine that maybe that's a story of how even if these social media platforms

that are decentralized don't become world-scale, they don't get hundreds of millions or even billions of users, but they're just a place where everyone there is super valuable to advertise to. that's one story of how they can become valuable. Another story is that they monetize in a totally different way. So, you know, obviously people have talked for a long, long, long time about the idea that you have to pay to tweet, you have to pay to retweet, you have to, you know, blah, people get paid for curating, blah, blah, blah, I'm skeptical of those stories.

I think, like, free is just so good. It's just hard to, it's just so charitimately obvious that that's what people want. They just want, they don't want to think about paying money to interact with a, with a social media platform. But I think that's the, to my, to my, to my. that's the bull case, is that you build a really engaged, really valuable community. And that community, even though there are many fewer people than you have for broader social media, they're worth a lot more.

Thoughts? Yeah, I mean, that's definitely true. You know, my dumb hero sick is until I see a 10 million viewed TikTok video that's someone being excited to pay for clicking, I'm not going to really say that. Like, it somehow has to become, like, its own meme, and like, there's no way paying from going from free to that. we'll do that. But there's this idea of like somewhere in the middle of Reddit and Twitter finding

like a hybridization, crypto might actually be good for that. It sort of is, it does lend some properties of both sides of that, public agora versus the like very, you know, hierarchical, structured niche combo. Right. Okay. Well, let's move on. We have another interesting topic that took place in the last week. So SBF, Sam Beckman-Fried, the founder of FTCX, he released a bunch of statements about this proposed regulation called DCCPA.

I've no idea what it stands for, but it doesn't matter. Basically, digital currency regulation that is still, we don't have a finalized bill yet, but the bill basically is going to, one, put the CFTC in charge of regulating the crypto spot markets, as well as a bunch of other stuff that may potentially touch defy or other elements of crypto. it's a little bit unclear right now what's going to actually end up being in the final bill. And so he posted a bunch of tweet storms about his views on how crypto regulation and crypto policy should evolve. And there ended up being a lot of backlash against SBF's views here. It seems like all of a sudden, SBF has turned from the hero to the villain of the crypto community. Now a lot of people are very suspicious of his views on any of the stuff.

It sounds like you want to say something. When has an exchange CEO not had a full? fall from grace in crypto. I can't, I think that's literally everything a lot. Not a fall from grace yet. That's a, that's a stronger term, I think, than what he has. I think it's more of like, you know, a reveal that, yes, Sam Bacon Fried has his own

interest that are not just... But okay, every exchange CEO has had that, as far as I can tell. Including Hayden, if you count Hayden as one. Even Hayden has had that, I feel like... Hayden has him. I mean, a little bit. I feel like the post-sushi thing kind of like, change the change the have a little bit of this like i i i i think people still love hated i don't

think there's that i think i think sam i think uh brian armstrong and cz each of them have there's there's a there's a shadow to them now that i think people people understand and appreciate but once upon a time they didn't you know i correct my statement i said every exchange you know star has never had that happened star was always you know star okay that's fair that's fair okay well okay so So he posted this stuff, got a lot of backlash, and there was a fantastic debate between him and Eric Voorhees, who was the founder of ShapeShift. So Eric Vorhe's longtime kind of Bitcoin influencer, thought leader type person, is founder of Shapeshift, which back in the day was one of the biggest decentralized exchanges back before that was a really totally coherent defy thing. So Eric Voorhe's published a long piece in rebuttal to Sam's proposal for crypto regulation. and they ended up doing a debate on bankless, which I thought was fantastic.

If you haven't seen it, it's like two hours long, but it's really a fascinating debate. I think it goes into a lot of the core questions behind how crypto ought to be regulated and kind of, in a sense, goes the heart of what we're even doing in this industry. What did you guys think about this argument between Sam Bankin-Fried and Eric Voorhees? I mean, before we get into the material of the debate, I do want to say, I feel like Sam, I like Sam, but probably get like an image consultant. I think he lost pretty much just purely on the aesthetics of the debate. It's like Sam and like the FTX call center like, you know, bouncing his leg up and down and like, you're kind of tweaking out and speaking like a thousand words per minute.

And then Eric is in this like giant mansion in Denver and he like speaks extremely calm me and he has this like glow around him. And I'm like, even if you didn't know what they were saying, you know, there's definitely a bias here. But I think, um, yeah, there's there's one sort of very poignant point, which sort of, got circulated around footer, which is sort of a rehash of this argument that's discussed a lot around the difference between like Gmail and SMTP, where you can have a protocol and you can have a client and that you can interface and the client can make certain implementation decisions and but everybody can still, you know, subscribe to this protocol. And basically, you know, Eric sort of rolled this out in front of Sam and asking him like,

you know, why do you think we should treat Defi differently than we treat email? And there was not really a good answer. I think that was kind of the moment when the debate tips. And so yeah, overall, I think, like, you know, I think if you actually read the proposal, it's, it's not that unreasonable. I think the main sort of point that people take issue with is the need for regulated front ends, but still allowing the protocols themselves to be unregulated. But certainly, you know, I think, again, just a lot of this sort of narrative and aesthetics based, which is sometimes unfortunate. So just to just to summarize briefly, actually, Tom, can you pull up the image from that video because I think it illustrates exactly what you're talking about.

But the crux of the disagreements, there's a few kind of minutia, but they got stuck on one particular question, which was, should front ends be allowed to be regulated? And Sam's view was that, look, it's not great if front ends are regulated, like frontends for DFI protocols, like, you know, the website, the URL, the domain name, whatever. It's not great for front ends to be regulated. But if you're going to give up something, give up that rather than give up everything else. So he's kind of like, look, chop off the hand to save the body. And Eric's view is like, look, why would we chop anything off?

We don't even know that we need to chop anything off. Like, we have to fight for the whole body. And why are you giving up so quickly? It seems like you have some ulterior motive if you're giving up this quickly. That was kind of the thrust of the disagreement between the two. It's definitely the case. Oh, okay, this is great. We had Sam and then we got Eric.

You have to kind of watch the debate, I think, to sort of get a full feel for it. But it was great. I think they both made, make great points. Eric has such blue eyes. It's amazing. Yes. Kind of terrified how gorgeous of a man he is. Turin, you saw the debate as well.

What were your thoughts? I didn't see a debate. You didn't? Oh, okay. I have other things to do. I'm not just an investor. I have a company around. I don't have time to listen to podcasts.

All right, all right. I'm sorry. Here's what I say. Papers don't write themselves, you know. I know, I know. here's what I'd say having having listened to the date and I think

the problem Tom you said the problem is one of really messaging and I think in many ways it's true during defy summer Sam Sam really came to prominence for his like kind of just

his extreme and extremely rigorous thinking and clarity and when you're analyzing like liquidity mining and you're trading stuff and like that's what the name the game and you're talking about Solana and serum and all these different things. It's like, oh, that's amazing.

You're like a Vitalik-like person. And he made people rich. And he made people love it. Don't forget the-the-law effect. I think that's like the important halo effect. Yes, 100%. 100%. I think it's very similar to Andre in many ways.

I think he sort of had an Andre-like cult of personality around one, making people money. But then also a similar fall from grace. Similar fall from grace. Because, again, fall from grace is too strong. I would say, you know, just kind of losing that halo. around him. And I think part of it was because that same analytical rigor, when it comes to a moment when it demands that like that Bitcoiner, like political religious grandstanding, right? You kind of have to stand up, take a stand and give a sermon. I think that's where

Sam is not as a strongest. And you heard the debate. Like Sam was kind of like, like, wait, hold on, define your terms. What do you mean by this? Okay, is this like a one out of a ten? Is this like a seven for is this a nine. He was really trying to get this like step by step breakdown of everything that Eric was trying to debate. And Eric, on the other hand, was making this very impassioned claim. Look, what is the point of all the stuff that we're doing? He's kind of flailing around. He's kind of making this big, beautiful, you know, in a church. Speech. Exactly. It looks like a church. Exactly. About what he believes in why he's in this industry. Like, he's a true believer, you know. And I think that that really came across.

in that in that debate and I think this is one of the places where I think Sam from the perspective of a regulator is extremely reasonable and like he is somebody who a regulator can work with but he's not somebody who the people of like crypto Twitter just you know drawn broadly feels like they represent them as a religious leader yeah and that's where I think now the breakdown is happening Sam has like less wrong brain you know he's like I'm a rationalist and everyone else is a rationalist. And, you know, unfortunately, I think for most people, it's just actually not a very compelling argument, unless, of course, you know, you also are. Yeah, I guess, you know, maybe I'll take his side somewhat in one way, which is like,

I think if you're an exchange CEO, you always kind of have to be duplicitously on both side. There's just not any way to actually be a true believer in anything, because you're running a venue whose entire goal is to make no sort of like long-term belief in any one asset you're trading, you're just trying to believe in like the net volume growing. And so like that's inevitably like your utility function. If you're a utilitarian, you know, your utility function is much more correlated to that, whether it's a defy exchange, whether it's a centralized exchange. And I think the problem is the narratives that exist in, in Twitter and especially I think in defy and NFT land, are much more emotionally charged in some ways, or at least like evocative and less about,

like utilitarianism of any form, whether philosophically or whether it's just like, hey, I'm an expected utility maximum. And somehow I think, you know, every exchange CEO has to go through. It's just like not possible for them to forever ride the wave up. And I think it's all, it's inevitably also correlated with market going down and like, you know, people are now like kind of like, oh, like looking for someone to blame for for things. And if it's someone who got you rich and then maybe perhaps if you were joined later, it made you poor or whatever. In your eyes, it's an emotional traitor as opposed to rational one. It's very easy to see how that can happen.

But I just don't think it's possible to run an entity like an exchange and somehow ever have any real philosophical belief in anything. I think that seems too strong. That seems too strong. Yeah, I think like Brian Armstrong and like Jesse Powell seem pretty passionate about like, you know, they're sort of like, was it like Rob Lowe in the NFL hat? They're just like they love crypto, you know? A lot more as they stepped away. CZ is a true believer. CZ is absolutely a true believer. Like I think it's possible to do both. I think Sam is relatively unique in his kind of compartmentalization. But I think most exchange CEOs, I don't think that's true. I think most CEOs are true believers. Like you kind of have to be to stick it through. that brutal of bare markets. I mean, for Binance, it's not as true.

I think for like, okay, for Whoopi, for, you know, Bitman. For the folks who've been around for Cracken, right, for even for Coinbase. Like, you had to stick it through some really frigging brutal times when nobody care what you were doing. You still sort of are not, like, I think if you started 2017 or later, it's probably quite different than the exchanges before. And like, that's why you made this exception for Binance, right? when you said it. It's a lot less philosophical and there's a lot less like provenance of like when

you ask people why they are interested or got into space. They don't have a like great cypherpunk awakening or like a like this particular hashing algorithm. I'm an inventor of it. Like, you know, there's none of that type of stuff. And so like because of that, I think like if you're new, especially if you joined during the 2021 cycle, you know, I think like you, you also didn't do any provenance what you know research behind and and so inevitably you get these time-based conflicts it's it's like it's like uh speed running you know gen z hating millennials that's true fdx has also kind of been up only since they started right like it was uh what was it 2018 2019 when they started so they've kind of just burst on the scene and it's been kind of perennial

bull market for them since uh they've been here so maybe maybe that's also part of it did you all see the um story today where their balance sheet was released to CoinDus? Yes. Alameda. Alameda, yeah. Yeah. So the high-level summary, I believe they had, what was it, like something like $4 billion in equity or $6 billion in equity, and a lot of it was FTT.

They had a lot of FTT on the balance sheet that they used to borrow against. That's right, yeah. Yeah. It did feel a little bit incomplete in the sense that, like, there's just not enough to really understand what is going on there without understanding. like what do their loan agreements look like? You know, what's the relationship between Alameda and FTCS? You know, how much, like, is Sam backstopping personally?

Some of the loans that they have. So it's hard to tell really what's going on there. Also, this is June. So probably a lot to change between June and today as well. But you have to imagine all these numbers are probably a lot bigger at the end of the year. So, but again, hard to know. I mean, also, I mean, obviously they have to have a ton of FTT. A, if they sold any FTT, everyone is dumping immediately.

There's just no, there's no doubt about that. They're the biggest market maker that uses FTT as collateral. So first of all, there's that. Secondly, they couldn't sell all of that without taking 99% haircuts on everything. So I would just throw away the FTT part because it's all about rebates on their own exchange, right? I mean, you have to stake FTT. So I would kind of ignore the FTT part and like focus on the other part. The $2 billion equity book was interesting because I was like, that's a lot of private deals to have done.

I don't know. That seemed a lot larger to me. It could be FTX equity, though. You don't know. That's true. But that would be bad for their disaffiliation story to get past the CFTC and to get all these trust licenses, right? Could be voyager. They have a major shareholder who is, you know, the main market maker.

Yeah. I mean, look, the reality is that like this league. was so vague that we don't really know anything. They also, they said in the leak that CoinDesk reviewed this piece, but they also didn't know whether this is the only entity that Alameda owns, right? So, like, very often there are multiple entities involved in these things. We might just be seeing one part of the balance sheet. So yeah, it's like, look, unless you go do due diligence on Alameda, you really don't know what the complete picture looks like. Yeah, and also FTT is a weird rehydpotha asset for getting fee rebates and stuff, right? So you should, you should really

I don't think you need like a billion dollars of FTT to get few rebates. Clearly that that's just like they have that for collateral. I mean, if you are the number one market maker and you want 99% of rebates because the rebates are distributed by FTT staking and you made the coin. But like doesn't Sam own Alameda? So like Sam is paying himself. Yeah. Like what?

Why not? Why would it? Why would it matter? He's taking revenue from FTCX and distributing it to Alameda shareholders. I mean, it seems fine. He has other shareholders FTCX. Sure. Okay, fine, yes.

But it's just like, oh, anyway, it doesn't matter. I mean, I'm just pointing out that it's not that unlikely, you know, if you're like truly, you tell you Steve's point of was you don't need a billion dollars of FTT to get like the max rebate. Yeah, maybe. You do need a billion dollars to defend the FTT price because you. Yeah, we're trying to get SPF back on the show at least at once or twice. Hey, I defended him in this Eric Voorhe's thing. I think it's just the nature of being ashamed to you. You can't.

All right, right. Robert, what's your view on the Sam kind of, you know, dark side coming out? I think it's pretty clear that his interests are in making money in what he calls effective altruism. His motives are not the benefit of an industry or the decentralization of an industry or to see any individual project succeed, whether it's the smallest startup or Bitcoin, I don't think that matters to him.

I think what he cares about is operating successful exchange and trading business. Fair enough. Well, so I'm actually, I knew Sam before he got into crypto because I've also been a long-time effective altruist. And I first met him in 2015, I think. It was 2015 back when he was still working at Jane Street, because it was a pretty small community at that time.

The one thing I will say about Sam is that Sam is, he's a very, very honest person. And so I think he's now in a tough position because he has a lot of stakeholders that he has to be responsive to. Some of them are people who own equity in FDX. Some of them are users of his platform. Some of them are just people in crypto, right?

I remember last year he came in to try to save sushi and, you know, kind of took it over from Chef Nomey. He was doing all the stuff. You could tell that it was very much. much for him a feeling of obligation to just be kind of a good guy and do the right thing. Now those, clearly the things that are pulling at him are much more complicated and coming from many more angles than they were at any time in the past. And so I feel for him.

But at the same time, like, it's very clear that he can't keep that halo for too much longer if he wants to have real power in this industry. Pretty much nobody gets to keep that halo if you stick around long enough. So unless you want to be just like a pure freedom fighter. and not making real money. I would not say Eric Forges is poor, though. Do you think Eric Forgeys as a halo? The Satoshi Dice didn't roll himself.

That is a fantastic lie to read. I got to give you credit for that. We got to make that the subtitle for the show. Okay. So the last thing that happened this week is that we saw this interesting phenomenon of these Reddit NFTs blowing up. the volume has kind of died down a bit. Now it's being replaced by the,

sorry, art goblers. You can tell them very cool. They gobble goo. That's right. That's right. They are the most NSFW high value NFT that exists. Yes, it is true. But so the Reddit NFTs were very interesting

because of just how broad-based it was. So like the art gobbler is very kind of crypto-native, very kind of insider thing. The thing that was fascinating about the Reddit NFTs is they had millions of people who were grabbing all, hold of this stuff. Now, they were not trading it on chain. They were not actually swapping the stuff. But yeah, Tom, can you walk us through? Like, what exactly was the problem? Like, how did Reddit introduce these NFTs? And what happened with the trading volume? So these have been around for a while.

So they launched this summer. But the initial version of it was kind of more like an art NFT platform, like a foundation where it's like you can go and mint it. And it's all on Polygon and you go pay the artist for some NFTs. I'm like, they weren't that popular, but they launched this second. conversion, which is very abstracted out. So when you go and mint it, it doesn't call it an NFT, it doesn't call it a wallet. It calls it, you know, a collectible and you create a vault. And so it's like, and you kind of see that actually in the usage numbers where, yeah, the user numbers are very impressive. And it's almost three million people who own these, but very few people have actually traded them. And so you're looking at like a few hundred people

who have actually, you know, traded them. And so you kind of get the sense it's, you know, there's this idea of like sort of like the defy mullet where it's like the front end is, you know, all dollars. And the back. end is plugging the defy. This is like the NFT mollet. It's like it's, you know, Reddit on the front end and you don't know that their NFTs on the back end. Whether that's effective product strategy or not is kind of TBD, but interesting to see like this time around, they've actually gotten a good chunk of activity. So do they actually call them NFTs or do they just call them collectibles? They're just called collectibles. I think in the documentation, you can see that they're

NFTs. Right, but in the actual product experience. Yeah. I mean, the best part was reading some of the posts of people being like, these things are much better to trade. than NFTs. They don't have the baggage. Like, I love being able to sell things. And it's like, okay. There's a lot of like convoluted, like, circular reasoning. Yeah, some of the comments that were on Twitter and Reddit, especially, were incredible, where people were just like, you know, NFT bashing and saying like, NFTs have absolutely no utility whatsoever. Thank God for the digital collectibles. They have so much.

And like, unironically, I mean, just like people couldn't separate, you know, the fact that, you know, their digital collectibles were NFTs. I mean, in a way, what it's telling us is that, like, we kind of messed up the NFT branding, right? Like, the concept behind NFTs and digital collectibles. Like, yeah, totally. Perfect product market fit. But the word kind of has some stank on it now. And so I feel like A16C needs to come in and rebrand NFT. the way they rebranded crypto to Web 3.

We need a new word. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Web 4 is digital. That's what. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Wait, did we do Web 5? We got to go to Web 6 now. We already, we skipped Web 4.

Jack jumped to Web 5, but we skipped. Yeah, yeah, so we got to, yeah, we got, yeah, it's like Windows 10, right? Like you skip, you skip, you skip, no, no, no. No, no, you can't, you get, the middle one, because then that means that Windows, that, there's no, it means that Web 5 is better than you already. Look, Windows went backwards. It went from Windows, uh, you went, uh, 2000 to XP and then to seven. That's true. That's a big drop.

Yeah. Yeah. 1000 down to seven is really big. Yeah, well, it was, it was 98 and then 2000 and then down to seven. So you're like dropping two layers. That is true. 3.1 is the best, though. Windows 3.1. I mean, I love that one.

Yeah. Only, only certain people remember this. Yeah. Well, interesting. Have you guys been doing the art gobbler stuff? No, I haven't. I made a vow to myself at some point a couple months ago that I would no longer purchase NFTs. And so I am- Wait, what?

Rob, you got to explain this. It was public. We talked about it on the show, I think. Yeah, we talked about it on the show, I think. Did we talk about the show? We mentioned it. You guys gave me like some flack for it. Oh, yeah.

You were like, hey, what a wimp. Why wouldn't you buy NFTs? Well, I'm glad that I don't remember this, but I'm glad that my past self did what I wanted to do just now. So I feel vindicated. Yeah. Okay. How does it feel, how's it feel being sober on, on NFTs? It's interesting. I mean, it's like drinking water at a party, right? Like everyone else is like having like a wild time. Like it's you can have a great time just

drinking water watching, you know, and having conversations and all that. But I'm not a participant in this one. So I just find the concept gross. And I would feel embarrassed if I ever was involved in purchasing one in any way, shape, or form. It's just, like, the grossest story. And I just, like, look at those NFTs. I'm quite repulsed. Same here. It's some sort of furry thing, right?

That's my understanding. It's paradigm plus the guy who made that show. Brick and Morty. Brick and Morty. Yeah. But, like, it's, like, a little too gross for my taste. Like, I kind of, like, yeah, sure. Maybe, like, the five people who watch adult swim and all.

also use crypto Twitter are going to love this shit. And that's just the five of them on that. I think there's actually a pretty large overlap between like kind of, you know, Peter Panstoners and people who buy a lot of crypto. Interesting thing about the, it was one of those free to, free to earn launches. And basically, you know, obviously all that does is just make the MEV auction take all the initial revenue

instead of the creator, but whatever. you could see the MEV auction actually one of the first ones someone paid more than the first resale that they did it started with the it started with the NL but I think the interesting thing about this kind of start of this thing

I mean I think the cool part is they have like this two token thing it's sort of like almost like an own bond in some way except instead of a bond you have this like NFT and if you own enough the NFT is you can like mint the ERC 20 this goo and you keep you kind of have a cycle of like use the liquid asset and use the liquid asset.

That part is kind of interesting. But it's just like the mechanics of this thing and the way, like if you looked at the actual number of users, a number of unique wallets, there was just like, it was not, this was a very like pretty non-organic launch, what was the total number of users like ballpark?

I hadn't looked today, but I think it was like, sometimes yesterday it was like almost 3K. Yeah. But it was pretty, pretty non-organic. You could see like if you drew the address cycles, there's a lot of washroom. Because people, because of the way this, the mechanism

works to like move between the like illiquid, like own the NFT as minimum of goo, own the goo, stake it and you get more NFT, like, that stuff basically seems to be dominated by like, you know, I don't know, 10 to 15 people, if I already guessed. That makes sense. It feels a little bit like mechanically kind of similar to Dark Forest in that like it kind of nerd sniped a bunch of people who are like both smart and into NFTs and for everybody else,

they're just like kind of excited about the price movement. I think if they did this last year, it would have been a huge hit. It would have been like, could have memed like, um, but this year. It is a huge hit. I mean, it is like number one on OpenC. I think it was at least yesterday. I don't know if it's still. Compare the number one on OpenC now to number one to OpenC six months ago.

True. My point is like it's on, it could have, it could have had a, it was like a little late for the cycle. right and it's also just doesn't have a mass appeal like the thing about bored apes and crypto punks is like they don't offend that many people at the end of the day like they're not like really that offensive I feel like a lot of people would find art cobbler's offensive it's fair that's fair but it does it does definitely fit well into the crypto sensibility because I think crypto does kind of embrace a lot of offensiveness kind of at its core so I feel like it's not too far off the mark there. But anyway, I think we're up on time. So we'll be back at you

in a week or two. So until then, thank you everybody. Sign it off.