Unchained - The Chopping Block: DATs Break Below NAV — Consolidation, Buybacks & Quantum Fear - Ep. 955

Episode Date: November 21, 2025

The Chopping Block unpacks crypto’s DATpocalypse — NAVs collapsing, volumes drying up, and consolidation on the horizon. Plus: Vitalik sparks a wave of quantum panic, what Q-Day really means for Bitcoin and smart-contract chains, and why “qubits per share” might become the next great crypto meme. Welcome to The Chopping Block — where crypto insiders Haseeb Qureshi, Tom Schmidt, Tarun Chitra, and Robert Leshner chop it up about the latest in crypto. This episode opens with the DATpocalypse: almost every DAT is now below NAV, volumes have collapsed outside Bitmine and MicroStrategy, and the market is finally confronting what happens when issuances outrun demand. We get into consolidation talk, preferred-share experiments, capital-structure pivots, and whether any DAT should actually be selling crypto to buy back shares at a discount. Then we shift into quantum mania. Vitalik’s “2028” comment lit up Q-Day fears, and we separate genuine hardware progress from pure panic. We discuss why post-quantum upgrades are simple for Bitcoin but brutal for stateful chains, and how hype alone could trigger a wave of “quantum-resistant” speculation. And yes — the running gag: DATs using quantum machines to steal Satoshi’s coins. Tough markets, weird narratives, and institutions quietly holding the line. Let’s get into it. Show highlights 🔹 DATpocalypse — Most DATs now trade below NAV; Bitmine and MicroStrategy dominate the only real volume. 🔹 Supply & Demand — Issuances outpaced buyers; M/NAV compresses toward 1 across the entire class. 🔹 Consolidation watch — Sub-scale DATs may merge to form multi-billion-dollar vehicles that can compete. 🔹 New financing era — Preferreds, debt, and MicroStrategy-style capital engineering become the next playbook. 🔹 Buyback dilemma — Trading at 0.5× NAV suggests selling crypto to buy shares—if liquidity exists. 🔹 Retail gone, institutions steady — Tokens follow the 4-year retail cycle; equity deals reflect institutional conviction. 🔹 Token vs equity split — Depressed token markets contrast with mega equity raises like Kraken’s $20B round. 🔹 AI distraction — Retail rotates into Nvidia/AI stocks, starving page-2 tokens of attention. 🔹 Quantum mania — Vitalik’s “2028” comment triggers Q-Day fears, despite quantum still being far from breaking ECC. 🔹 Post-quantum headaches — Bitcoin is easy to migrate; Ethereum/Solana transitions will be complex and messy. 🔹 Q-Day = Y2K energy — Expect years of hype and “quantum-resistant” pumps before reality catches up. 🔹 Qubits-per-share meme — DATs running quantum computers to steal Satoshi coins becomes the episode’s running gag. Hosts: ⭐️Haseeb Qureshi, Managing Partner at Dragonfly ⭐️Robert Leshner, CEO & Co-founder of Superstate ⭐️Tarun Chitra, Managing Partner at Robot Ventures ⭐️Tom Schmidt, General Partner at Dragonfly  ⁠Disclosures Timestamps 00:00 Intro  01:14 BTC Breaks Down 02:52 DATpocalypse Begins 05:01 DAT Playbooks & Buybacks 20:48 Equity Boom, Token Bust 28:00 Retail vs. Institutions 34:01 Quantum Panic Hits Crypto 41:45 Post-Quantum Problems 46:32 Road to Q-Day & Y2K Vibes Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm just excited for, you know, the first DAT to go steal another Dats, you know, Bitcoin. I'd invest in that. So if you're working on that, you know, let us know. A DAT running a quantum computer has their strategy. Honestly, that's pretty hilarious. That would be pretty, that would actually be very bullish. Robert, maybe one of your dads that sound bad tell them, get a quantum computer, steal Satoshi's coins. That's a narrative we can invest in to it.

Not a dividend. It's a tale of two pawn. 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 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. So, quick intro is first you got Tom, the defy maven and master of memes. Hello, everyone. Thanks, you got Robert, the crypto connoisseur and czar of Super State.

Hey, everybody. Thanks, you've got to Rune, The Gigabrain and Grand Puba at Gauntlet. Yo. And joining us today, I'm a C of the head hype man at Dragonfly. We are early-station investors in crypto, but I want to caveat that nothing we say here

is investment advice, legal advice, or even life advice. Please see chopping blocks at XYZ for more disclosures. So for those of you who are tuning in over audio, I'm wearing an exceptionally bright shirt today because we decided that today we're going to try to cheer everybody up. Markets are not so cheery.

Markets are doing mucho no-bueno. It's been really ugly out there. Bitcoin has been flirting with being over, or being under 90K. It's now regained the 90K level, but it's kind of holding on for dear life. We've seen a big reversal in the markets. This is true on the public side.

So we've seen Circle down, I think, minus 40% in the last 30 days. Coin is down, I think, 23% in the last month. Galaxy down 28%. Gemini is down 58% since the ICO price in September. It's been... IPO, IPO. IPO. Sorry, IPO.

Sorry, crypto is broken my reign a little bit. We've also seen a massive pullback across the DAD complex. So people are calling this a DAPPocalypse. we've seen now almost every single dat is trading below nav. Very few exceptions. Even BM&R, Bitmine, which is the largest ETHDAT, second largest asset in the DAT universe, is also now trading below NAV, which has really put a cabosh on any buying from these DATs. Because, of course, for DATs to buy, they have to issue new shares, and nobody really wants

to be diluting existing shareholders issuing shares below NAV. So it's kind of a pause on the DAT complex. and we've seen now so many dats that have basically completely run out of steam in the public markets and it's still the case that almost all the trading volume is only in the top two deaths,

micro strategy and bidmine. Micro strategy seems to be around 1X now on any given day people are saying it's either below or above or right around and then BM&R I think now it looks like there's pretty unanimity that BM&R is below NAV

at this point. So give us your vibe, vibes-based view, How are you feeling right now about the market? Robert, why don't you tell us where you're at? So full disclosure, I've personally lost quite a bit of money and debts, but that's not what people on the show want to hear about. And I try to be objective and not let that color my own view of the market or of debts,

etc. So there's a couple things to look at. One is, how are they trading against MNAV? It's a sad day when even strategy is trading at slash below MNAV. It means that the biggest dog in town is struggling, therefore pretty much everyone. else is. There are exceptions. But I think for the moment, it's to state the extreme obvious, there's more supply of debt than there is demand for debt. When it was just strategy, there was more demand than there was supply. There was just one, the pace of which they were raising money,

it felt sustainable, et cetera. And so the things that I'm watching, you know, I'm looking at MNV of all of these different debts, there's sectors that are worse than others, you know, within an asset like ETH or Seoul or Bitcoin. There's stats that are really, struggling. The things I'm watching for, number one, M&A that starts to happen in that space. There's a widespread belief that survival of deaths is going to come through consolidation. You know, it's hard for two, $500 million debts to gain the attention of the market. But if two or three deaths combined, you know, and you took a couple of $500 million debts and you formed a $2 billion debt, suddenly it's more competitive, at least there he goes.

And so there's a lot of chatter behind the scenes that there's going to be a wave of consolidation. that could change the narrative. Second, I think we're going to see more experimentation with the capital structure. There have been a few preferred issuances of the smaller debts. Strategies always lean on preferred a lot. I think in the run-up when there was just this like cambrain explosion of that, everybody was focused on like the simplest thing, which was raise crypto, sell shares through sell common stock through ATM transactions, get as big as you can

before you have to figure out something new. And now I think we're starting to see a lot more conversation. at least in the circles I'm in about preferred, about debt, about the financing strategies that actually made micro-strategy successful in the first place. And so I don't think the music's over for these debts. I think there's a lot of companies that have hundreds of millions of dollars of crypto, or in some cases billions of dollars of crypto and zero debt against it. And debt might be the thing that restarts the cycle for a couple of these debts.

So I'm watching carefully for that. And then lastly is what happens if prices continue to decline? do Dats call chicken and start to sell spot to buy back their shares. There have been a couple examples of this already. But for the most part, we don't have a widespread trend of Dats selling spot buying shares. And if you've been on the receiving end of these pushbooks over the last six months, the basic premise behind all the Dats was like, hey, over time, crypto per share is always going to go up. When it's above 1XMNAF, we sell shares to buy crypto, it's diluted.

in a good way, we're accumulating more crypto per share. If we're trading below MNev, we sell crypto by shares, it's a creative in the exact opposite way, which is we're burning more shares than we get rid of crypto. So the idea was crypto per share is always going up. As a shareholder, if you have a long-term focus, you should always be happy. That's going to be put to the test in a big way over the coming weeks. So do you want the data that you're invested in to be dumping their crypto and buying shares back? Yes. I do personally. I am unfortunately a holder of quite a few debts that I've not sold at a loss. I would strongly prefer as a shareholder that these debts do the sort of original debt playbook,

optics aside, and just say, hey, we're trading at 50.5 MNAF. We are going every day to sell crypto by shares. This is limited by trading volume. The sad reality of the math of this is that only works if people are trading the stock. If interest is lost completely and there's no volume left, they can't even buy back their own shares. There's just no shares trading for them to buy back. And so as long as there's activity, they'll be okay. But I would strongly prefer to shareholder of some of these that they actually do the debt off-the-shelf playbook, which is sell crypto buyback shares as much as they can per day and actually be accretive on a per share basis for the remaining shareholders.

In principle, they could also do a private placement, right, to like buy-by shares that way. Yeah, of course. I mean, I was going to say that it is to be the trend, though, right? It's like volume is all bit minor and, you know, strategy. And then everything else is like tiny, tiny, you know, like less than 5%. So I guess in some ways this is like kind of actually the most expected outcome we could have expected, which is like, of course you're not to be able to get free money forever. Like, of course it would be MNF collapse.

And of course it's going to be concentration and a small number, maybe one per asset. So it's like, if anything, like no one should be surprised. like this is exactly what was kind of predicted and was kind of playing out. And now the question is like what happens in kind of the next phase of the market. I think like Robert said, I'm curious to see what happens with the kind of, you know, M&A. And there's also kind of this other side, which is like if you are, you're starting to sell crypto to buy back your shares, like, in some ways, it's like this kind of like religious ethos kind of kind of thing of like, oh, you should never be doing that. You should never be selling, you know, Bitcoin. And

I think if you stick to that, like maybe you accrue some kind of premium like strategy. Otherwise, it's like, oh, you're just another kind of corporate husk and why am I going to kind of put money with you. Drew, what's your take? I mean, it reminds me the ICO boom. I think a lot about the ICOs that raised really large treasuries and then survived. And then the ones who raised really large treasuries and then I don't know how they disappeared, but they disappeared.

You know, like, I think of like this successful ones in the sense that like they did really, they did good treasury management of like protocol labs, EOS, et cetera. where they raise large, on a percentage of Ethereum basis, kind of similar amounts in some ways. And we're able to basically like stomach slash consolidate over time. In terms of selling crypto, I mean, all of those people sold crypto. Right. So like you could argue that MakerDAO number one users beyond seven siblings

were probably all of these ICO DATs, ICO companies, foundations trying to like preserve their assets. And like the fact that I Freudian slipped dat in there was not an accident. It's like it's kind of the same thing. And those guys sold. They sold in weird ways, right? They borrowed against their assets using dye, minting dye. They like, oh, hold on that. No, no, no, no. This is totally different, right? Because like when you buy, let's say Gallum, right? So Gallum raised a huge ICO sitting on gigantic piles of Eath, that they're just, it's kind of a treasury management thing with like a little protocol on the side, right?

That's totally unlike the dad because Adad, like, Ghalm token does not represent the treasury. You have no claim on the treasury if you hold Gollum token. Gollum token really should be trading as a big pile of Eiff. If that were true, then it would be like a dad. But none of these tokens,

I remember when like RFV, what was it real fucking value was like these kind of Dow corporate raiders who were trying to get those to dissolve the token. Was it real financial value? I thought it was risk-free value. Yeah. Yeah, risk-free value.

I don't think there was an F-bomb in the middle of the name. Was there not? No, we discussed this on the show like a year ago. More than a year ago. It's been too long. Okay, okay. Maybe my brain just inserted that in there. Fine, fine, fine.

But there was like these sort of on-chain corporate raiders who were trying to turn these old protocols of giant treasuries into the equivalent of deaths. And basically what they found was that, no, no, no, no, no. Guys, come on. We own the multi-sig. You can't, governance can't make us do anything. So screw you.

This is not yours. the foundation. Yeah, these are foundation. These do not control these, these, these, these, these treasuries. So I don't think we've seen, like, dads are actually just big buckets of crypto with some corporate governance on top. And my take is that it's like, look, live by financial engineering. You're telling me, you're talking about, you're telling me the ICO foundations

weren't that different, were different than that? They were totally different because you don't have a claim on the ICO foundation. Yeah, there's no legal rights in all associated. It's not worth the $16 billion of Bitcoin. It's true. It's true. I had to go to Aragon Court to get back of my area. Yeah, exactly.

Like all these 2017 I seeos, you have no claim on the ICO. I haven't made that joke since Tom made memes, you know, like the Aragon Court. It's just been so many years. Evergreen. Yeah. Yeah. But so the Dats are a genuinely new phenomenon in that sense. Like the closest thing I can think to a DAT was like, if you guys remember BitDow,

BitDow was like the closest thing to a dat. And I think at that time the world was not ready for them in the way that they're now ready for, you know, bit mine and all this other stuff. But since then, like, we don't really, we don't really have this. In a way, like, dats were always kind of mysterious relative to ETFs, because we had ETS before we got debts. And so the question of like, okay, why would I hold a dat over an ETF? And the arguments that, like, I mean, we've had some of these arguments on the show about,

well, there are things you can do in a debt that you can't do an ETF. And there's also, of course, this volatility amplifier that Dats give you that ETS don't have, right? ETFs, unless you have, like, a levered ETF, is just, you know, you know, you know, it's doing whatever spot's doing, it's a pass-through. Whereas the DAT has this volatility amplifier, which you've got both the underlying volatility and you've got the M-Nav volatility.

And that made it more interesting. It's like a spikier version of Bitcoin. And who doesn't want that? And it's got a CMO, which Bitcoin doesn't have. So my take here is that obviously DATMNAVs have come down as the market has come down, as retail interests has come down, as everything has decompressed.

And the M-N-N-N-N-Aves have also, normalized to one, which tells you there's just no excess demand, right? I think, Robbie, you put it great, which is that demand and supply, as long as there was more demand than there was supply, that's what MNAV expansion is, is that we have more demand than we have micro-strategy shares. So let's just keep shooting them out and people just keep buying them and, like, we'll just keep doing that until the MNAVs finally do compress. Otherwise, this is an infinite Bitcoin accumulating machine, which financially cannot exist, right? That obviously will, if you keep turning that crank, eventually the crank will stop turning.

Otherwise, you have a perpetual motion machine. All the world's assets would be gobbled up into Bitcoin in short order if the MNOs don't eventually compress the one. I'm sure Saylor would love that. Okay. One kind of funny thing about this is there were more people complaining about the inevitable impossibility of these things when they were successful than when they're failing. Because now everyone's like, ah, they're already failed, whatever.

We all have the third world country Bitcoin thing instead of owning ETS quality Bitcoin. And it's just funny to me because people have been saying this forever since the beginning of micro strategy. Right, like years ago. Yeah, yeah. But remember, micro strategy had basically two big MNAV lumps, right?

So it had a cycle where it went MNAV way up to like, what was it almost three? in a previous cycle and came all the way back down to trading below NAV and then in this cycle went back up to roughly three and now is coming back to par.

Which tells you like it's probably not the last time that this asset is going to trade above NAV. My guess is that probably what you will see is that EMNAS will float up again when demand starts outstripping supply and we'll see another cycle but when you see markets being retail driven

and when you see this imbalance of supply and demand and when you see like, hey, I want a more volatile version of the underlying with a big giant CMO running around, you know, talking about how Bitcoin's going to take over the world, that's a more interesting asset to trade

than just vanilla Bitcoin. So I think the, I think the story for Dats is kind of an obvious one is that these assets will eventually trade at one when the retail bid is gone and these things are starting normalize as, you know, these kind of financial assets that just keep selling more and more of their underlying stock

until they go down to NAF. I think it's also true. The big ones are not going to be selling below nav. They're not going to be diluting themselves. And they're probably not going to be buying back shares. So micro strategy is not going to buy back shares. I don't think Bitmind's going to buy back shares. Small ones might, a good chance they will. Because they don't feel like they have the entire asset on their shoulders. They don't feel like they have the reflexivity that that micro strategy and Bitmine probably do. So which we've talked about in the show is that we thought that that was

going to be the end game. I think probably for now, basically dads are on timeout. They're going to stick around. The small ones are probably going to do some selling. But basically like, It's pause until we see retail start to come back in. And then everyone's going to remember the Dats again. But probably my guess for the next, you know, call it four or five, six months. We're not going to be talking about Dats pretty much at all while they're just kind of sitting on the sideline doing nothing. Sounds great. Yeah.

Yeah. The other thing, though, is that BitMind is still trading enormous volumes. Same with micro strategy, right? Micro Strategy is like five billion a day. Yeah. BitMind is still over a billion dollars a day in volume that they're trading, which is, which is massive. given the fact that it's trading below nav. So there's something there that makes me think like,

I don't have a good mental model for this because my mental model was that micro strategy, okay, there's a lot of big institutions that might have exposure to micro strategy. My thought was that Bitmine is basically all retail. And so the fact that there's still a billion dollars of volume in this name a day tells me that there's something that I, something my mental model

that's not totally filled out yet about what's going on with BitMind in particular. Yeah, my take is bit mine and the largest debts, right? Anything over a billion has a good chance of continuing to go through the cycle. Micro Strategy, a lot of people wrote it off for dead when it was like below one MNF, right? Like, if the bigger ones even were willing to execute on their playbook of buying back shares when they're too cheap, I think that cycle returns even faster. And I don't think people will be as offended as though Saylor would sell Bitcoin. Seller will never sell Bitcoin.

That is like so tied into the meme. But if another debt is like strategic about it and says, hey, we're doing this in order to be like doing something good for the shareholders, that's why you should be a shareholder of our debt. This is why you invest in us in the first place. You know, we're always going to make a crypto accumulating machine per share. It suddenly becomes a more attractive investment than just buy. either, buying Bitcoin, buying soul, buying whatever. If you buy the share and the amount of like tokens inside your share,

keep on going up like that. That's the whole underlying premise of that's in the first place. That's what Saylor has done for years and years and years. And so I think when people go back to the basics and they say, and they can explain how they make crypto per share go up and that they're doing it and show the like the success of that. I think that game resumes. but I think this whole class, it's their rookie season.

They don't really know what they're doing. The seller's the only one who's a veteran. I mean, Tom Lee seems to have picked up pretty quickly, but besides that, yeah, it seems like the class is. No one else has done preferred shares yet, right? There have been some small ones. Oh, yeah, well, none of them have been successful. I feel like micro-stratory.

Robert might own some. Yeah, I was like, wait, I didn't even, you know, honestly, there's so much brain damage from dots. I don't, I feel like I really don't know anything about them anymore. Have you done a lot of dots? No. No. You guys did a couple together.

I remember. I remember seeing a guy as well, too. Yeah. Yeah. We did a small, Ethzilla and a small forward. Yeah. I got to say, though, like, I don't, I still don't understand the economics of these things.

No, it is. But I kind of agree that there's a terminal state where they do, succeed, just not in the way you don't expect. Like, the way Sailor was successful the first time by like figuring out that like tradified people who can't trade perps love convertible arbitrage as like a equivalent gambling mechanism or like a mechanism of taking advantage of speculators. There's going to be some other weird financial engineering, I bet, that like keeps it going, just like not right now.

I think it's also true that for a lot of these stats, basically there was a pretty tight rotation from institutional capital to retail capital and obviously a lot of the money was coming in through these basically the private sales that they were doing before actually launching the Dats. Whereas Micro Strategy was, you know, it's been around forever, right?

There's no insider in micro strategy to sell into you. All the Dats roughly did the same thing, which tells you that like the explanatory power is not in, oh, well, the Dats just had all these insiders who were selling all their shares. Because if that was true, then Micro Strategy wouldn't be following. the same curve as everything else.

And you see they're all, the MNAV charts are all basically the same. Although micro strategy took longer to get there, it got there the same way that everything else did. But it's certainly true that if we see, let's say six months, you know, macro environment's very different. You start to see retail coming back into the space and bidding more aggressively on these assets. If you see a second run-up and that start to rebound and lift off of the 1XMNAV again,

there's not going to be this dynamic between the sort of, you know, sort of public-private arbitrage anymore. And that might be a healthier market for Dats to be playing in next go-round. Tom, anything you wanted to add to that? No, I'm looking forward to a six-month hiatus on DAT talk. That sounds great. All right, we'll see. Other news, I guess also in public markets, so there doesn't seem to be like a tailor-to-two

cities right now. So as VCs, I imagine you guys also see this, which is that token markets, very depressed. Everybody is kind of hurting. Token sales seem to be underperforming. And all tokens seem to be really struggling in this market. At the same time, the equity raises seem actually to be kind of gangbusters right now. And so you just saw this news about Cracken raising at a $20 billion valuation led by Citadel. And they raise a total of $600 million, with $200 million coming from SITSEC, Citadel Securities,

at a $20 billion valuation. And I think they're on, what was it, like $500 million in profit that they're making. So it's like a pretty hefty valuation that they're giving to Cracken. And I'm seeing the same thing. Obviously, there's a lot of chatter about the prediction markets, raising money also at very attractive venture valuations. Seeing the same thing on some of the stuff in the stablecoin space is that there's a lot of interest.

How are you guys thinking about the venture space and the sort of the capital chasing these equity deals while token projects seem to be languishing right now? There's an era for tokens and an era for equity. I think we are in the era for equity. That's it. Nothing more. It's like a three body problem. You know, the sun is in the sky.

It's token time. And the sun goes down. And then it's equity time. You know, the two are very balanced. Okay. Equity era. No insight from our for our team today. Listen, we're four PCs on here.

Don't put this one. Aren't we the guys are supposed to be explaining this? I think there's kind of this very weird thing going on, whereas like crypto historically has happened. add, you know, if I look at the history of CryptoVenture, there's like certain periods where there is huge bursts of growth rounds like CD and later. And then all of a sudden that window closes and there's like zero growth. It's kind of like the opposite of the rest of tech where there's like in the rest of tech, there's like early stage stuff, A is B is kind of spaced kind of

uniformly. I would say like there's like enough people who specialize in growth. Enough people who specialize in early stage, enough people who specialize in the middle, that in general, all three are kind of constantly raising money. In crypto, though, it's like the funds overlap a lot more. So there's a lot more of this like drift and trendiness where it's like, oh, all of a sudden it's like everyone wants to do growth rounds only and like all the early stage get dropped to zero. And then all of a sudden everyone goes back to early stage and then everyone goes, you know, so I feel like the current market is basically treating tokens like their early stage and the entire market is focused on growth and pre-IPO and IPO.

And I don't think it's just because like all the stuff you brought up in terms of token, in terms of private value market valuations, those are all things where it's like people are like whether true or not, they're pricing in M&A and and pre-IPO equity. They're not pricing in early stage. And I actually like the early stage investment market has been. quite depressed recently in the last few months. I don't think valuations have gone up anywhere near as much as these growth rounds. And so I would actually call this, this is like a microstructure thing that's weird about

crypto where like you have the same set of funds kind of doing the whole spectrum versus like specialists who don't leave a category like you have in a lot of tech. Now, AI has changed that a bit because like the numbers have gone up so much that it kind of is inheriting some of these crypto issues where like, you know, you start to see. people go into like these like billion dollars like there's this billion dollar round today like a billion dollars raised and like i just saw like 20 vc who i'm pretty sure i've never invested in a series d and so like a i i feel like turning into crypto but cryptos have this microstructure since i feel like 2017 where you kind of move back and forth between growth and in 2018 i feel like the growth

uh rounds were like all the l ones right like the private market l ones which we're at large valuations. Whereas, like, right now, it feels like we've moved into kind of growth rounds for these, like, pre-IPO slash M&A, which, you know, I think the M&A part had basically been negligible historically, right? Like, from a venture investor standpoint,

like, in your valuation model, like, did you really include, what probability did you assign to M&A? Much lower than, like, the rest of tech, for sure. And so I just view this as a sort of weird rebalancing where, like, the equity prices doing better, even like, you know, we're talking about the Dats doing poorly, but the Dats are much better than the all coins, right? Like, in a sort of, in many terms.

Well, a lot of the Dets have all coins, so I think they're like doubly bad. Sure. I mean, there was an embarrassing dat that forgot to convert due to messing up a procedural vote for a hyperliquid debt this week. So maybe they got lucky that they messed up the vote to. to do the conversion. I won't embarrass them given how embarrassing it is to like mess up such a boring procedural thing. But I guess that tells you something about crypto vC is trying to do public company offerings. Yeah, I think it really boils down to this microstructure difference.

There's not like crypto growth firms and crypto early firms and they never overlap, right? Like people do really meander a lot more. But I do think, so if you look at a lot of these growthy rounds in crypto, it is it is not like A6 and Z paradigm doing all of them. It is definitely a different kind of investor that's now doing the super late stage stuff. Like you look at this cracking round. It's SITSEC, Jane Street, DRW, Oppenheimer, Tribe. Like these are not crypto.

There's not crypto capital. Hey, tribe investment in FCX. Sure. Or like tempo is like green oaks and thrive, right? Which are like very, very beefy late. So yes, there was like this crossover. And I think it was sort of this like meme on like fin twit. It's like why did the price go up?

It's like more buyers than sellers or when the price go down, more sellers than buyers. But I do think that actually those kind of explain a lot of this phenomenon that like, yeah, obviously there's a lot of this kind of capital that is looking for exposure to crypto in some way. This is how they're going to express it. And also because we haven't really seen clarity on the token front. Like what is actually going to get people to buy tokens? It's not these players, right? They're not going to be dipping into like deep, deep page one or page two.

There isn't sort of that wealth effect from Bitcoin going up anymore. So there's not sort of that spill over from retail. And so it's like, yeah, these are kind of, there's overlap, but, you know, it is also. somewhat disparate pools of capital that are like, you know, buying these things. Okay, here's, here's my macro theory. I want to get your guys reaction to this. Okay. So the story historically has been that there's a four-year cycle and that four-year cycle is kind of self-fulfilling. And a lot of people are talking about, hey, is this maybe the end of the four-year cycle? That's why things are going down. And the story has always been from the people who deny the four-year cycle is that the cycles are different now because institutions are here.

And institutions do not follow the same cycles as retail historically has. and institutions are kind of a volatility dampener. When institutions show up, they don't leave so easily, you know, these companies, these financial institutions that are going through these multi-year integration cycles, they don't care if, like, suddenly things are less hot or Bitcoin went down 15%. That doesn't really affect their underlying thesis.

So that story has been why, okay, there's a volatility dampening effect, which may mute or cancel the four-year cycle dynamic. So here's my theory, is that what we're seeing in this disparate effect across tokens and across late stage equity is the volatility dampener in effect, but the volatility dampener is not uniformly distributed, right?

So tokens, like all coins, are overwhelmingly dominated by retail. And retail, 100% has obeyed the four-year cycle. So everything that was retail-driven, they're out, they believe in the four-year cycle, or they just ran out of money, or, you know, obviously there's all this macro stuff about case-shaped recovery

and, you know, the low-end consumer really getting hit and debt delinquencies going way up. So there's all sorts of reasons. why, and of course the tariffs being like one of the largest tax increases in the last 15 years, all of that together means that retail just doesn't have the money. So retail's gone. Retail's not here. But the institutions are still here. But the institutions can't buy the same stuff that retail was buying. So they can have a volatility dampener on Bitcoin. They can have a volatility dampener in the stock market. So, you know, Coinbase stock is not down nearly as much

as everything else. And they can have a volatility damperter in growth stage stocks because they can buy that stuff. But everything else, they can't quite express their bullishness on crypto in a way that grabs the long-tailed defy chip coin and pulls it back up with the rest of the market. So that stuff is going to have to wait until retail comes back. But basically, like, depending on where you're sitting in the crypto landscape, really, it's not that like all of crypto has been volatility dampened by institutions, but it's like there's these two sine waves superimposed on each other, which is like the retail sign wave, which is big and like this. And then the institutional sign wave, is much slower. But if you sit over here in that land, you're going to feel the retail sign wave

really hard. Or if you're in token land, you're going to feel that retail sign wave really hard. But if you're sitting on late stage equity, you're sitting in Coinbase stock, you're like, oh, cool, this is like not nearly as bad as holding underlying tokens. And that's the effect of having institutions in the market. So that's my macro theory of what's going on and why it kind of squares a circle of like, for your cycle, like kind of yes, but not for everyone. But also, yeah, institutions really did change the crypto market. Like, yes, they did. And we're not going back to Bitcoin's going to go down to like 30K before it, you know,

finally fulfills a prophecy of the four-year cycle and then it can go test new highs. I think that's gone because of the fact that the institutions are actually genuinely here. They're just not here for everything. Yeah, I mean, I definitely think that we're sort of at the end of this four-year cycle experience. I do think you're right that institutions are in a different cycle than retail. And I think the institutional cycle used to barely exist all didn't exist, right? The only thing was the retail cycle. And I think there was a lot of reasons why coincidentally, it coincided with a four-year cycle.

But I think going out, the number one thing that matters is macro. I think institutions are still pretty bullish, to be honest. I think although they might be a little bit surprised of like, what's going on on page two, like, what's all that crap that you guys were hawking me earlier that's now down like 80%. But for the most part, like, they're like, okay, yeah, I mean, I see it. I see Bitcoin taking over the world. I see it getting normalized. I see more and more people using it.

I see the stablecoin story. I see everything you guys are telling me, yeah, okay, shit, I guess it's happening. I guess Stripe's integrating. I guess Robin Hood's integrating. I guess, you know, JPMorgan's talking about it. They see, from, I think from institutional perspective, crypto is happening. Prices go up and down and like, yeah, okay, you know, whatever. World's crazy.

It's obviously a particularly crazy time. But I don't think actually I see that much doubt from institutions. I see all the doubt coming from retail right now, which tells me that they're just on a different phase with respect to the market. And basically, the institutions are going to have to hold this stuff up until retail changes their mind or reloads. I mean, I just think retail money is only in AI stocks. Let's be real.

I think that's true right now. But that's the thing is a lot of the AI money is not even retail. A lot of the AI money is also institutions. But the AI stock participation numbers you see, from like trading brokerage apps is like crazy. It's like concentrated so much even in retail that it's like, I kind of think crypto is competing with that attention-wise. In a way that I don't think the other cycles have had like final bosses.

Like what were you going to do? Buy Fang, that's boring. There's no like people. The fact that this guy I know, that's a high school diploma, does know anything about semiconductors. But because I worked in hardware, he wanted to like ask. me all these questions. He's like, did you know the newest blackwell chip only had like a one nanometer increase in a decrease in feature size? I'm like, how the fuck did you learn that

first off? You know, like, and it's like the number of DGen like Nvidia trading stuff. Like, why the fuck are these people ever going to trade crypto at the same time they're doing that? Like, I just don't see it. I don't see. I think there's like a fundamental switch in user preferences back to equities also that is like confounding all of these things. That makes sense. Well, once upon a time, that person was arguing about Nakamoto coefficients. So I don't think it's that different. This person bought a lot of Ada.

Did they? Good for them. Oroboros is great. So they made a lot of money in Ada and all their crypto money, they rotated out to NVIDIA. So I was like, you know what? This is like, and now it's like telling me about chipsets and feature side. And like, I'm like, so when you talk about features. Do you know the feature sizes?

He's like, no, no, no. I just read it and asked chat GPT to tell me what it was. I was like, okay, the cycle. The cycle is continuing. He's like creating demand for these assets. So speaking of this, speaking of this, so one of the things obviously that's run up a lot in retail stocks has been these quantum stocks,

and we've had a little bit of quantum mania going on in the stock market and has now found its way into crypto land. So Vitalik was, of course, a DevConnect in Buenos Aires, which is one of the big Ethereum conferences. and he was asked on stage, among other things, he talked about the new Ethereum roadmap, which, whatever, who cares, is not a crypto show.

He, most interestingly, was asked about quantum. And what he said was that he believes that quantum is going to become a problem by 2028. I believe he was sub-tweeting Scott Aronson, who's, of course, a very well-known quantum researcher as a famous blog, Staddle optimized, and he claimed that there's been a series of breakthroughs lately on the hardware side that may make it very likely

that we get the first real quantum implementation of Shores algorithm by 2028, by the next election. And this is kind of lit the internet on fire. And now all of a sudden, everybody's like, oh, my God, we need an answer to quantum. Quantum is coming and get your ass ready because it's almost over. So there's all this to talk about what's called Q-Day. Q-Day is basically the day that we have a first real serious quantum computer that can potentially threaten some of the modern cryptography that is used.

All of the existing blockchain just by way of background, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, everything that you know and care about pretty much in almost almost through its entirety, especially if it uses elliptic curve cryptography, it is vulnerable to a quantum computer of sufficient size. That being said, worth just setting the ground today. Quantum computers today are extremely small. They can't really do anything. They cannot break anything.

So people are talking about the future. There will have to be significant amounts of scaling in existing quantum computers that we have today for them to be seriously threatening to the cryptography that we use today in blockchains. And in addition to that, even, even, you know, what Vitalik was referring to, which I think was, again, substituting Scott Aronson, Scott Aronson was talking about using Shores algorithm at all, using Shores algorithm to factor or to break a 256-bit bit ECC key, a 256-bit number is a lot bigger than a number. So getting Shores algorithm versus getting Shores algorithm to factor an ECC key is a, not factor, but to, you know,

break discrete log for an ECC key is a much, much bigger problem. So, Tarun, we are right now, the kind of bartender is asking you about quantum. What's your take on what's going on with all this kerfuffle about is Charles' algorithm sooner sooner than we thought it was going to be? So let's kind of zoom out. So like quantum computing, right, has been compared to, like, if I take these like technologies from the late 70s, early 80s, that people have been like, it's coming in five years. It's coming in five years.

The technologies you think of are like quantum computing. nuclear fusion stuff like that, right? Like maybe SMR is like nuclear reactors, like small modular nuclear reactors, right? Those are sort of the three main big ones. Those are also the three ones that are all being hyped right now at the same time, which is a funny, funny thing. All three stocks for all three has gone crazy, have gone crazy. So the interesting thing about quantum computing is there actually have been a ton of device

improvements. So like quantum computing is this thing where like theoretically we know how to do everything. the hard part is actually keeping the device stable. And what I mean by stable is like each time I do a computation, imagine that like every time I used my computer and I like asked, did one task, it ruined the computer. Like it made the computer's lifetime go down by 10%. And so then it means like, yes, I could get a really high fidelity answer,

but only once or twice or thrice. Right? I can't keep reusing it. And that's sort of an inherent thing in quantum entanglement. you're sort of like inherently breaking the system, like destroying it a little bit when you use it for computation. And in the last five to eight years, we've gotten a lot better at quantum error correction.

And I think part of that has come from, I guess to probably know and surprise, like from a lot of the industrial support from Google and Microsoft, like arguably the Google and Microsoft Research Labs funded all the research that all the startups will monetize unclear if Google or Microsoft will monetize it. But they have been funding this stuff for at least 20 years, and that's kind of what kept the non-academic, pure academic devices alive.

And the error correction means now we can scale. And before we could maybe have tens of qubits coherent at one time, which means you could factor very small numbers, like two-digit numbers, three-digit numbers, was the record. But now we're getting to a point we can have hundreds, maybe if you believe all of the claims by all these companies now, obviously, it's a little frothy, so I'm not sure I haven't used it, so I can't tell you that it's 1,000, but maybe 1,000 cubits. So maybe we get to three, maybe four-digit numbers.

We're still very far away from the 2048-bit RSA, which people expect to need like a million cubits. But I think Aronson's point is more that, like, at hundreds, you can start actually for very small elliptic curves or small models or say actually implement this algorithm that breaks it. Now, that doesn't mean like, it's going to happen tomorrow. So I think there was a little bit of like, Vitalik probably didn't really think about, like said something that was actually like this like technical statement,

but the market maybe interpreted it as a, oh my God, everything is Dumer statement. And I was talking to someone who is, who runs a large Bitcoin ATF. And I asked them, what's the hardest or most annoying question you get when you're like talking to advise or his family offices, whatever, to, like, sell.

And they were like, oh, well, people fucking asking me about whether quantum is going to break the ETF, and, like, all the assets in the ETF will be worth zero. And I was like, really? I was like, I would have thought that's, like, number 10 on the question list. But they were claiming it was like top three, cons consistently. And so I think the small amount of quantum innovation led to a larger amount of quantum buzz in quantum computing stocks,

which led to an even larger amount of buzz and these quantum computer companies have no way of monetizing other than breaking crypto, maybe. And so that kind of, you know, it's like the domino meme. You know, like the little tiny thing, like yes, there is an improvement,

not the improvement that will blow everything up tomorrow or even in five years to like, oh, okay, like everyone is worried about it. And so I think that's kind of what's happening. I think it's probably good to be fearful, Yes, yes. So to caveat that a little bit, though, so I posted about this yesterday is that if you look at Metaculous,

so Metaculous is like this non-economic kind of prediction aggregator site. It's kind of, it's like Polymarket, but with Play Money, you can sort of think of it that way. Metaculous is the only prediction aggregator that I know of that actually is trying to make predictions about quantum timelines. And if you look three years ago, I think the prediction for when they would factor the first RSA numbers using quantum computer was 2052.

as of six months ago, it has come all the way down to 2032, I think it is. It's come down 20 years in just a span of two to three years, which means that we are ahead of pace of where we thought we were going to be. Now, 2032 is still seven years from now. It's a long time. And RSA is easier to break than ECDSA. But that tells you that there has actually been a material speed up in progress. I'm not going to deny the progress.

I would mainly say that the NIST standards are actually kind of, you know, they're not perfect. People always keep finding new breaks in them. But I do sort of feel like they are moving along for the post-Quatum cryptography side for like everyone. And there is kind of this thing of like, if this is broken, this isn't just cryptocurrency that is going to face the qualms of this. Like every system in the world has issues. So I think the bigger thing is just like getting the post-com crypto standards kind of finalized.

I actually was at this conference that the U.S. and EU standards associations use hosts every year. And for some reason this year they had a like cryptocurrency and quantum computing section, which I guess I was a cryptocurrency researcher and everyone else is a quantum computer researcher. But I got the feeling that most of the post-quantum key exchange stuff is kind of done, most of kind of which lattice they're going to use is kind of chosen.

So I think hopefully this just incentivizes people to actually do it. I think the other thing is there's a ton of crypto networks that have already implemented some post-quantum support. So I think the first people in the world who are likely to have post-quantum support everywhere are going to be cryptocurrency networks before can you imagine jp morgan changing to a postconum system no fucking way like it's going to take them so long and they're going to have clafler though already um don't they already have post quorum stuff implemented they have some but like everything is not like their whole stack has to actually migrate and like people are trying to basically patch

most most mission critical than slightly less and slightly less but there could be stuff that like people haven't fully audited that is affected by kind of like weaker cryptography, weaker signing keys and stuff like that. And that was actually what these guys were talking about. It was like, it's actually really hard to know what software is being used within like these gigantic companies. Whereas in cryptocurrency networks, it's much easier because everyone kind of like has to agree on the same signature scheme ahead of time. So you fix it in one place, you fixed it everywhere. And so there was sort of this upshot that it may turn out that crypto networks maybe run as private L2s or whatever are likely going to be safer than some of some older encrypted databases because like no one knows how to patch every part of their signature munging versus versus blockchain. So there was sort of this weird thing of like blockchain is actually a little bit easier even though everyone is like more afraid for them versus like the rest.

of the economy has tons of SaaS that they have no clue how to audit. Yeah, I was going to say, you said like, oh, this is like this bounty basically in crypto. This is always the meme that like, oh, you know, this is bounty in crypto for quantum. But I'm like, in the grand scheme of things, it's not that much money. I mean, like, even if in some insanely optimistic scheme, you could like steal all the world's Bitcoin, like, you know, it's only what like north of a trillion dollars? Like, you know, it's not even, you know, one open AI.

And I'm like, it feels in some ways actually like, one of the other things. the less attractive ways to like, you know, monetize this in 2025. But it's a great James Bond villain plot. Okay. Like the best one. Yeah. I mean, you definitely can't get all of Bitcoin, right? You can get Satoshi's points for sure or probably unless they like black hole them.

And yeah, you're right. It's like, it means billions of dollars, but like, you know, how much has been, how much an R&D has gone into these things? And also like, who would fence them for you? Like, how would you say like, because probably people would be like, whoever got these like stole them for sure. I mean, it would be the Louvre heist,

except hopefully, hopefully the Lube you can melt down the jewels, right? That's the whole idea is that you like, you know, although I think it's hilarious. Those guys got caught because they went to a soccer game or like a bunch of them got caught. You can't melt down Satoshi's Bitcoin.

That's the whole Bitcoin, that's how Bitcoin works. Is I like, I can see, oh, this came straight from, this is like two hops from Satoshi's coins. Like what the, I'm not buying these.

So you think, mixers will ban Satoshi's address? That's an interesting question. Right? Like I don't, I actually have no clue. Maybe they already do because like there's actually kind of a good reason to do it because it would be like it would maybe you would. Yeah, maybe it's like a soft ban. Right.

Like maybe crypto is just like, yeah, we could formally black hole his tokens or is Bitcoin, but like that is kind of against the spirit. Let's just like informally black hole it. And like all the mixers, all the wallets. Like this all just agree to brick on anything that's Satoshi's coins. So what's, what's, your view of the post-quantum world? Like what, you know those like, if X happened, this would be the future meme.

Like, what is, what is kind of your... I mean, look, so here's my view of what happens, is that I think, and we've been talking to some companies that have been pitching these kind of post-quantum things. I've gotten probably like... Yeah, you mean Alex Pruden? Alex Pruden's working on one. There's a bunch of other people working on them. And the, like, the post-quantam, you know, I will build a post-quantum thing.

I've been pretty skeptical of these so far because I do think the reality is that doing a post-quant transition actually ironically Bitcoin is probably the easiest to do a post-quand transition for right? Doing a post-conum transition for Ethereum or Solana is a fucking nightmare

because EC recover is everywhere in these code bases. There's like multi-sigs, there's keys, there's stuff hard code in different places. Like you have to go through the smart contract codes to find all these things. This is why all these enterprise people are like we are not going to fix any of our life.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But like doing that, like, at least in an enterprise, you can just be like, look, I have the authority to change this. Yeah, their problem is they don't know, they don't know where all the, you know, what modification is. Sure, fine, fine. Maybe it's harder to, like, find the code where, like, this code path is being tested. In crypto, it's like, who has the right to change this? You know, there's like all these old contracts people use that just have an easy recover in them somewhere. And it's like, they threw away the key.

But, okay, well, that key can get broken and undone and, like, do you know where all those things are? Are we going to change all the contracts manually? So it's extremely. complex problem to migrate a stateful chain to a post-quantum world. So I think it's going to be really painful. But I think the reality is that the chains have to do it. The chains have to do it. Bitcoin has to do it.

Ethereum has to do it. I don't think you can be like, I created a post-quantam Bitcoin. Forget about Bitcoin. Just use mine because Bitcoin will never get their shit together. I think the reality is that I sort of think of it a little bit like a little bit like debt to GDP ratio. Is that like for a long time, you can kind of just do nothing. And you're going to say, well, let's just keep borrowing, let's just keep borrowing, let's just keep borrowing, let's keep borrowing.

But like, eventually it always comes due, and you always have to undergo austerity or like raise the taxes or whatever it is, right? Like it's just the mathematical, just like the laws of gravity demand that you eventually do it. And the same thing is true for the blockchains. The blockchains will not just sleepwalk into getting owned by a quantum computer. They will all eventually wake up and have a code read, but right now none of them will. Because there's just too much dysfunction, it's too much arguing, it's too much like, uh, we'll worry about it later. Right now, we just need to make the price go up. So I think that's why.

what's going to happen. It's not going to be like some startup shows up and like usurps their spot and just says, okay, I'm the post quantum Ethereum. So I think that's how it has to happen. But that being said, the reality is that whether or not quantum is on time, ahead of time, or behind time, quantum will show up, almost certainly. Almost everybody agrees that quantum will eventually happen. And when quantum happens, it's called Q-Day. When Q-Day eventually arrives, there will be a parade of news before Q-day, right? You will see more. and more announcements of, oh my God, it's getting closer. It's getting closer. It's going to be like Y2K, where like it's almost like edging, where more and more and more stories and more and more and more

more and more like just panic starts to set in. And I think you will see a lot of these crypto quantum things and like whether or not they're actually going to be the way that we do a quantum transition, these things are going to pump like crazy because there's going to be so much just palpable fear about what might happen if like QDA comes and turns out or quantum stuff is not ready. yet. So I think it's going to be really weird and kind of exhausting experience when we're actually going through that quantum transition. I think it's going to be very Y2K-like, is honestly my view. And I think the day after Q-Day, or like the week of the month, it was like, oh, you know, what's going to happen? Like, is somebody going to make billions of dollars from

the quantum companies? The day after Qaeda is going to never wear a black shirt again. You're only going to get yellow shirt, Haseeb like you have today. I honestly, I think what happens that all these quantum things are going to draw down like horrendous. They're going to gap down like crazy when people realize like, oh, nobody's stealing Sedarses coins. But the funny thing is like the people I know who are the most worried are always

the people who love thudding crypto. Like the people always like, oh, like crypto's fake. I don't know why what's real about it. But then they're always like, oh, like this post quantum thing, I'm going to totally buy this post-comptoin. So like there is like some market

fervor for these things. And the thing is it goes back to many crypto cycles. Do you remember when Adam Bach would just like constantly pillory Vitalik because he like wrote something about like raising money for post quantum Bitcoin in like 2014? And then 2017, there are

a million ICOs that were like quantum resistant, whatever. The irony though is all the quantum resistant cryptography I think is really hardened in the last eight years to the point that like it's close to production. And that is what makes me less.

worried, to be honest. It's like, it's not like there's an, it's like we don't know a way to get around it, right? We do know a way. We just don't know how to like engineer it efficiently, which is a much better problem to be in. There is engineering efficiency, but there's also like, look, there's, there's a lot of years to go under anybody's prognosis until we get an actual scaled quantum computer. And in that time, it's very likely that somebody finds attacks against the existing crypto systems we have because they're all fucking new. Like all this stuff is new. And Normally, in cryptography land, you do not consider a crypto system robust that's been around for like seven, eight years, especially if it's only been in production for like two years.

That thing is experimental. Now, in cryptocurrency land, you know, we started using Starks and Starks and all these, you know, BLS signatures and, you know, VRFs and all these other fancy stuff because we're just like, yeah, this is cool and like probably it works. And if not, like, only the researchers who worked on it will be able to figure that out anyway. So we have a much higher risk appetite for cryptography than. most of the rest of the world, and certainly for cryptographers themselves. But quantum is probably the first thing that's going to force us to, you know, swallow something

that really is not necessarily as battle tested as we might like, but we just have, we need asymmetric cryptography. And the only way you can get that is by using one of these new post-quantum schemes that we've come up with. But the fact that they keep breaking, like we keep finding breaks for them, like the NIST candidates, it's like a graveyard. Like we keep finding ways to break these things. It's true.

I mean, on the other hand, that's been funding a lot of research, as I learned from at this conference. Like, everyone there was like, their badge of honor was like, I wrote a paper in the last five years that broke one of the NIST candidates. Yeah, which tells you like, look, there's a lot's going to change. And it's also one of the reasons why I'm skeptical is that anybody who's like, I'm building post-quantum stuff right now, you know, in three years, we might just be like, yeah, that was a total dead end.

Totally. We got to go in a different direction because that stuff, you know, we broke that stuff. or it turns out it's way weaker than we thought it was going to be. Yeah, cryptography moves fast. And I think that's part of the reason why the protocols themselves are being a bit slow to the draw. I think some of that is inertia. Some of that is just like, okay, it's kind of so scary that we don't know how we're going to do it. Some of it is also wisdom.

Is that, yeah, look, quantum is not two years away, not three years away. And so we've got some time because very likely the answer we come up with now is going to look different by the time QDA actually does arrive, especially if it takes 15 years to get quantum, which is certainly within the realm of possibility. Cool. I think that's all we got for today. Any last words you want to share with our ailing community

that everybody's hurting out there, tough market? Not financial advice, but according to Hussi, buy all the quantum coins, whatever quantum coins you can find. I did not say that. Excuse me? Then I say, buy all the quantum coins. I said going into Q-Day, there's going to be a crazy rally and then a dump. So if you know when Q-Day is,

trade that. You know, that's, that's the, you got more alpha than I do. Tom, what do you, what do you got for the people? I'm, I'm just excited for, uh, the first dat to go steal another debt's, uh, you know, Bitcoin. I invest in that. So if you're working on that, let us know. A dad running a quantum computer has there's, that's pretty, that's pretty hilarious. That would actually be very bullish. Robert, maybe one of your dads that's, uh, down bad, tell them get a quantum computer, steal Satoshi's coins. That's a narrative we can invest in to. I mean, or they could just announced that they're pivoting their business into quantum computing and that could also do well try to rise the next wave not that's a good idea oh yeah yeah yeah just no you should you should buy

quantum computers and then issue more shares and like do a like uh if you're a dad looking for a new chairman robert is is volunteering no cubits per cubits per share cubit for share oh just name it cubit yeah that's the that's the new Yeah, yeah. They hoard Q. All right, I think people are even more depressed after hearing us talk about this. With that, we will sign off. Thanks, everybody.

See you all next week.