Unchained - The Chopping Block: Did Andre Cronje Pull an Epic Crypto Rug Pull? - Ep.348

Episode Date: May 5, 2022

Welcome to The Chopping Block! Crypto insiders Haseeb Qureshi, Tom Schmidt, Robert Leshner, and Tarun Chitra chop it up about the latest news in the digital asset industry. On this episode, Andre Cronje, the recently retired (sort of) DeFi developer, also joined the conversation. Show topics: why being doxxed led to Andre retiring (sort of) from crypto Andre’s response to Robert who calledl his departure from DeFi “an epic rug pull”  why Andre is back – and why he is working on “regulated” crypto products how the Otherside KYC’d NFT drop was an “absolute fail” where identity fits into the crypto space and why traditional and DeFi institutions alike are interested in the identity of their users Dalle 2 why the Bored Ape community likely sees the Yuga Labs Otherdeed NFT sale as a turning point why Robert would compare buying a BAYC NFT last year to purchasing BTC in 2010 main takeaways from Solana’s seven-hour outage and why designing a mempool (or multiple) is critical for the chain     Hosts   Haseeb Qureshi, managing partner at Dragonfly Capital https://twitter.com/hosseeb Tom Schmidt, general partner at Dragonfly Capital https://twitter.com/tomhschmidt Tarun Chitra, managing partner at Robot Ventures https://twitter.com/tarunchitra  Robert Leshner, founder of Compound  https://twitter.com/rleshner    Guest Andre Cronje, DeFi OG https://www.linkedin.com/in/andre-cronje    Show Topics   Andre Cronje’s Retirement https://unchainedpodcast.com/this-defi-og-is-leaving-crypto/ Andre Cronje’s return to regulated crypto https://andrecronje.medium.com/crypto-regulation-vs-regulated-crypto-aae56b36dcd8  Solana outage  https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/144639/solana-restarted-after-seven-hour-outage-caused-by-surge-of-transactions https://twitter.com/0xEdgar/status/1521188981538537472 https://github.com/metaplex-foundation/metaplex-program-library/pull/417 Yuga Labs rakes in $317MM from the sale of Otherside land NFTs and causes huge congestion on Ethereum. https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/144549/otherside-land-nfts-sell-out-in-hours-as-yuga-labs-rakes-in-317-million Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey 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 intros. First, we got Tom, the Defy Maven, and Master of Memes. Next up we've got Robert, Crypto Connoisseur, and Captain of Compound. Next, we have Tarun, the Gigabrain, and Grand Pubod, Conlet. And then we have a C, myself, the head-hyped man at Dragonfly.

Of course, we today have a special guest joining us, the great and illustrious André Cronier, who's coming out of his early retirement to grace us with his speech. presence and give us his perspectives. Hey, Andre, good to have you. Yeah, thanks for that intro. I think nowadays it's more Scamdray or Rug Dre or Ruggedray or I hear those more often than anything positive. So when you do the little label for the show, maybe Crypto Villain, maybe that's a good one to go for. I'd be okay with Crypto Villain. Scamdray is an interesting attempt at a nickname. I haven't heard that. But yeah, Crypto Twitter can be a a bit like recess.

You know, it's a little brutal. But real quick, before I start off the show, just want to say all four of us, I guess five of us in some sense are early stage investors in crypto, but I want to caveat nothing we say here is investment advice or legal advice or even life advice.

So, Andre, how's retirement? Are you retired? It isn't. So retirement, not that fortunate or lucky yet. At this point in time, it's just a different vertical. Defi just wasn't for me anymore.

That's really the only shift. It's an industry that I think is still going to do well, and I think it is still going to evolve well. I think being an doxed individual, there's just more and more and more risk to participate in traditional defy systems. And for that reason, originally, the plan was to go completely back

to traditional finance where I had originally started from. After about doing that for two to three months, I realized that I'm also being a little bit of an idiot because I'm neglecting a lot of knowledge that I've built up being in this space. So move that to, you know, what I've now recently started calling regulated crypto, which in itself is also a little bit of a misnomer because, you know, it's more crypto translation. I don't think there's an appropriate terminology for it currently, but there's this intersection between blockchain language, and there's this language we speak and you go buy an ERC20 on an AMM

and then you hold that for speculative value, or you go deposit that and then borrow against it in a decentralized lender. And like you keep that in a non-custodial wallet where you do custodianship of your private keys. and this is stuff we, and I'm pretty sure everyone on this podcast really takes for granted, the amount of knowledge that, you know, like we just innately have because we do this stuff on a daily basis. And then, you know, when you go talk outside to traditional finance, who the people are excited about these products, you know, they want to get involved, they want to start leveraging it,

but it's not a language they speak. So a big focus for me now is just the translation of that language. So, you know, a, it's not a ERC20 or a native token. It's a crypto one-to-one ETF. It's not a custodial solution. It's a PCI, DSS compliant custody solution. You know, it's literally taking that knowledge and then packaging it in a framework or language that the rest of the world understands. No, I think retirement is still very far away. I actually don't think retirement is ever on the books. I think I'll just keep working. until my brain dies and then be happy. That tends to happen pretty fast in crypto,

if you stick around long. If your brain turns into mush, it's a very noble task to try to work in that translation layer between Tradfi and Crypto. But it is also a little bit surprising because you are, to many people in crypto, you're like the king of the D-Gens. And I think actually Robert on a previous show,

I believe he made some comment about how, like the way in which you kind of walked out on your DeFi Empire, I think rubbed many people the wrong way. Yeah, if I remember his words were an epic rugpole. An epic rugpole. If I remember the show correctly. So you're a listener then? Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, I like to stay in touch.

Look, there's basically two podcasts I follow. It's this one and all in. Oh, amazing. And that's really the only two I really listen to. I don't really think there are a lot others that are consistent bring news on a weekly, bi-weekly, monthly basis. So yeah, no, big fan, big follower. Robert, if you'll allow me,

I would like to use you as a counterparty to a theoretical experiment, if I may. I'm all in. Awesome. Okay. So two things. One, who you're on this podcast know that I build Phantom? I do.

I think we all do. Yeah, yeah. We're familiar with your experience with Phantom. Okay. Okay, but so I'm curious because a big part of that statement and that kind of leads into the next part I want to get into was that that Phantom was a active investor play on my behalf. And I'd like to unpack that. And the reason I'd actually like to unpack that is specifically there's a lot of rumors that have caused me some reputational damage in terms of like how I left this industry, that like there's a statement of I made, I think, a billion dollars and then use that. that to exit because now I'd made my cash and I left. So two parts that, you know, is important to me

there is part number one is the sort of how do you fight that? And now the reason for fighting it isn't, you know, like I don't consider it an insult. That's awesome. Like respect to anyone that's capable of pulling that off. But at the same time, like there's legal, there's financial, there's a bunch of risks that occur if the public perception is that. And so I wanted if I can to actually use this as an opportunity to address that as well. Because, you know, number one, the only evidence I've seen towards that was based on a erect article that I think was like redacted and, ah, not redacted. What's the word?

Retracted? Retracted. Thank you. That's the word I was looking for. Where they retracted that and there was a wallet that for a long time was thought linked to me, that the foundation came out and said, look, this is their stuff. I've given them a lot of guidance on what they should do there and where they should go and where they should deploy funds being in inately in the industry, but, you know, they've publicly

admitted it's theirs. So, like, that's sort of the number one. And then number two is the thought experiment around how that happened, right? Because, like, you're in Wi-Fi tokens. I didn't keep any for myself. Like, that was all given away. I farmed some, I'll admit. But let's say, you know, that was, I mean, there's, I've, I've had three opportunities, basically, let, four opportunities, really, to make money in this industry. Opportunity number one would have been if I took some kind of allocation in Phantom. Never had any of that stuff in my wallets, never took any allocation. It wasn't part of that. Fundational vouch for that as well. But that's a more difficult one to prove because, you know, that's all over the place.

Yearn. Opportunity number two, where, you know, I could have had tokens for myself. I gave everything away. I could have healed farm. I could have healed farm a lot and that potentially could have been part of it. So let's say I was the biggest healed farmer, bar none and managed to yield farm. I don't know, like what was it at its peak? I think at its peak at 40K, it was probably around $2 billion, $3 billion max TVL. So in that case, like the distribution from day one, like top farmers had a max amount there of less than 10%. So even assuming I was a top farmer, you know, let's go through the thought experiment to see it's 100, which I don't have close to, but let's go through it. Then number two opportunity was Keeper. Again, everything was released in the pool,

but I could have been an early buyer. I could have bought up a lot as soon as I released it myself by other wallets, theoretically speaking. Its max cap at its highest point was half a bowl, so like not really a lot of opportunities there, but let's say I bought again 25% of 20% of the supply. So it gives me another 100, which again, not true, but still thought experiment. Last opportunity was solidly, which I didn't even participate. Like, since I launched it, it was meant to be a completely hands-off immutable, primitive.

I did not participate in any of that stuff. So what I'm curious about, right, is like on this podcast, there was talk about me doing active investing and having grown this funds and then being able to escape it. And I think that's a large part of a lot of people's disdain for me,

if I can use that word, is, you know, this idea that I made a lot of money and then was like, okay, well, screw everyone else. I'm now going to take my toys and go home. And like, I've been looking for a way how to challenge this, because, you know, it's one of those things where it's almost impossible to prove a negative, but I feel like both from a theoretical experiment side, it's disproved, and from a, you know, things that people thought were connected to me

that other entities have come out and say it are connected to them are also proven on that side. So, you know, I mean, I'm open to other suggestions, but I'm also keen on hearing any challenges to that. Robert? You know, I don't have any, by the way, I don't follow, like, you know, addresses or do the accounting. I'm just, you know, seeing what's on, you know, public channels and public discussion forums. So I don't have any special insight here. You know, one of the things that I think is generally accepted is that you are, and this is a good thing, you are the driving force behind the adoption of Phantom.

Like, you know, this is kudos, right? Without you, Phantom, I think in a lot of sense, would have a fraction, a tiny fraction of the user adoption that it has today or that it had today, right? And so I think there's an extremely widespread understanding that you were the, you know, pretty much the sole driver of all of the value in that ecosystem for a while. And, you know, I think there's an assumption that, you know, in accordance with that, you know, you also had a large, you know, exposure to the projects and activities on Phantom. Now, that's an assumption. And I think other people on, you know, the internet have done work to look at addresses and things like that, which I have not done. But, you know, there is a widespread understanding that you are the creator of most of the activity there. And that's a good thing, right? That's, you know, in some sense, you know, a fact. And then there's an

assumption that follows. And, you know, whether that's right or wrong, you know, the first part, I think is certainly true that you are the man behind. the ecosystem there in a good way, right, wouldn't exist without you. And that, you know, many people assume that as that, you know, occurred, that you had exposure, you know, to that ecosystem. The first answer, obviously, is that, you know, nobody in the show knows because we don't sit around trying to figure out who owns what. Because, you know, we have other stuff to do in our lives and to try to speculate on other

people's wealth. But the story I'm hearing from you, Andre, is that, nope, I'm not a billionaire. I didn't make a ton of money from all these things that are quote unquote rug pulls. Obviously, you made some money because it's pretty hard to have been in crypto during Defi summer and not have made a lot of money. But the assumption I think that many people make about you doesn't sound like it's a fair one or a correct one. That being said, I mean, one thing that I would like to understand is what is it that

drives you to, I mean, okay, I can understand why you would rage quit in crypto, because crypto sucks like cryptos. I understand that too. I have a lot of sympathy with a lot of what you say and feel on topic. What is it that continues to drive you in wanting to continue to build now, if not in in Defi and not in Web3, in the sort of connective layer between the real world and the crypto world? Yeah, made of mine actually recently asked me this.

And I didn't have an answer for it. It took me like two to three days, actually trying. to like think through that and and like trying to get to a conclusion. And honestly, the conclusion, unfortunately is I don't know what else I would be doing if I wasn't doing this. You know, I wish it was more than that. Like, like, like, I wish there was some greater, bigger thing happening. But it's just like, the love of the game. And it's everything I'm doing today is still going to happen. It might just happen a little bit faster if I nudge it along. But like it's, it's, it's, looking at it, it's an inevitable puzzle. You know, it's pieces that have to come together for

things to make logically sense. But yeah, you know, like, like the main reason is I don't know what else, but there's also just a part that it's just really cool. Like, the stuff is really fun. It's really exciting. And like a big driver for me is also learning as well. So, you know, a big reason why I recently got into blockchins because I didn't understand. understand it. And a big reason why I'm sort of enjoying the intersection I'm at now is because it's, again, a bunch of new stuff that I don't understand and I get to learn from there. I mean, previously, you know, my, my, my previous fintech experience that was heavily in the payday loans area. So, you know, that's not really a wow area. And it's also a very basic business. So like now, all of a sudden playing with, you know, like, like I'm learning of ETFs. I'm learning about bonds. I'm learning about a bunch of instruments that I sort of new existence. but I didn't have any intricacy knowledge on there. And so, like, that's also awesome to be learning all of those kinds of things. And, you know, like, it's also an opportunity just to speak to a lot of entities

I otherwise wouldn't have had the opportunity to. Totally. But yeah, you know, it's you, you wake up in the morning and it's the thing you want to do. Yeah, yeah. I'm curious to hear more on your thesis on sort of, I don't know if you want to kind of regulated defy or a regify or something like that. because I think this has been something that people have wanted to see or tried in crypto for a very long time. We had like the security token thing.

We've had like KYC, defy. And nothing has really stuck. Nothing's really gotten traction. But I feel like obviously there's this tension where it's like both players, both sort of sides want something to work here. How do you sort of think about like what is the product? What is sort of the approach that you think is going to succeed where these other things haven't really taken off? So the approach isn't that different. I think the language has changed a little bit.

But so first thing, search, on the approach, right? Like, this is the same conversations that we've been having since 2017, since about I really got into the space. The difference is, and I've told this story a lot of times, the difference is in 2017, we'd send an email and we wouldn't even get a response. In 2018, we'd get a response, but it'll be a cursory, okay, we'll see. 2019, all of a sudden, they would send the email, but that's really only to kind of ask questions.

2020, all of a sudden, you'd get a meeting and you'd actually be talking to the people. Now, you know, 2022, where we're at, like these teams have budgets and things where they're actively exploring it. But like, if you get to the decision makers, 51% of them are interested, 49 still aren't sold on it. You know, so the thing is it's progressively been changing over the years.

But now the other thing I've also realized is in my conversations with these same entities, a year ago, two years ago, I was never trying to speak their language. I was drinking the Kool-Aid 100% and I was expecting them to, you know, they're going to come by Eiff and Phantom and whatever and use that for gas fees and they're going to install their own wallets and use that stuff. And like, I wasn't trying to help bridge their language in understanding. So where we're at now, we're at a point where these guys are interested. They want to engage. But they have two barriers. Barrier number one is solvable. That's a technological barrier. Barrier number two

is a regulatory barrier. But now the approach is let's solve the technological barrier. Let's help them with custody solutions to understand. Let's help them with funds, ETFs, whatever it is, language that they are used to, and then use them to help push on the regulatory side. Can I ask one quick question? How do you feel about the Yuga Labs other side thing, given the... given that that was KYCD-5. In some ways, it was like the epitome of that, and yet it kind of was horrible in a lot of ways, and yet, you know, good and other ways, right?

Before we jump into that question, let me hold that for a second and basically tell the story because I think this is probably one of the biggest news items of the week. So jumping straight into it, so Yuga Labs, which is the company behind the board apiak club empire, they raised money,

they basically did a land sale for Other Side, which is their upcoming, Metaverse project. So they sold 55,000 plots of land, and they raked in $317 million in proceeds from selling these plots of land, which caused enormous amounts of congestion on Ethereum. So the largest congestion we've ever seen in Ethereum history, gas fees shot up to 8,000 gway, and there were huge amounts of gas wars that were going on in the Mempool trying to compete for winning these land parcels. And there was over 172,000. million in fees that were spent in trying to compete to get access to these other side land

plots. And apparently it crashed ether scan. That's how bad the incredible amount of congestion was. So there's Uga Labs in the aftermath of this insane land sale. Uga Labs declared that they apologized for breaking Ethereum and that they were going to explore launching their own chain, which people are now speculating is going to be called ape chain. They're unclear what exactly that means.

but it pretends to be some kind of Axi Infinity style side chain or something like that is presumably what they're exploring. One thing to point out is that they have this pre-registration KYC process, and then there was this whole secondary market for KYC addresses. They basically, that caused a lot of, like, weird behavior prior to the sale. And then so I guess the reason I bring up this question is the fact that this whole KYC thing kind of, inevitably caused this extra stampede into this ecosystem where there was just like a restricted number of KYC addresses. Those things got sold. The people who bought those were just more aggressive and didn't know what what to how do you use a blockchain. Like how do you feel about

that, Andre, is like the future of crypto. Personally speaking, there there will probably be some kind of a mix and I think that lies in the mix. But I think, you know, you people, people should choose which side of the fence they're on. Like, like, like you're either fully on chain and then you need to abide by those rules, you know, and I, and I wrote this in the one thing. It's like maritime law. Like, if you want to be a pirate, you can be a pirate, but there are rules to be a pirate. Like, it might not be written down. It might not be enforced, but there are still rules that are respected. And like, it's honor among thieves. And, like, what, what a lot of these things do.

So, so, so other sides, KYC to me is like STOs. Why, why, why, why did SDOs not become sticky, right? And like, a big reason there is if you went through all the energy and you went through all the tape and you got all of your forms and you eventually got your reg A, reg D, whatever the hell it is, why the hell are you going to launch a token? You can go onto the New York Stock Exchange or whatever. There's a lot more liquidity. There's a lot more brokers.

There's a lot more funds that are going to have access to you eventually. Like if you get big enough, NASDAQ, S&P, whatever, will, you know, dump into you as well. But if you're a token on chain and you've already gone through all of that effort, why the hell are you doing that? That's sort of, hey, we heard this KYC thing. So now we're going to add this KYC thing. We don't really know why we need the KYC thing, but just in case we're going to add this KYC thing. So like that's kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, you know, where, where like, You're adding mechanisms, not for some specific necessity.

I mean, why did they add KYC? You know, like, under what? I actually disagree with this. And I've been thinking about this a lot lately about the role of KYC in defy and in on-chain mechanisms. So the story usually is that KYC is about compliance. KYC is in order to fall the laws and, you know, enforce OFAC restrictions.

And, you know, usually it's about, obeying some particular regulator or some set of financial services requirements. And of course, that's important, and there are some applications that are going to do that. But I think for the most part, what makes DFI-D-Fi

is that it's global, is that it's not under the jurisdiction of any single regulator, and that you sort of push the compliance requirements onto the individual, not onto the platform itself. It's a whole idea of crypto, is that as an individual,

you can interact with crypto in a compliant way, but crypto itself does not need to be compliant crypto is just crypto. In the same way, that the internet, you know, is not compliant. The internet doesn't follow, you know, a particular set of rules. Like, you know, the internet doesn't follow GDPR, but individual people on the internet can decide to follow GDPR, which allows you to have it be this, like,

this bizarre, where people can take their own view. I think the thing that KYC is going to change within crypto is not compliance, but rather marketing. And by that, what I mean is that the biggest problem in crypto is, quote, unquote, identity, which, and by identity, really what we mean is we don't know who is retail. We don't know who is community. We don't know who is a customer. All we know is an address. And there are a bunch of janky ways we can try to figure out who real people are by saying, okay, did you participate in governance? Have you been around for this long? Have you touched these many defy-apps? So there's a lot of stuff on chain of like this, you know, KYF or know-your-farmer type things that people started to put into place to identify

the difference between real users and just people farming air drops or people faking addresses. But every protocol on defy or every protocol, you know, whether it's NFTs or whatever, they want to identify who are real people. Because if you are a real person, you are a member of my community, you are, especially if you're retail, right, if you're a retail user and you're not just like another address of Alameda, it's very, very important that if I'm liquidity mining, if I'm giving out incentives, if I'm doing air drops, that I want to make sure it's going to real human beings. And I suspect that in the future, this is going to be the primary thing that KYC gets used for unchain is that it's not that you have to KYC

in order to use this protocol, but rather that you have to KYC if you want to get a reward. And this reward is one person, one reward. And that's gonna be the rule, and the only way to enforce that, I mean, we've had like captains and stuff that people have used in the past, which is of course extremely givable. You know, I used to work in anti-fraud

and I can tell you it is very, very cheap to hire, you know, not only can this stuff be neural netted, you know, out of existence, but also, it's very, very cheap to hire people in the third world to just do captives for you. at scale. It costs, you know, like a penny. So it is the only real way that we know to disaggregate who are real people is with KYC, which is why it's done in every single centralized crypto platform in order to figure out who's a real user. Counterpoint. Let's look at other side

just a few days ago, okay? They used KYC to conduct this land sale. I know people who bought like 50 KYC to addresses and bragged about it on Twitter, right? Like, this was not a successful mapping of one individual, one right. It was an absolute fail in some cases. There's photos of people in Chinese internet cafes with, like, walls of browsers pulled up. Right. Yeah, I mean, to be clear, you can also do that on Binance, right? You could also do that on-

Absolutely. But there's, like, extremely clear evidence that at least just the hugest example of this two days ago was an absolute fail for trying to enforce one person, one address. Right. No doubt, no doubt. Look, I completely agree with that, right? Whenever you're thinking about anything that gives you civil resistance, it's a question of what is the cost of breaking the civil resistance, right? Like, a passport is the hardest thing, it's the most expensive thing that you can use to fake a person. Now, it's not foolproof, right? It's not the, like, there is some cost to any claim of I'm a human being by just getting any other human being to do it for you. You're not going to get around that with any platform, whether it's a web two, company or a web-through company. But I think KYC is like the gold standard of the best you can do. I disagree. So, I mean, just taking your example of a passport is the best way of doing this.

Each passport, right, could have a public address associated with it and like the private key or the C to somehow map to the user. Like, you know. Well, but you said that you're selling addresses, right? You could sell the address that's in your passport. Yeah, of course. And then you'd be shit out of luck if that's the global standard of everything. and then you can never be a person again or whatever.

Well, of course. Well, there are a lot of people who will never be a part. You know, if you're living in some village in India and you're like, hey, I don't, I have no use for this. Like, here you go. That's what people do today. People sell passports. Andre, I actually wonder if like, does this mean that your future is really working on identity? I think there's some people in the YouTube chat who are like, is that kind of like what you're implying?

Like, your future kind of the stuff you're most interested in working on is not just like, hey, fintech. trad-fi bridging between crypto, but actually really this identity problem? Or are you actually really focused on this bridging aspect? Because at some level, this identity thing seems more fundamental than kind of the, like, how do you get NASDAQ to care? So to me, there's two conversations, but they're both solved by the same tool. So allow me to qualify, you know, know your customer, definitely, as Haseeb just described, makes sense, because you want to, as you originally put it, it's from a marketing angle. You know, you eventually want to know who should I be talking to, how to identify them,

am I talking to them correctly, et cetera, et cetera. That's a whole field of science. A separate KYC from a compliance perspective is, you know, what jurisdiction is this person and what rules do they fall under, how do they need to be treated in that given circumstance. And I do think those are two separate topics, even though they use the same. tool. So that being said, this first part that I am doing with a lot of commercial banks and central banks and traditional institutions is not identity focus, because they already have this information. So they already have access. They have the pipelines. They have the processes in place.

It is not about trying to solve that on-chain yet. The reason I add that qualification is because, you know, now now you have to take a few further hops and obviously the further we go into the future, the more unlikely. But let's let's fast forward five years, probably being too optimistic, but let's fast forward five years. And a lot of what transacting is happening on chain. You know, this is, these are commercial banks who are issuing commodities, derivatives, these kinds of things on chain, they're trading, they're investing, they're depositing money into compound, they're lending from there. You know, like, this is a forward-looking possibility.

But now, once you start having that kind of amount of data, because, you know, like, at that point you have a lot of payment data, you have settlement data, and you have sort of probably at least some kind of on-chain indicator of KYC data. You'll probably not have the data, but you'll at least have a commercial Bank A recognizes this address as belonging to this person. So that already means you can start looking more into, okay, you know, is this is reoccurring payments.

This is probably a debit order these people are doing, you know, stuff like that. But now you, with that amount of data, all of a sudden, you know, you can start working towards, why are fraud and bank systems kind of as shit as they are currently? It's because they're not sharing data. They're not really doing mass scale analytics or predictions. or AI or any of this kind of stuff on this. And when I say AI, people are usually doing it by outsourcing. That's like sort of the problem, right?

It's like effectively they have to use like the Palantir's of the world to like communicate across banks to be like, oh, like we can identify this user. Right. That is sort of like, I agree there's no standard for communication and sort of data formatting. But do you think like a blockchain is the ideal way of doing that? That's like sort of sort of it's not it's not totally clear that it is sort of. of the optimum way to do that type of sharing. Now, again, there's a difference between blockchain technology, which doesn't necessarily mean a public blockchain.

Blockchain technology, even in a consortium sense, is definitely a better way to transmit data than, you know, closed loop currently. Because if nothing else, and even if it's privatized, you know, there's more things you can do that. And numerize a great example, you know, where all of their data is privatized. And, you know, they, they, they,

allow that as public data sets for people to play with and build stuff on and, you know, experiment with. And like there's, even though they're a little bit more closed source than my personal liking, you know, there's still more fundamental discovery that can happen there than in a completely closed loop system. So eventually, I hope that a lot of this is in public open data sets. Because we've, we've also seen, you know, a lot of breakthroughs. Open AI is a great example, right?

if we want to go down that area, because that's, that's open shared data sets. That's, hey, your stuff, everyone, please work on it. Versus, I know. I think it's not the, that's the poor criticism. Yeah, it's definitely not an open data set. It's not even open API. Right. Like, I can't even go use GPT3 without like, or the future large language models.

Yeah. Well, but I mean, you can't join the group. You can't join the subscription. Like I'm on most of those. That's true. You can sign up for the SaaS service, which is better than nothing, but it's not exactly open in the way that we think about opening. No, fair. It's not where we want to get to.

But you get more discovery when you allow more people to work on it. That's kind of the baseline, I think. Right. Sorry, complete tangent. But I've been playing a lot with that, I don't know how to pronounce it, the Dale 2, D-A-L-L-E-2. Dolly T, yeah, yeah. That, when they open that up for NFT, when that's public access,

I think NFT, PFP projects are definitely going to become a lot more prolific. That is for sure. It's a big question what something like Dolly 2 is going to do to the consumption and generation of art. So Dolly 2, for those who don't know, this is not crypto, but it's still fascinating. Dolly 2 is a machine learning model

that basically from a text description can generate an image and it can also edit images purely again from a text description so it can also use whatever, there's a lot of stuff I'm obviously not an expert on any of this so I'm going to butcher the explanation

but TLDR AI and image generation is getting absolutely crazy and Dolly 2 can create some amazing there's actually a Twitter thread that somebody from OpenAI posted of basically taking other people's Twitter descriptions and generating an image out of it. And the images were absolutely incredible.

And I was like, okay, whenever this thing is open, I definitely want to do that for my own Twitter profile image from now on. It's only AI-generated profile pictures. I think you're going to do it for your new NFT collection. You know, you're going to put a bunch of fiber contractors out of business. That's true.

Dolly 2 is really bad for fiber. Anyway, so, but, okay, rewinding a bit to the actual Yuga Labs other side land sale, how does everyone feel about the land sale, right? It was totally crazy. It took down, you know, basically took down Ethereum. A lot of people are pissed.

People are claiming all sorts of conspiracy theories that they did it on purpose to try to get a pretense to launch their own chain. Governance within Apecoin has been kind of a shit show. How do people feel about the other side land sale? I think Robert's the only real ape here

who actually participated in the land sale. I was going to say, given Robert's lost opinion on the value of ape and everything, I think definitely you should set the precedence. I'm probably the one who's the most in the board ape in Yuga ecosystem, as well as the crypto punk ecosystem. I guess I'll take the mantle of an FT guy here. I mean, obviously, I think as a community member, the land sale was kind of a mess.

You know, I think a lot of the narrative of the Yuga ecosystem, The reason why it's worked so well is that a year ago, like one year and a few days ago, you know, if you minted a board ape for 0.08f today, or as of a week ago, you would have had probably over a million dollars of assets because one board ape turned into mutants, turned into dogs, turned into ape coin, turned into all these things. And it's been probably the most successful investment for a retail investor of all time, Period, full stop. Like in any asset, it's like buying Bitcoin in 2010, right, in a lot of ways.

Like $200 turned into a million, which is why their community is so ravenous. And like so, you know, ride or die will speak volumes about them forever, right? The highest ROI of any asset in crypto, the only thing comparable is Bitcoin 2010, right? So with that being the context of it, I mean, the narrative for why it works is because it's made a lot of regular people extremely rich. Cryptopunks were inaccessible, even a year ago to people, board apes were $250. That's where the strength comes from. And in a lot of ways, I think this might be the turning point of that in that this hasn't made a lot of people really rich. In fact, it's, you know, started to be the first event in the Yuga timeline that's been the opposite. And by the way, other side is more

and just Uga, it's Yuga and Anamoka brands and all of these other things. But at this point, I think the ratio of them creating value to taking value is finally flipped for the first time. And I think that's what's most important. I mean, the license is kind of incredible, right? Like, we should actually describe what that led. The license basically says you own nothing. Yeah.

Literally nothing. You own. It's like owning a UTSO. Okay. So the reason why board A1 in the first place, yes, is because they said you own the art, right? You have commercial rights to the art as well. well, go have fun. These are your assets.

Go own them. Unlike Cryptopunks, which said Larva Labs owns all the IPs screw you. You don't own anything. You can't even use the image externally. Like you have a pointer on a smart contract on a blockchain. That's it. And so even like the assets around this land sale, the IP is not the same. You know, it's becoming more restrictive, not less.

And I think there have been statements potentially by them that they are looking to change this. But as it's currently written, the contracting around what you get is terrible in comparison to previous board aid ecosystem engagement. So in a lot of ways, I think the failure of this is that they took in a huge amount of value. And the participants in this are barely break even. And in a lot of cases, have lost a lot of value. There's people who bought board apes for 160th, which was like the floor basically. right before this event to get land, which is worth 10th, and now the floor is 115, you know?

And so in a lot of ways, this event was the first destruction of value in the ecosystem. And so that's where I see it as being a failure. A lot of other things are failures. Like there's a lot of criticism that they went with an intentionally inefficient distribution mechanism, which the rules changed frequently in the hours leading up to it to create confusion

and inefficiencies and all of these things that led to the blockchain having a gas price of about 6,000 G way for hours, which for all of us that were experiencing this, this is crazy. I mean, you know, I tweeted like, hey, Black Thursday 2020 was 200 Gway and we all thought that was off the charts insanity at the time. Like now you can have a completely normal Saturday where crypto's not down by 40%. And the blockchain's at 6,000 G8 for hours, right? because they had inefficient contracts and solidity as well. There's been criticism there.

So I think all around it's been disappointing. I think a lot of people were hoping that this would be the next, you know, increasingly successful event. And it hasn't been. Where will this go? I don't know. It could be a wild success, right? So, I mean, the big question, though, Robert, is how many KYC'd addresses did you buy before the sale? Zero.

So, zero. I was like critical of people buying KYC address because I played by the rules. I had one address. You know, I did my thing. Robert, you're so virtuous. That's why we love you. Yeah, Andre, what would you have done? If you were buying land, what would you have, what would have been your strategy?

Well, I don't think the KYC addresses was the right approach necessarily. So because it was so easily civil attacked, like we've seen in every project that tries to go with like a civil based approach, it's easily attacked. This one was attacked as well. I know people who bought KYC'd addresses, and they were like, by the way, when you buy a KYC'd address, someone already has the private key. So, like, these people were, like, trusting someone not to completely screw them over. To be fair, this is the entire ecosystem of people who are morons who post their seed phrase. Like, board apes are people who are proud of being moronically stupid idiots. Like, it truly is, it is obscene that, like, their entire ecosystem to value creation has generally been taking advantage of, you know,

lack of wherewithal. And that in itself should be an healthy society. But this goes back to the strength of it, which is you have regular people, you had regular people who invested like $200, which are now millionaires, right? And these are regular people. These were not the most crypto savvy. These are not people, you know, who have been like crypto-o-Gs. Like, the reason why this is a problem is that a huge portion of the community was able

to access it without really any capital at all. And that was magical. Yeah, look, I agree with Robert on this. I think the fact that it's really easy to lose your apes is not an indictment of apes holders, but rather of crypto itself, that like we don't have better and easier best practices and defaults that make it hard for you to do that. Yeah, and by the way, like the amount of like sophisticated attacks, not just on like regular people, but on institutions, on sophisticated people.

I've been scamping the crypto. Like, I'll admit that. Like, you know, I know a lot of extremely sophisticated people who have in some sense lost money somewhere somehow. Like, this is a vicious ecosystem. And it's not easy. And like, this is where I agree with Andre. Like, you know, I do think the structure of accessing it will evolve over time because

this is not set up for regular people. The fact that, like, you have, like, private key open systems is incredible because it means, like, you have, like, open APIs, basically to build on top of. But, like, I truly don't think that in 20 years you're going to have people managing their own private keys because it's. so damn risky. Like, there will be intermediary solutions. And the fact that you can is what will give the strength. But, like, I don't think people should be managing their own money in wallets that are constantly being attacked. Like, the Lazarus group is now targeting people.

Like, that's crazy. I do think institutionalizing stupidity is not exactly the place I would hope a society evolves to, which is, unfortunately, I think, what we've seen in a lot of NFT land is that. Tarun, if I can ask you, do you think humanity is getting smarter or dumber from your experience over the last 10 years? I think the tails of the distribution are driving far from the median and mean. The tails are evolving and the median is shrinking, right? We're just like getting this like high skew. Maybe a point in Andre's, you know, column here is,

On the topic of the KIC and license for the other side, there's actually another term in the license, which is it's against the terms to transfer your other side land to a non-KYC address. So if anything, this is maybe the first successful implementation of KYC defy, where we have this nice little KYC ecosystem of people who can only interact with each other. Wait, that's not informed, it's not enforced at the contract level? No. So it's against the terms, which means what? You sell out of OpenC, you basically violate the terms.

What? But will OpenC enforce that? No, they won't. Of course not. Of course not. Yeah. I mean, that's crazy. Wait, so what actually, I mean, nothing, what can they do to you?

Like, do they have the ability to just, like, snatch the land if you end up selling it to someone else who's not K. Assuming, theoretically, they build some huge metaverse one day, then, you know, they could just not allow your asset in the game. Sure. But that, but that still allows it to circulate on secondary markets. You could have a dealer in the middle who takes it, can't use it in the game, but could go resell it to somebody else, right? Like that seems like a solution to that problem. What is the value of Bitcoin address that's on the OFAC list?

Yeah, it's similar where you're dirty and clean Bitcoin. You have dirty and cleaning the other side. But if it ends, you know, again, it's a difference between dirty and clean, like dirty, non-KyC should not mean dirty. Like, OFAC list means dirty. Okay, like that's like, okay, it's been in the hands of North Korea. Dirty in a video game is the same, right? I just walk you from every use because the game is on chain. So there's no way of.

Sure. If the game is on chain, you can't actually have it be like the game engine to be trustlessly executing. Then it's just like at the end of the day, you're still at the whim of the. That is absolutely crazy. Do we think there's going to be a game? I ask this to Andre.

I ask this to all of us. Do we actually think a game is going to realistically ship within some? This is the game. You're playing it right now. This is the game. Correct. Correct. It's correct.

an MMRP playable game. Okay. And speaking of which, speaking of which, so there was a piece of news I saw on Twitter last night that I thought was very perfect timing is that Square Enix

just sold a bunch of game franchises to like another game developer. It sold Tomb Raider, DASX, and like a bunch of other franchises and 1,100 game developers in one big bundle for, guess how much? $300 million.

Which is less than what other side made in its way of T sales, which is absolutely, absolutely nuts. This is all of Square Enix's Western brand, so, you know, it's just cause, it's uncharted. Like, it's a bunch of, like, really, really good titles. That's right. Yeah.

That's right. So, crypto, man. The other thing that's also striking, and I think we can end on this, is just the efficiency loss that Yuga Labs made because of their auction design, which is one of the first things that you feel like anyone in crypto would have told them is like,

guys, don't do a gas war. Oh, it's not that they even did that. They literally were just like, actually Dutch auctions are dumb. We wrote the code. I know. They were going to do a Dutch auction and they changed their mind. They lost $172 million. Half of their proceeds, they lost to miners in gas wars because they changed their auctionism.

They lost to eat holders. They lost eighth holders. Yeah, it's burned. It's not. That's right. That's right. We got to give, let's take the silver lining view of it. Okay.

We proved that EIP 1559 worked not only really well in practice. It was able to provide an insane amount of rebates, like probably the highest discounted set of rebates in history. Like no centralized ND has ever paid out $100 million in rebates to its users in one hour. So let's give that, let's give that some credit. That should be thinking of this book of world records. Very well said to me, very well said. always ever the optimist in looking at these situations.

I just think I think that's kind of cool, right? Like that's pretty, that's really. No, you're absolutely right. 100%. 100%. Amazing. Well, Yuga Labs, thanks for giving back in an unexpected way. The other interesting news of the weekend, we're running low on time, so we'll just take this.

So Solana, on the same day as the Yuga Labs, other side, NFT sales, Solana had a massive outage. So they were out for about seven hours, which was. almost as long as, I think they had a previous outage that was like 17 hours, so this was not quite to that length, but it was basically most of the day Solano was down. And this outage was, like with Yuga Labs, was caused by NFT bots.

So there's a contract called Candy Machine, which is basically the standard SPL, you know, standard library contract for minting NFTs. And essentially you had, I think it was on the order of four million transactions per second or something like that, that were being bombarded. And of course, you know, Solana doesn't have a mempool. It only has a single leader at any given time.

And so the single leader is just getting absolutely jackhammered by millions of transactions per second of just all these bots trying to mint NFTs for super cheap, even before the NFT minting is available. And so that took down Solana. And as Solana was trying to turn back on, there was a bunch of controversy because one of the validators that was, you know, so Solana has a certain number of validators. They were trying to coordinate in the Discord to try to figure out to turn things back on.

One of the Salana validators suggested, like, hey, guys. in order to turn things back on, we got to, you know, we can't, the moment we turn the validators back on, they just get taken down again, right, by the swarm of NFT bot traffic. So here's an instruction you can use, if you want to, no, no pressure, but here's an instruction you can use within your IP tables to block incoming traffic that is targeting the candy machine contract. And when people saw this, they were like, oh, my God, censorship, and people were freaking out about what this meant for Solana and decentralization, blah, blah, blah.

And so Solana is obviously back up and running. and the candy machine, Github introduced a change that should now penalize people who are trying to mint before minting is actually available for that particular contract. But it's again been a struggle for Solana

and everybody in the space to handle what's going on with NFT bots and NFT minting. So reflections on the Solana outage. I guess Andre will start with you given that you are the only one of us who's developed in L1. What's your take on the

the Salana outage this weekend. I think it comes down to, you know, what would have happened if they had done nothing? Even in a decentralized blockchain that has a leader-based system that has one leader elected every 24 hours, theoretically, like, you know, the next 24 hours, a new leader should have been elected,

and they should have gone up, and it should have continued from there, and then the next, and the next, and the next. So, like, the fact that a remedial action had to be taken, it makes me ask how well will it perform in an adversarial environment. And, you know, like the answer is not that great. So, you know, and this is where nomenclature starts becoming fuzzy.

You know, is it a distributed system? Is it a decentralized system? Is it really a blockchain solution? So, you know, I think maybe it needs a different categorization because, you know, it's not for what it does and for what it accomplishes. it's fine if it went down, you know, because this is basically a very lengthy round-robin server selection load balancer is what it comes down to. So, so I don't, I don't, I don't even latency between leader election is what you're saying. That, that I would probably make less.

I, I think that's maybe a little bit bad on the redundancy side, but it's going to keep happening unless they start looking at traditional blocking mechanisms, you know, This is a standard IP throttling connectivity. So those same rules that apply in sort of traditional hosting solutions. Because I think they're closer to a hosting solution than there are an Ethereum or a Bitcoin. Yeah, one thing I would add, you know, a funny little observation. And, you know, I think is that there's some people who I have observed the last couple years who are who were big Solana shills who worked at either Alameda or FTX who left and became Anon.

And they've been posting all these types of things of the following form, which is, is a mempool in a user space construction of a blockchain? Like the kernel space is things managed by consensus? And is the mempool kind of this thing where users have to manage it themselves? And in some sense, that distinction actually is a security risk for blockchains that people did not consider, especially when they were like chilling like low latency all the time. But I do think there's a really good group of people in the Solano world who are actually working on fee markets and sort of mental stuff in a way that I think is actually quite interesting in that they're, because of how many failures they've had, they actually have to make very different memphis. pool design. Again, maybe I'm, as you point out, eternally optimistic, but I do actually feel like there's some kind of cool design that you have to do for a mempool that's like trying to be low latency, but also not put its inject itself into consensus. So at the end of the day,

yes, the system is kind of not really a blockchain in any sort of sense. I mean, the fact that there's no fees does kind of reflect the fact that there's no ability to respond to demand. But does kind of open up an interesting design space, given that you've already bootstrapped yourself to like this much capital is sitting in this thing. And then you have to add a pay market. Like after the Yuga Labs thing, the other side, NFT sales, like, Vitalik came out on Twitter and basically said, like, look, yes, the contracts have been more optimized, but like this is what's going to happen when there's a lot of demand and not much supply. Like, this is how blockchain is supposed to work. Whereas in Salana, it's the exact, to your point, it's the exact opposite.

it is like, oh, well, Salon is supposed to be the NASDAQ of crypto, and the fact that it can't support four million transactions per second is a personal failing that we need to resolve by, you know, switching over to quick or, you know, just kind of throwing more juice at it and figuring out how to make sure this doesn't happen. It's not just that. It's not just that this idea that, like, the mempool is a user space construction versus a kernel space. So this is sort of like just, you think about like operating system design, right?

Like there's certain things that are controlled by the operating system, certain things that are controlled by the user and their applications, right? And the hard part is where do you draw the line? Where do you say, like, this has to be part of the operating system versus this has to be part of, like, the user's managed state? And I think people did not, especially like from a theoretical lens, like two years ago when none of these chains existed, like live, people did not appreciate that that distinction is quite important. And the interesting thing about what's happening in is that now there's multiple teams, multiple people working on mempool constructions because it's not part of consensus. So there can be multiple mempool implementations that different people agree on.

And that space is going to be extremely interesting because they still want to like achieve this like latency bound while also kind of aggregating their sort of like MEV properties into this mempool. And so so we're going to see like I think a bunch of innovation from this failure. I mean, going back to the Metaplex candy machine fee thing, so they basically added this, like, fixed fee for transactions that meet certain heuristics, which are likely to be bought transactions. Like, basically, if you try to mint before the minting is open or you do a couple different things, and then when they charge you a fixed fee, which is so far charged like 400 something sole, I think of it maybe a little bit like a country that doesn't have an army and instead, instead, like, totally federated. And basically, every state is required to, like, implement their own sort of like, you. know, security practices and bot mitigation techniques. And so it's like, and if you don't, then like maybe, you know, validateers basically ban

transactions that are trying to hit you. And so it's like, you know, maybe there's, I agree like this is very janky. But like it seems like, you know, the Metaflex thing is sort of a step towards every application basically being responsible for their own, you know, throughput management by implementing some sort of fee market, which is, you know, interesting at the very least. It seems clearly so optimal, right? Like that seems like exactly the kind of thing that should be happening at the. Yeah, I mean, that's why countries have armies.

To me, to be fair. Exactly, yeah. To be fair, right? If I think about ETH, ETH also is the same thing where there's multiple memples, right? There's not actually like a single consolidated, like a belief in like a single mempool. First of all, there's like the different like obviously flashbots, there's obviously Eden. But there's also this like these like sort of off chain dark pools that then get aggregated and submit like, you know, Chiquetow, whatever.

And like at some level, they're also doing the same thing. It's just that in ETH, they made that a first class problem. They're like, this is actually an important part of our network. In Solana, they just kind of like said it wasn't a problem because the goal is to acquire users and capital faster as opposed to like solving this fee market thing. And now they're kind of going backwards. And so the question is, is there like this like too big to die type of thing in crypto of like Apecoin and Solana where like at some scale.

no matter what, you're actually going to be just have enough resources to invest in fixing that thing. Right. I mean, look, if Solana does create a feed market, I think that will solve a lot of these problems, like obviously. And to Tom's point, until they do, applications are incentivized to sort of create their own feed markets, which is awful, but can, you know, in principle can be done. Or at least you can emulate some of the properties of a fee market by saying, hey, you know, if demand is going really high or if you're doing things that are out of step, we're going to charge you for that. The most obvious striking thing is that like Solana is the only major blockchain that has had this kind of downtime, right? Like seven hours of downtime. That's like no oracles, no trading, no

NFTs. Like, you know, anybody who is doing anything that's remotely mission critical was frozen in time for seven hours until suddenly things we started and then, you know, like the arbitrage happened, the trading happened, the oracles got back to work. Like anybody who's on Solana now has to, like, you can't be like, oh, well, they had that one event, but now, like, it's going to be cool. Like, almost certainly this will happen again at some point. And you will have at least multi-hour downtime within Solana. And that's, it's just such a different mental model for what it means to build on a blockchain than for pretty much any other chain that's in existence today.

Even the new emerging layer ones. Like, I've not seen any new emerging layer one have this kind of downtime and stability issues that Solana's had. And I'll just posit that the biggest risk. of downtime is not on the ability to trade an NFT. It's not on the ability to do anything with the decks. Like the biggest risk, in my opinion, is that of liquidations or time-based systems where if you're offline for six hours, a system like compound on Solana suffers the most risk

because if you just turn it on after eight hours, you might have positions that are uncollateralized or underwater that jeopardize other users, whereas most things just jeopardize yourself. I can't trade an NFT. I can't Dex trade whatever. It's just you, right? The systems that pool user funds that take on risk related to users are the ones that have the most exposure to an outage and are most difficult to build on a system that could face an outage. Not to show, but there is an October 2021 paper that may have me as an author that does cover. That covers what exactly? If you have a loss of liveliness, like what the expected kind of tradeoffs between order book

exchanges and A&Ms are in these kind of things. You can read to Root's paper after this call. He's going to tweet out the link for everybody. I look forward to that. Yeah, I mean, look, this kind of stuff obviously does happen in Tradify as well where, like, you know, you hit some stop limit, like, you know, trading goes too far. You turn off the exchange for a while, turn it back on a couple hours. but usually this happens during times of high volatility.

Now, in crypto, naturally they tend to coincide, right? So like Solana was down, I think, 10% the day that the outage happened. Ironically, it kind of does maybe end up functioning somewhat similarly, except that, you know, the code for these contracts is not designed to, like, turn off and turn back on and then, like, re-evaluate things. And so maybe that just will have to be baked into Salana at some point because people just know that, look, we have to expect that, like, there will be episodes of downtime and liveliness loss,

in which case, we need to have some way for the market to effectively recover, assuming that in any given moment we could have just turned back on after six hours of downtime. So it's interesting. It's surprising to, you know, to Andre's point earlier, that almost every single instance that we've seen on Solana of downtime has been, you know, call it honest mistakes, right? It's been sort of a very genuine, like, hey, I wanted to use this an NFT, I wanted to go trade on this platform or whatever. We haven't seen anything like the Shanghai attacks happen to Solana.

which is really surprising. I sort of expected to be more adverse, like somebody ticks out a giant short and then decides to try to go break Solana or just spam it with enormous massive DDoS energy. But that hasn't happened. It's been all just like, you know, NFT knuckleheads going out and trying to mince stuff

before the contracts are open. And that takes down Salana. For the historians, I do think a long time ago in the Bitcoin network, people did try to like sell Bitcoin in the DDoS in and like do all these things. I think there was more layer one gamesmanship like a decade ago that did occur. There have been instances where, you know, other L-1s, you know, were 51% attacked, let's say.

Like there have been trading activities around layer ones and, like, attacking them. That has occurred in the history of crypto, like many times. KYC exchange, improved KYC at exchanges has, I think, reduced the ability of someone to get away with such an attack. Yes, but a decade ago, I think this stuff was more prevalent. Yeah, exactly. I feel like before 2017, it was way easier to do this. It got much harder from the actual taking the other side, shorting type of thing. Fair enough.

Well, let's hope we didn't give anybody any ideas. Andre, it was an absolute pleasure having you on the show. I'm glad you were able to exonerate yourself. We have, at least for me personally, I don't know about Robert. I know Robert has his own feelings. I've always liked Andre. I think, you know, there's, you know, some people, you know, don't like them on Twitter, but, you know, you're fine with me, Andre. Nothing but love.

I really appreciate that, guys, like, for real. But I'm pretty sure I would have said something that dug a new hole for me and I'll find out about that tomorrow when people go out of their way to try and let me know how I fucked up this time. Oh, don't worry. We're going to, we're going to start it. We're going to go on, immediately you're going to go on Twitter and start talking about all the horrible stuff that you did on the show. Anyway. All about context. Yeah.

Well, it's been great to have you. Thanks for, thanks for gracing us with your. presence sir and for everybody else until next time thanks for tuning in see everybody