Unchained - The Chopping Block: Rugs, Incentives & Float Lies, Mosi Breaks It All Down - Ep. 836

Episode Date: May 15, 2025

Welcome to The Chopping Block – where crypto insiders Haseeb Qureshi, Tom Schmidt, Robert Leshner, and Tarun Chitra break down the biggest stories in crypto. This week, we’re joined by one of the most iconic anons on Crypto Twitter: Mosi, aka @vanacharma. Known for calling out sketchy tokenomics and vaporware valuations, Mosi joins the crew for a ruthless teardown of market maker games, OTC dumps, and the “hallucination yield” driving this cycle’s worst bets. From the $60M Movement Labs fiasco to OTC pump schemes and the collapse of community trust, the gang goes deep on why crypto’s market structure is broken—and what it’ll take to fix it. If you’ve ever wondered how the sausage gets made in crypto token launches, this one’s for you. Show highlights 🔹 $60M Movement Meltdown – How a token deal gone wrong became crypto’s latest fiasco and dragged down one of the cycle’s most hyped L1s. 🔹 Anon vs. Everyone – Iconic CT anon @vanacharma breaks down the float games, OTC dumps, and tokenomics illusions plaguing the industry. 🔹 Market Makers or Middlemen? – When is liquidity real, and when is it just backdoor exits? We unpack how MM incentives are getting abused. 🔹 Hallucination Yield & Vapor Valuations – Why funds chase tokens with the fakest traction — and what happens when reality hits. 🔹 Are VCs to Blame? – The crew debates whether investors are complicit in these token games or just bad at picking founders. 🔹 Pump, Dump, Repeat – How OTC discounts, fake float, and circular trading fuel a Ponzi-like system hiding in plain sight. 🔹 Why Retail Gets Burned – Most people never stood a chance. We walk through how asymmetric info and hidden unlocks wreck public buyers. 🔹 Can This Be Fixed? – Haseeb and Mosi clash on the path forward: enforceable disclosures, exchange oversight, or do-nothing chaos? 🔹 Self-Regulation Is the Only Way Out – Before the SEC nukes everything, the industry must grow up. Here’s where that starts. ⭐️Haseeb Qureshi, Managing Partner at Dragonfly ⭐️Robert Leshner, CEO & Co-founder of Superstate⭐️Tom Schmidt, General Partner at Dragonfly  Guest ⭐️ Mosi, Just a Kid from Africa Timestamps  00:00 Intro 01:22 Mosi’s Crypto Philosophy 03:13 Market Structure Issues in Crypto 08:07 OTC Deals & Market Manipulation 15:36 Fixing the Market Structure 23:56 Self-Correcting Market Dynamics 29:19 VC Incentives and Market Impact 36:08 Retail vs. Institutional Investors 52:26 Superstate's Vision for Onchain Equities HostsDisclosures Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The assets that pump in most are the assets are harder to value, like, stuff that has like very high hallucination yield. And like, I think there's always an incentive to do that. And like, unless these funds get like super wrecked, this is just gonna continue. Like, that's kind of like how I say it. Not a dividend. It's a tale of two funds.

Now, your losses are on someone else's balance. Generally speaking, air drops are kind of pointless anyways. I named trading firms who are very involved. I like that eat is the ultimate pump. D5 protocols are the antidote to, this problem. Hello, everybody. Welcome to the chopping block.

Every couple weeks, the four of us get together and give the industry insider's respective on the crypto topics of the day. So quick and shows, first you got Tom, the D-Fi Maven, and Master of Memes. Hello, everyone. Next, you've got Robert, the Cryptoconisur, and Tsar of Super State. Good morning. Joining us today, we've got special guest, Mosey, Mast Maverick, and the magnifier of misdeeds.

Jim. I think that's the longest title we've ever used on the show. Well, the thing is, like, he's an anon, so we don't actually, I don't know where he lives, don't know what his title is, don't know what he does for work. All I know is that he is out there and he's on the prowl. So anybody who's up to bad, no good stuff, Mosey's coming for you. Finally, I've received head hype man to Dragonfly. We're U.S.

Investors of Crypto, but I want to caveat that nothing we say here is investment advice, legal advice, or even life advice. Please see Chopin Block. For more disclosures. So just to give some background here for the audience, we are all here fans of Mosey and what he's been doing out there on his Twitter handle

at Vana Charmer, Vana Charmer. But Mosey, how would you describe yourself, what you do, and how should people understand who you are? Yeah, actually, like, I know, I think I'm just like, honestly, like, another anonymous dude. I think, like, in general,

like, that's the beauty of crypto. You know, that no one really joy to see you for who you are and, like, they just look at your ideas. Personally, I think that's, like, very nice. And, I know, like, I think it's, been pretty real to be unknown for me.

I've been in crypto, like, for a while. I've worked full time in the space, I think now for a couple of years. I want to, like, dying too deep into my background because I think it's like not, like, as important. I personally, like, I like to focus mostly on ideas, but yeah, I basically didn't crypto for a while doing, like, a little bit of everything. And, yeah, like, honestly, like, I did I just create a dis account, like, the most the account just to, like, well, like, understand markets, like, better and, be,

able to connect better with like crypto people and also I think just showing people that you know like the only thing that matters in crypto are like your ideas and like that's it okay so maybe maybe it's worth giving just a little bit of context setting on what made you so stand out as an anon within crypto so I'd say you were one of the central figures in calling out two particular blowups first being ohm and the second being movement and specifically you are calling out a lot of stuff about the market microstructure underneath how these market making agreements and these, particularly around the subterfuge that many projects are doing around their float dynamics. Do you want to talk us through, what would you say is the main problem you see today with

market structure that ties together these tokens as well as others that you've been calling out? So I think the main choice here with market structure is the lack of knowledge. I think now like crypto resembles pretty much like an MLM scheme, because It's like you have the, you have like the exchanges on top, like sort of like, like, like pretty much like swindling everyone because I think. I don't like this analogy. Let me interject. Okay, okay, okay.

Yeah. You can continue it. I just want to lodge my complaint. Okay. I will also like. For the record. Yeah. Yeah.

For the record. No, no. But I think it's like the lack of like knowledge and like all these works because I think exchanges are like really tough because they pretty much end up late. touring everyone on the boss, including founders. Because, like, I think very hard to deal with, and I think in general, like, I would say, like, they make the most money from crypto. Then you could say, like, you have, like, market makers, which I think have, like, pretty,

like, privilege information. And, like, thing in general, like, retail flows, like, pretty much I, that's what, like, market makers one, right? And, like, I think it's very easy for them to, like, profit from those. Then you have, like, you guys, very, like, BCs and founders. Then you have sort of, like, KOLs and then you have, like, retail. And I think that disconnect is actually pretty bad because I think in general retail investors don't really know

I don't like how these dynamics work and I think it's very easy to like manipulate some things to make them look nice. Like for example, I think you can have 1% of like your float out there. Of course, like you're not going to rebuild it. And like the first thing you see as a retail investor is all this project is worth like $20 billion. And I think even like some founders like to play into this dynamic as well,

I was speaking to a founder, I'm not there I name him. But hey, I was like, yeah, like, if I think of the coin market gap webpage as like an SEO thing. And I'm like, bro, like that's just like fucked off, you know. Like I think that's like the worst way to think about this. Because you're basically like presenting a very fake thing about your project is. And also, I think many people are union crypto do not understand, still do not understand how liquidity dynamics work. because I remember I jumped on a space

I think he was like not a good space like some like by Marion Ophill or something and they were like oh my God ohm crash like it erased like five billion this is like super bad for crypto and I'm like what I was thinking I was not speaking on the space with us is like guys like this party was never worth this

you know it's just like a weird illusion but this was never worth this but yeah that's sort of like what I think is the main like personally one of my main concerns okay so let me maybe ask you this kind of reverse engineering a little of your criticisms here. Let's say that you're in a, we're in a different universe and we have Shadow Mosey in front of us. And Shadow Mosey wants to scam everybody in crypto by playing all the games that one could possibly play to create a

manipulative high flow token and kind of rug pull everybody possible. How would you do that? Can you sort of walk us through mechanically? How do you create like the worst or the worst, you know, artificially inflated token? Yeah, so first you have to make sure that you have to like tightly control token supply. You have to make sure that the token doesn't get in the hands of as many people as possible. And you have to make this very hard to track. For example, having a super bad explorer. I think that's like for like the first step. Like that. Yeah, I'm not. Or not that. No, that name's here. But no, not our name names here. But yeah, that's like, I think that's like the first step. Okay. Simple one, terrible explorer. And like supply control, that's like very important. Supply control. My control is like the most important thing.

Then I think you can tell like, so let's say like there's actually 1% of the flood out there. You give let's say like 5% your market maker and you tell them to trade against traders. And I think that's a very favorable dynamic for like your market maker or your market makers because it's like the way I see the site. They're going to be trading against people who know way less out of the token than they do. So, like, they can sort of, like, liquidate all the shorts and liquidate all the longsus. They see fit because they, in Gent, they own most of the supply ride. So they can use, like, all the guys using labor just, like, exit liquidity. And, like, if they trade with, like, a P&L ship, they can sort of, like, rapture with the foundation or with the founders.

Then as a founder, you can also, like, cash out with the market maker. I think that's also a pretty common practice nowadays. Usually, like, the founder never cashes out. Or, like, wealth. It's like they do if it's like a more legit thing, but that's sort of like a way to like obfuscate this because it's like if you use the tokens, you're a market maker and then they transfer it to like another entity on your name. It's like much better for you as a founder because like the chances of getting bought are like way lower. And yeah, like and then like just run this cam until basically like your project like slowly decays. I think one thing you can do as well.

The price of your token is like sell OTC and by liquid. people are doing this now. Like, I think you would actually be surprised by like how many people are doing this. And yeah, like, I think that's... So can you explain this, sell OTC and Buy Liquid? So essentially it's like foundation selling like log tokens. Like, let's say like I'm an IP blockchain founded by a very big firm in San Francisco. And I approach you guys and I'm like, guys, for selling OTC lot tokens for 50% discount and the unlock in June. And then I take the money from you guys, I give you the OTC tokens

and I use that money to like buy the token on the open market and pop the price. And this thing is like essentially a bumpy scheme because like when the token unlocks, right? Of course, like investors are going to be rushing this out, right? So it's a really sustainable. Mantra also running the playbook.

And yeah, that's, it's just not sustainable. How do you know that they're running this playbook? Well, like with Mantra, it's because the guy literally went into the podcast and he said they were two indies. Like, I was like, I'm not making it off.

Like, you can look at the podcast. I'm not accusing you of making this up. I just want to know what like hard facts and receipts you bring. Yeah, of course, of course. So he went in a podcast and he said, yeah, we're selling OTC and we're buying some back. And the interviewer was like, yeah, that this is like bumping the price. So he has like, no, it's not pumping the price. But it's like, I mean, of course it is like, I mean, if you buy like 10 million worth of a

token that has like no liquidity, of course it's going to pump. And the second thing with Mantra was that base of view, they were holding like $5 billion at the top on like one wallet, which they claimed was like a mirror bucket wallet. But if you check the receipts, like, do you really match? Like either scan and like a minskin, which was there. Well, they're like as a follow like customers as a K chain. So like they use like minskin as an expiry, like but still like the

transactions like don't really match. So that's why, that's why I knew like, okay, this is not a mirror bucket wallet. like no way. And with Sorry protocol... Nearbucket wallet basically means like a bridge Yes, exactly.

It's supposed to be bridging into this other chain and it wasn't doing that one for one. Exactly. It's a word that burn stokens. Like, let's say, like I want to bridge like a thousand east

to Solana and then it's like, it basically like holds my a thousand eth and like then sort of like deploy as like W.E's and then points it back

when I tried to bridge their WH back example. But yeah, like that's how Mary Bucket was. But, and yeah, and with story, well, with the IP blockchain that it's not going to be name.

The IP blockchain that shall not be named? Have you seen a lot of like OTCs that like I've like yeah, like I know many friends that have been offered this deal. And you just have friends out there because of course in your bio it says you're just a kid from Africa. Yes. They're offering OTC to kids in Africa now. Well like I might or might not be a kid from Africa that might or might not be a trip. But again like I've seen these deals. Like, I can actually, like, show some screenshots that this is happening.

But how do you know who's selling, right? Because it could well be that, okay, it's like some angel investors. It's some small funds that did the deal. What gives you confidence that, okay, this is the foundation doing some kind of Ponzi-like thing? Yeah. So for some of the specific cases is that you really get approached by the market maker. Or, like, yeah, I mean, it's definitely also like be like some of the investors. But I think it's like also the inorganic, like price section.

So I also have like some K-O-L friends. And essentially like for these like IP blockchain that weren't in their name, at some point I think in April, the price was earned like $4.00. And there was a 0.1% KOL on luck that only like KOLs not knew about. I like the price went from like four to three in like one stop. And I think this is like the result of like a highly like inorganic like price action. and in general, I think you can sort of like see it as well because it's like, usually the crypto markets are pretty correlated. So when like, I don't know, like, Celeste is dumping,

Ethereum, like, when Ethereum is dumping, like, Celeste is probably dumping too. And like in general, all they're like normal altars are like sort of like correlated. But with this things like home and like the other blushes that were not going to name, you swore of like see the price action like super like just, it keeps going up on like a super red market or like it's unaffected. when everything else is going down. And that's sort of what you see.

I think you also see the Salaior breast action as well. I think that's another good try to look at where it just went from like three to like $2 and like seconds. And it's like if you look at Solayer, it's like it has like absolutely no traction. Like there is no retail demand for this like no one wants this asset. And I think something very telling for the IP blockchain that we're not going to name is that they claim to have a lot of traction in Korea. but obbit, which is the biggest exchange.

I think many people think that they're not bit, but they're not. And I'm going to leave a little bit of room to you guys to think, like, why? It's not exactly the least little. But hey, yeah, that's what I'm going to say in that regard. I think it's hard to identify who is selling OTC. That's for sure. Okay. So, well, maybe one thing to also clarify in the playbook you just laid out about how to run a scam token.

You know, you're not going to be able to do this with most markets. makers. Most market makers won't do this because, of course, like, this is super illegal, what you're describing. Like, what you're describing is clearly market manipulation and or fraud, right? And in both these cases, in order to do this, like, how do you actually cash out for Fiat and make away from this whole thing? Well, I think the best way... Because eventually this will catch up with you, right? Because if there's no organic demand, eventually this thing is going to pancake and people are going to be really, really mad. Of course. I think you have to, like, try to soft and the blow as much as possible. I think if it's something like, oh, it's like really bad because

like you can see it. Like, okay, it went down like 90% one day. Like, what's happening here? But I think like, well, I'm not giving anyone advice here, but I think the best way to cash out is against, like, a market maker that is willing to do this. I do agree with you that not all market makers are willing to do this, like, especially the ones that are regulated are going to tell you like, why not doing this? Not like, so I'm definitely are. And I think if you cash out to one entity, it's very hard for it to, like, catch up with you because, I mean, you cannot confiscate it legally, like, pretty well. I think also, like, I guess you guys know this as well, like, some of these entities are not even in, like, the founder's name. They're also

on, like, someone else's name or, like, on, like, a lawyer's name, so it's very hard to, like, track. And I think it's also, they're also in places where, like, regulation is a little bit more lax. Like, of course, like, if you want to cash out to an entity in the U.S., it's very likely you're going to get in serious legal trouble. And, like, it's a lot. not good, but you cash out like Dubai or, I don't know, like same kids and nabits. It's, I think it's a little bit more lenient. Wow. You're really laying out the playbook here.

Okay. I get like not encouraging anyone to do this. I have never done this. So yeah. Yeah. Okay. Supposedly. Okay.

So how do we fix this? You are an Anna. You are. You could have done this. I could have told us done this. But again, like Jude, like I've reassured of so many things. like, look,

he's just a poor kid from Africa. Let's not, let's not poor, more, more program on him. If it seemed, yeah.

So mostly, how do we fix this? How do we fix this? Like, I, like, look, there's always been shady stuff

in the corners of crypto. It's been true as long as I've been here, right? But it does feel like most of that shady stuff, well, actually,

no, as, now that I'm about to say, oh, it didn't feel like it was happening as openly. That's not true. It actually was.

But it does feel like it's gotten more sophisticated as the market has evolved, the norms around disclosures have evolved, the expectations around, okay, you're going to tell us when unlocks happen, you're going to tell us how many of the tokens are here or over there, the amount of circulating tokens are supposed to be better labeled today. So the disclosure standards have improved, not a ton, but they're definitely better than they were a few years ago. And yet we still see things like this, where people are misrepresenting

what they're doing with their flow, they're misrepresenting supply dynamics. And exchanges are also more sophisticated now than they were in the past. They are actively policing this stuff to the extent that they can. Of course, movement got delisted, web three port got shut down. So we know that the exchanges are trying to crack down on the stuff, but they're not succeeding, right? Or at least they're succeeding a little too late compared to what we might otherwise want. So what, as Mosey, what would you say is the playbook that we should be following, that the exchanges should be following, that people who are regulating this space should be following to prevent stuff like this.

So, well, like, I'd say like we could do several things about this. think that some of the things she said about like disclosures were actually like pretty boyish. Because I think like most of these issues stem about like people like not knowing how this like an equity dynamics work. First like I think you would be very bullish of like exchanges could disclose like, okay, who are their market makers? Like what percentage of the supply they have? Also for example like I think another thing is sort of like tracking what the market makers are doing. There are already tools for this now that but it's mostly used by like internal teams. they're like, okay, we have this tool

and we're going to track what a market maker is doing on Binus because you need to track their KPI and you need to be like, okay, this guy's fracturing me equity or are they doing nothing? So that's like what, like I think open sourcing these tools would be very useful. I'm not sure if there's an incentive for that, but it'll be useful.

I think making it clear that even when it with like low-fell tokens, like that are always like two markets, the liquid market and the OTC market and usually the prices is for quite a lot. Like, you can be than like 80%, but you can buy

this year at like 80% discounted like you have enough size. So that's like one thing. And the other thing is like that I think would be very important that I think we don't really see is that you'd be good to know

what investors are doing and you will also be good if like softs have clauses for these and I think say if token warrants do as well which is that you cannot just cash out OTC, right? Not without teams approval, right? Like that that's not how it should work.

the team should be like improving these deals because I mean like I don't agree around now like if you're a phone and like you're a super wrecked and like you need to cash out like that sequence but that's how it works in practice today like these clothes are like never respected like people you scash out and be like okay yeah we sold our barrel stock at $2 billion

we're out and I think yeah the reality is that with all of the financial instruments available in crypto it's very hard to police you're absolutely right most of these terms when VCs are investing involve you know a term against hedge term against selling. So you must maintain your price exposure

to this underlying asset. You can't go short perps or something in order to hedge out your assets. But of course, it's hard to police, right? And like the exchanges aren't going to cooperate in enforcing this. So it's kind of honor system. That being said, I know of at least one case recently

where a firm basically got their saft deleted because the fact that it was discovered that they were basically hedging their exposure to a token that they had invested in as a VC. But it's very difficult. It's very difficult to find. to when this stuff is happening

because it's crypto. You can really, you go put the short on hyperliquid, you know, who's going to find it? No, for sure. I think it's very hard to find.

That's not like, I completely agree with that, but I think it's also like, an issue with like the underlying market structure that I think there needs to be like bigger consequences for people who do this because I think it's also very bad for teams. Like I was talking to Tom before we started recording and it's basically like,

as a builder, do you do not want an investor that it's like, okay, I'm, I'm going to go in your round and then I'm going to go sell for a Dacia Maricup to like a nation fund. That's it. The last thing you want is a builder. Like you want people who are like aligned with you and aligned with your vision and are going to be in the trenches with you like building like no term.

This is like not what you want, you know? So that's the. So yeah, like I do think it's like hard. But I think it's I can give you if if friends know that they might risk losing their selves, it's a little bit different. And it's like, I think it's also, if like exchanges like to cooperate on this, which I don't see an issue on like why they want because like, I mean, exchange is like, like, do they're like pretty bad. This is more work for them. Yeah. It's just like it's very hard to build the infrastructure to do that. It is more work for them, but I think the value of the exchange is like slowly they like decreasing, especially with options like hyperliquid. Because it's like, the way I see it, it's like when you, when you're listed token on an exchange, you're like bullish anymore.

You know? And like, this is actually very. various exchanges because the revenues are going down. And like hyper liquid revenues, for example, are going way up in comparison. And I think you can see because they're really like feel threatened by other options. Well, but to the point I just made, you know, if, okay, let's say Binan starts enforcing this, which again is very, very complicated to do is they have to go collect everyone's safs and they have to go enforce that, okay, this person, XYZ is not allowed to hedge.

Like we just talked about hyperliquid, right? If hyperliquid has market share, how is hyperliquid going to read a bunch of safts? and then enforce hedging restrictions on certain accounts? I think it's a little bit Easter there because it's like if you know how much investors own, I think it's a little bit easier to see if someone is hedging. Because in general, like I don't like if you own like, let's say like, like two million monotoc tokens and the day it goes trading,

like someone goes and like hedges for like two million. Like it's pretty like, I think of course you're not going to do that, but I think with hyperliquid, it's a little bit easier to track because it's all on chain. You know, and it's like with hyperliquid also like, everyone knows, like, who the, like, the qualitar, for example. And I think it's... If you're using your monad tokens as collateral to short monad, then, like, okay, yes,

that obviously is going to show up. But, again, well, taking a step back, Tom, what's your take on the picture that most he's painting here about some of the infrastructure problems or sort of market structure problems? Yeah, I mean, I think we're talking about that a little bit before the show, but in my mind, this does seem ideally like a little bit of a self-correcting problem where, hey, if the best projects won't raise from VCs who are doing this, then that sort of flushes out some of the bad capital. And so maybe it's a time horizon question. Maybe it's the market is so big that there's

always going to be this stuff on the fringes that people see that, you know, ends up getting terrible stories like this. But it does seem like one of the things where it actually really benefits very few parties, if any, to kind of have this kind of, you know, behavior take place. And so So it seems like, hey, like you said, VCs you do this, people find out reputation goes down, they get less deals, less access, and sort of the cycle repeats. So I don't know. I'm curious what you think about that. And I've also kind of been reflecting on maybe the market more broadly where, you know,

I think generally when people think about kind of scams and crypto, it's, oh, there was a vulnerability to contract and someone stole all the money. Or I think we'll look back to like ICOs when teams have raised a bunch of money and then not really shipped the thing and kind of disappear. And I guess like, do you think this is better or worse than ICOs? Because, or like the bad ICOs. So in my mind, the bad ICOs, it's like, at least you know what you're getting into, right? Like the terms of the contract are very kind of clear.

Like, you can do your own kind of underwriting around the team or the project or the terms or whatever. Here almost feels like you don't know the contract that you're entering, right? Like you think this is what the float is or you think that's, this is what's happening with the unlock. But in reality, it's not what's happening. And so if anything, it's like, and, you know, as you've mentioned, a lot of this is happening behind the scenes. You can't even, you know, diligence it even if you try as a retail investor. Yeah. So I know if it's like so much of a self-correcting problem unless these funds end up losing money.

Like that's the way I see it. I think like actually like many funds are probably going to zero because it's like the way I see it. It's like you do have like as a fund, especially if you raise a huge fund, you do have an incentive to deploy capital on things that do not make absolutely like any sense. like an IP blockchain because it's like you raise so much you don't want to return capital to investors and you need to deploy it on something right so you're going to like go find an asset with very high hallucination yield and try to sell it to retail as much as you can because you know like

in crypto the assets that pump the most are the assets are harder to value like stuff that has like very high hallucination yield and like I think there's always an incentive to do that and like unless these funds get like super wrecked this is just going to going to continue. Like, that's kind of like how I said. But I do think it is a self-correcting problem, like when many funds go to zero by the end of the cycle, which I think it's got to be the case. Well, like, funds like, they're like also not able to like raise from the, their own piece because like their best. Because in the end, like, the obese are paying for this, you know. So that's kind of like how I see it. Well, so let me let me push back on that. I don't think at the

day that any of these funds want to invest in this hallucinatory crap, right? We've invested in total of over 100 portfolio companies at this point over the course of Dragonfly. And there's definitely more, I said more than 100, more than 100. I would think it's like 200 by now. It's maybe around 200. So I don't know exactly, but there's definitely stuff in our portfolio that is hallucinatory crap. Like you invest in enough founders over time. Some of them are going to get desperate. They tried things during the NFT boom and that didn't work and they pivoted. And they're just like wandering through this desert, hoping that anybody gives a shit about anything they're doing. And they just find something that, you know, somebody is willing to buy or somebody is willing

to retweet effectively. And over a larger portfolio, you will, you know, with probability one, you will get something in your portfolio that you're not proud of. I don't think anybody goes into an investment, expect, obviously there's some people who do go into an investment saying, oh, you know, this guy's going to buy back their token in the open market. That's why I'm bullish. but I don't think anybody goes into a deal expecting that. Now, you know, IP blockchains aside, like there's a, there's always going to be, there's always bad incentives in crypto.

And there are a lot of founders who get swayed by those bad incentives. And I think as VCs, what you want in the best of worlds is that your founders are going to do, they're going to do it the right way, they're going to sort of chart an honorable path through, through the industry. But I think there's a difference between the funds

that are doing this over and over again. And you find them on the cap table of multiple of these kind of fraudulent things. And especially the ones who are investing later on when it becomes more and more clear, this thing is vaporware. There's no real there there. Like, how could you have diligence this and arrived at, yes, I should invest. And there's other ones who invest earlier on and they don't know necessarily where it's going. So I think there's some gradations to be made.

I think there are funds that are really hurting from this. And to the point for a talk about self-correction, like it's always been true that there been scams in crypto. And it's always been sure that they've been bad actors in crypto. And there is some degree of self-correction in that the scams never last that long, right? Every scam in crypto I've ever seen is not here anymore. You know, it pancaked, it died at some point, it blew up, a bunch of people lost money and a bunch of people lost reputation over it. And it doesn't necessarily mean the harm is fatal, right? Some funds that invested into some scammy stuff are still around. They're not top tier funds anymore, but they're still kind of doing their thing,

limping along, making investments, but the people who, the people who built their career off, this is my strategy, is I'm going to invest in fly-by-night ICOs and flip them as fast as I can, those people are all gone. And the same thing in, you know, people who are flipping defy coins or food coins or people who are just looking at the most cynical, deleterious stuff, none of those people are here anymore. I remember them all. They're all gone. So I do think there's some degree of self-correction. It's not fast. It's not as fast as we might otherwise like. and maybe we want to do more to accelerate that process. But it's definitely true that it's self-correcting.

I mean, to a degree, it's self-correcting. But I think like now it's like, if you look at the market structure again, you was like, especially again, for BCs that raise like a big fund, they do have an incentive on like deploying capital on something that might have like a huge stem or that they can sell as something that has like a huge stamp, even though it doesn't because it's completely bad. So I think like that still exists for sure. I think there's also like a lot of like comparison.

Like for example, like you guys invested in like BORF. And I guess your thoughts were like, oh, it's sort of like similar to base. Like it's going to be bullish, right? But then it's like the team doesn't execute it like does like whatever the family want. Right. So it's like that's like that's something that of course like you cannot control. But I think it's also something that it's like if you look at it from like first principles like why should something like more of like ever exist?

So I get consumer blockchain. Like we had so many like sort of like general purpose blockchains. I'm honestly like not super familiar with Hoodward rebuilding. But I remember I just read like the announcement once and I was like, this is like, of course I'm going to fail. Like that's what I thought of course. I'm at it with more pessimistic than you guys maybe. But yeah, like it's just like hard because most of their valuations in crypto now are based on like,

oh, let's compare this thing to this other thing. And personally I think that's wrong. Like I think that TCs for like to do to whether like, okay, we're going to invest some so we're not going to invest in this. It's like, okay, can this bring more people into crypto? Is this thing going to have like PMF? I think it's a main way to compare things now. We're like, okay, so we went to a 10 billion in FDB.

Maybe if we invest in movement, it's going to do, it's going to know to like 2.5 and we're going to be able to cash out and make money. Like that's wrong. I think like that's the way I see that like that incentive like it still exists. And I think especially if you raise like a big fund, you have zero incentive to deploy capital on apps and especially useful apps, which I think you could argue have been the biggest

most shots of this cycle. All of the projects that have made like a shit in a permanent, except Solana, have been like I'm like moochard, pump and fun on axiom. A photon like draw like super stupid apps. That probably would not have been founded by BCs. They probably would not have

been supported by like ecosystem guys at L-O-A-Wans. So I think that incentive still exists and I think it's bad for crypto adoption. Right? Because as a VC, you have an incentive to deploy on like infra because it has a bigger evaluation, potentially a bigger tournament, potentially a token is going to be worth more. And personally, I think that's bad. I think that's something that we need to eliminate. But I think it might be self-correcting in the way that these guys are all going to get wrecked. I know many funds that are doing this now. I can name a few. But yeah, so, and I still think the incentive exists.

So you see these fee boy still raising funds. And I think they're going to get dragged on some point. But it's still like, I think in a sense, like, these Cs are also kind of like beta chasers where it's like, they see a product and they see it's successful. Like, oh, I, a layer was successful. Why? Let's farm like more restaking protocols.

Like that's all of the logic. And like, I think that's kind of like not helpful. But yeah, instead of like, I think there should be a little bit more of like first principles thinking on the industry. And I think that's something that honestly like we're completely like now. So I agree with part of what you said and I disagree with other parts of it. the thing to realize is that

there was a quote that I heard very recently, which I thought was very good, which is that when you look back through history, everybody knows about the concept of fog of war. But when you look back through history, you see the man and you see the battlefield, but you don't see the fog, which is that it looks really obvious in retrospect

how things are going to play out, going several years into the future. It's not at all obvious when you're looking at an investment landscape of, hey, this founder comes to you, they have this idea, they say that this thing can be this big. Here's what they think the incumbent is doing wrong.

Here's how they think they can take over the market. And when you're making early stage investment, like the idea of like, well, there's already a guy out there who's doing this and I think they're already pretty good. So no, I don't think it makes sense to do this. If that's the attitude with which you're approaching investments, like you're just not a good investor. Now, that being said, that doesn't mean that every valuation is appropriate for making a seed bet.

There are some valuations that are totally insane. But a lot of these deals that you're talking about, you know, again, I don't know all these restaking plays. We didn't do any of them. But I want to defend the guy who does the whatever Bitcoin restaking play because who the fuck knows? Like you just actually don't know where it's going. And if you see this founder and you hear the story they're telling you and it's plausible, then the whole idea of investing is that you follow your conviction.

Now, look, if you cynically think that the market is stupid and it's magically going to cash me out, even though nobody wants this token, then basically you're betting on some kind of market manipulation, right? The reality, as you just said, is that the people who do this, they're going to die. because if you just think that you can turn this thing into a, if you think the market is basically this factory that produces retail credulity for random slop tokens, you're just going to lose money, right? Maybe somebody's going to make money from it.

Maybe the founder will make money if they OTC this thing. Maybe the foundation will make money. Like, I'm sure that Cayman directors are printing tons of money from doing this. But like, as a VC, you're actually the last to get fed in that process. Because like all the unlocks, all the fucking, you know, the exchanges are getting paid, Retail is getting theirdrop.

All these other people are getting out before you unlock even your first tranche tokens, right? So it is actually true. And I can tell you, looking at the DPIs and the returns of a lot of these funds, a lot of the people who do this stuff, they're not making money. Like, they're just not, right? It can't be both true that, you know, the VCs who do this are going to zero and getting corrected.

And they're making a lot of money and they're sort of being, quote, quote, quote, greedy by actually making returns. This is the way that markets chasing themselves and the way that markets learn is by going through an iteration, people getting greedy, them losing money, and them learning and pivoting, and like the capital being reallocated to somebody else. So all this is to say, look, when you make an investment, even something like Morf, the investment that we made into Morph obviously hasn't worked out. It's been kind of a disaster with respect to, you know, the team, people leaving, all this other stuff. But the idea that one of the biggest exchanges in the world,

launching their own chain and trying to bring some of their users on chain, to me, one of the most obvious pitches I've ever heard, right? Look at B&B chain. The MB chain is like number two, number three on any given day on Corn Mark Cap. You talk about retail adoption and bringing people on chain? Absolutely enormous, right? Every exchange has been trying to do this forever. And the question is, okay, should exchanges keep trying

or do you give up and say, well, base already won. Base is the best. Despite the fact that, of course, base is primarily U.S., right? Bickett, their market is overwhelmingly non-U.S., totally different set of users, most of whom aren't on chain, they're centralized exchange users. So to me, I'm very happy to have made that bet,

even whether or not that bet works out, whether or not I lose money. You can't, you know, I used to be a professional poker player. You can't be results oriented when you're looking at investments. You have to look at what are the potential range of outcomes? And look, do these people play it the right way? As long as they didn't scam anybody, they didn't do anything wrong to anybody. I'm more or less fine, although I would have preferred it to go a different way, obviously,

because I prefer investments to do well. But I think it's still, the entire book hasn't been written. There are many, many companies that go through really, really dark times. really, really horrible experiences. I mean, look at Uber. Uber was one of these quintessential examples of this. That company was a shit show. Everybody was saying, like, oh, my God, this company is corrupt. It's doing terrible things. And it ultimately pulls through. So as an investor, you never want to write off one of your investments, unless you know, for certain, this thing is dead because we've been surprised many times. I actually just had,

I was just told a couple weeks ago about a financing of a company that we invested in in, like, what was it, 2020, that is just raising a new big round. Apparently, they're now profitable, despite the fact that they were just basically left for dead. We thought they weren't going to make it. So this kind of stuff happens. And venture is unpredictable in that way. I completely agree with you. I think also what I was saying was Northern Sri.

Like, hey, like, don't invest in their restating protocol. Like, don't invest in more. Because I think it's like hard there to see for sure. But I think it's like, there's like this certain logic. Unlike BCs that I have seen, that it's like, okay, this one, so I get 10 billion FDB. So we're going to invest in this because it has the same like hallucinatory properties that it can go to like whatever. So like I think that's what I'm against.

I think if there's like a reason behind it, like, okay, now that he mentioned it like this way, like, okay, maybe we can target users and like Southeast Asia. Like I don't know like we do like a deal two for them. It makes a little bit more sense, but it's like I think many people are not thinking this way, you know. And like I think that's something that is wrong and I think it's something that we need to correct. And I think it's better if we catalyze this as like a market because this people. do not want to seek group to succeed. They just want to sell useless tokens to like, on a way to retail

investors and like honestly like these pieces be off. Like personally. So that's kind of like you think that. I'm against most mostly like better chasing just for the fact of like better chasing. Like there's like a new category like a BC, as a BC you feel like oh shit. There's like his new category.

In case it's big, we might need exposure. You do zero research over the new category and you just invest. It's like to you're like useless man like you're useless like it's like like I got the founder not everyone does that not everyone does that but it's like as a founder like I think you go to a BC and like they invest in you like maybe they have like you thought like okay they have like a good name and like you realize like they do not know anything over to your category and like

they just like there is like there to make money and it's like it's tough right because it's like of course like everyone wants their investment really profitable I think that's what of life I'm not against BCs making money but I think it has to make sense you know like I think people have to like provide value to you as well and they're digd like what I'm what I'm against is just better chasing for better chasing you know like that he's like

oh you could take a I'm going to invest I don't know anything about it you guys figure it out I think that's bad I think that's bad for like the industry I think that's bad for builders and I think that's also like that for BCs I think it's always a threat I had this debate with Gort and Gwort is like very seemingly anti-cryptovc or I should say anti-tokens. And I feel like the kernel of all of this, right?

Because one of the things that you, one of the things that you see very quickly if you're a founder is that the way your investors treat you is very different from the way that retail treats you, right? Which is that retail is extremely sensitive to ups and downs, right? Token goes down instantly, you're a scammer,

you're a terrible person, how could you have done this to us? You know, even when a token is an airdrop. So literally, people got tokens for free. They'll still get incredibly mad at you. Like, nobody even bought the token yet, and people are already mad at you. And investors, like, part of the reason why venture capital emerged,

and part of the reason why I think a lot of founders prefer to raise their first money, not from a crowd sale, not from an echo round, not from, you know, whatever, but to raise it from institutional VCs is they know, institutional VCs are patient capital, right?

We know how to buckle in. We're quiet, we're patient, we're chill. Look, if you defraud us, we're going to come after you. But as long as you're doing the right thing and you're more or less, you know, honestly failing, it's cool. It's totally fine to fail for your VC.

Actually, most projects fail, right? retail does not have that view. And most people don't have this intuition at all. Most people feel like if you failed, if you, you know, take something like scroll, right? Scroll, they launched an L2, didn't do well. Everyone is so mad at Scroll. You know, we didn't invest in Scroll.

I don't know the Scroll team that well. But like, as far as I can tell, Scroll just did an L2 that didn't work out. And people are so angry at Scroll. You know, they're so incredibly, it's like the worst, worse than many of the scammers that I see in this industry. I mean, actual scammers.

They find their own erud. And I mean, like, they gave, like, so much of a supply to binus. I think it's like, so the issue with scroll is that they promoted the redop like pretty heavily. And then, like, the team got, like, a big chunk of the erudop. Then, like, they gave, like, away most of the supply to Binus to get listed. And that, like, I mean, like, of course, like, people are going to get the best figures. Essentially, if you farm this grown up. Just to pause for a second.

This idea of like you're giving your supply to Binance, like, Binance gives that supply to B&B holders who are also people who are basically getting free money, right? Yeah, it's AirDrop. It's another... It's another airdrop. It's just more AirDrop. It's just not CT AirDrop, right? Most CT is not on Binance. But it's just more AirDrop, right? It's just like, oh, this air drop went over here, this air drop went over there. But people are really, really mad about that.

Now, look, if they were farming their ownirdrop, that's shady. I don't know anything about that. I've obviously not been following the story very closely. But the higherder bit is not that they were farming their ownirdrop. The higherder bit that scroll is down. If scroll was up, nobody would care about any of this, right? The reality is the scroll is down, and retail is very quick to punish failure. Like, they love punishing failure. It's like, to be clear, this is not a crypto thing.

There's like a universal human thing, you know? Like, people were so mad at We Work, even though the only people who lost money was like Masayoshi-San. But people are just, it's so incensed by failure. And that's one of the things that VCs do is they're just like, look, failure is the modal outcome in company building, right? Most companies fail. Like, that's always been true. The median lifespan of a company in the S&P 500 is like 20 years. which means within 20 years, you will fail after entering the S&P 500, right?

So to say companies that don't enter the S&P 500, it's even faster that your lifespan goes to the end. Sorry, Robert, go ahead and jump in. I was going to agree. I definitely think that most companies fail, and there's a chasm between how VCs understand that and how the investing public understands that. But that's probably because the timelines are just also sped up in a weird way. when public companies fail in traditional markets, it's not a big deal and everyone sees it coming because there's like 13 different

quarters of earnings reports that start going bad and like the writing's been on the wall for years and years and years. In the case of a crypto project that fails, whether we use scroll as an example or any of these things as examples, usually like the death now is surprisingly quick. And it comes out of left field and everyone's caught off guard by it. And so, yes, people don't expect these things to fail because there's not often as many warning signs. There's a lot of token holders that maybe came in literally like weeks before or there's just a totally different velocity to this. And so I completely agree, but I think one of the reasons for this is just the extreme speed at which all of crypto is operating.

And when things fail and you feel misled because they were hyping it up just like a few days prior, you feel wronged. And whether that's an L2 or whether that's Celsius or whether that's whatever, the failure sting a little bit more. Yeah, so I totally hear that. I think a lot of the reason for that is that these are basically like series A stage companies, right? Series A stage companies fail really fast. You know, like that's just how it works. Especially fast in crypto.

Yes. I think also the issues that if you look at like crypto dynamics from fundamentally, it's very different to build in crypto than to build in any other industry. Because in crypto, like, it's very weird because as like a random, like, community member of a project, you can back approach the founder and be like, oh, I think you're fucking off. And many, many times the founder is going to reply to you. It's like a little bit more democratic in that way. Like, I think that's, personally, I think that's very nice. Like, I think that's actually very nice.

But like the double-watch sword is that, yes, people are going to be too best if something goes wrong. Especially because it's like, I think another thing that catalyzes this is that liquidity events like happen much faster in. crypto, right? Like, if I'm found in, like, a Web 2 startup, like, I might not even, like, get a liquidity event at all, but fail. But in crypto, like, I might get a liquidity event, fail, but still the founders might make, like, a lot of money. Like, I think that's something that is wrong about the industry, too, because it's like, you might launch a project that had no PMS, but you can still make, like, a big chunk of out of it. Like, as a founder, I think that's, like, honestly like I think that's wrong and I think that's also like something that pieces people

of but I do it with you like sometimes like us like yeah like retail like retail investors like they're just going to try to crucify you for like whatever you did but it's like but again it's because of it's because many of the market dynamics and crypto are at a little bit skewed towards like institutional and also like founders I agree with that that being said I think people are also overestimating how much liquidity these founders are getting Like in the case of a movement, obviously, okay, you're dumping your tokens. What you're doing is pretty flagrant. Yeah, okay, you're cashing out.

Most of these tokens that fail, like the founders don't cash out. Like, we know them, you know? They're like, they go want to raise for the next thing. And they're like, yeah, I don't have money. Like, I didn't get out. Like, the token collapsed. So, no, is it true in every case? No.

There are certainly cases where people are OTC and stuff or cases where even there are secondaries that are happening before the token launches, there obviously were many such cases in 2021, 2022, where that was happening. But that was also true inventor generally, right? You saw the same thing happened with the, what was it, hop in, right? That thing that raised a shitload of money for A6 and Z. That was like the video conferencing thing. Same thing happened with WeWork, right?

This kind of stuff happens all the time. And the answer is, yeah, that's kind of capitalism. Like, it's unfortunate. But if you want free markets and you want the ability for anybody to be able to transact with each other, it's kind of incompatible with this moral intuition. that many people have. And Gore was expressing the same thing to me, which is that if you don't win the game, it's not okay for you to make money. And winning the game doesn't just mean you have this FDV or you have this float or whatever. It means PMF. If you don't have PMF, you don't get to make money.

I don't care how big you are. I don't care how long it's been. And of course, real markets don't work this way, right? Like, look at biotech. Look at SPACs, by the way, where like every single one of the SPACs is a total gutter dumpster fire and almost all the sponsors have rode off into the sunset. with huge bags of cash. Again, I really expect we're like a huge scam for Gets your mouth. But anyway, so I think it's a little bit different in crypto, again, because it's like in crypto, like you, like, if you look at most of his companies and like traditional venture, like retail investors are actually not involved.

No one really cares, right? But as like a token holder, like, okay, so again, it's like a double-edged sword because, again, you get, like, maybe, like, free marketing from people who have bags and things like that. But, like, if things go wrong, they are going to be pissed at you because they are financially invested, you know? Yeah. Like, I kind of agree with words that I think here, like, the underlying, like, dynamics are a little bit different in the sense that, like, as a retail investor, like, if you're getting involved very early on, because, guys, this is just like a reality. like in crypto like retail investors do get involved on companies early on even like pre-tg companies

are going to be like oh be part of like a community or like whatever bullshit so it's like I don't necessarily bullshit but it's like they want that right so if you're going to involve retail investors and you know like the token is not going to go well I do feel like just four of like as they captain you should sink with the ship like of goal if you're building something like I don't know like fire blocks

and you fail, I think that's way different because retail investors do not have, like, direct exposure to that. So it's probably, like, fine. But I think you're ignoring the fact that retail investors have, like, a shoot till I'm exposed you to these projects

and, like, sometimes many of them do get rocked because I think, unfortunately, they are the last ones to eat in the pyramid. And, like, again, like, many people have, like, a seat to eat at the table, like, way before them. And it's incentives, right? like, if the incentives are there, I'd like those. I completely agree with you that it's substantively different for a private company versus a public company.

And for crypto, they basically go public, like, you know, within 12 hours of launching, effectively. Like all that being said, like, what you're describing is basically the same intuition behind an investor protection regime, which is that only accredited investors should be investing early. Retail should not get involved in things that basically, you know, in Gwords terms, join a PMF, which is basically saying, like, look, only certain levels of maturity companies should be allowed to go public. Is that, like, that is the way you square that circle is to say that, well, retail investors shouldn't have access to this because they're the last to eat. They're the least sophisticated.

That's why the investor protection laws emerged is to protect them because they need protecting. Is that your view? No. I think my view also, like, personally, like, I'm actually, like, very bullish tokens. Like, not all tokens, right, I think. But I think tokens are, like, a very nice way to, like, align incentives. And also, like, give, like, retail investors. there's skin in the game, but I do think there needs to be a little bit more, like,

transparency around, around, like, what's happening behind the scenes so that as a retail investor, I can get out pretty, like, I can get a clearer idea of, like, hey, and I've been investing in this. Like, I also agree with you that, like, I know, like, I read, like, a, I saw like a paper from NYU that it's like someone in the stock world, like, you just looks up things for, like, six seconds before deciding whether it's invest or not. That's how I do it. Six minutes. Not six seconds.

They all get, guys, say six minutes. Sorry. Yeah, you're right. So, yeah, the number of six. But I think it's like, so I think tokens are like a very like good distribution mechanism. But I think they're not being deliberate to right way. And I think the way incentives are set now, they're said to benefit only like a like very few players, like exchanges. Market makers like DC.

So like care well. So like not necessarily retail, right? I think the way we make crypto grow is actually like, you know, like, give. having like brittle investors like good opportunities. I think that's why I mean because we're so popular. In the end, like they became like very extractive. And like kind of like a shit show. But again, like I think we should use tokens more for like social coordination purposes

because like they could actually be very bullish. And I think like the way I see it is like I think tokens and equity are probably going to converge at the same time. Because if you look at the process for like a company to IPO today, it's also like completely like nonsensical. You have to pay like many companies are choosing to stay private because it's like you have to pay like a bunch of like advisors. You have to give like 10% of your company to like investment mancris and stuff. So it's like it's like a coin. So it's like in a sense I think tokens are like a very good mechanism to replace it. But I do think we need a little bit more clarity into like how

dynamics work. And I do think because it's like, no, if you're a retail investor and like everything is public and like you get wronged, you cannot blame anyone. It's like, dude, everything. it's public, like, you got bragged. They don't have, like, a right to be, man. But if you invest in something, and then you find out that they, that one of the founders did a deal to cash out of OTC with their market maker and, like,

to rent the team to buy, you have a right to be pissed, right? And I think he's happened. Totally great. Totally great. Right? Yes. Also, like, as a team, like, Jimenezho scroll.

They had, like, a huge informational symmetry in which do we share you so far on their own job? That's wrong, man. And I think that's something that, I kind of agree with word that it's like, if you're involving retail investors and you're not telling them the full story behind what you're doing,

like everything that's happening behind the scenes, they do have a right to be based on you because you're taking advantage of an information asymmetry to make yourself wealthier. And I think that I completely agree with. I think if you're not disclosing certain things or you're lying about certain, I mean, that's just fraud if you're lying.

But even if you're not disclosing or you're omitting information that an investor would need to understand to make an investment, I think that is what we need to root out. And it's a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but I do think AI solves a lot of this eventually, is that that six seconds can become an hour very easily for even a retail investor. Six seconds of chat GPT is all you need.

Yeah, yeah. But so speaking of before we wrap, one of the things you mentioned mostly was the painful process of IPOing and bringing a token, bringing a stock public. Robert, you recently announced something for SuperState, which actually connects very closely to this. Do you want to talk about that? Sure. I'll give a brief overview of what we announced a superstate in addition to being at Robot Ventures and a host of the shopping block.

I also do the hard work of building stuff. KOL, one day, Mosey is going to yell at me because of some thing and a project failing or, you know, we'll see. But, you know, what we're doing at Superstate is we're helping companies that are public in addition to their stock trading on traditional stock exchanges like the NASDAQ or NYC to have their shares traded on Dex's. odd blockchains. And we've built out the technology to enable this. We're working closely with regulators and coming up with a plan to enable this from a legal perspective as well. And our hope is to very soon launch equities on chain where they can do cool stuff, not just be traded, but be fully programmable and live up to the sort of expectations that we all have for the cool things you can do with the token in defy. And so one day soon,

stocks on chain, one day soon, IPO is on chain. And one day soon, lots more public companies, you know, slowly over time failing after writing quarterly reports. So I'm curious, but you're very broke with it, Laura, hopefully. I know. We're a transfer agent, and that's the technology that we use to record ownership and transcribe it to a blockchain. So the trading of it is not part of what we do.

We're simply taking shares and digitizing them, not creating an exchange. This is awesome. I've seen a huge amount of fanfare about this announcement. I guess my question and maybe to help build the intuition for the audience, what took so long for this to happen? People have been talking about this for like as long as I've been in crypto. Why did it take so long? Yeah, why now?

A couple of reasons. At this point, we finally have the ecosystems with the users built out. there's a variety of wallets across blockchains that have more than 10 million active users. And people are a little fed up with trading meme coins. All the technology is here. It's all been proven out. We've done 100 shows on the chopping block about how all of this stuff works through crisis and hoopla. Trading on chain has been proven at this point.

And I don't think that's a question anymore. And finally, I think we have the legal and regulatory tailwind for this to occur. the prior four years, even though this is legal and would be legal and is envisioned in the securities laws. I mean, almost all securities and stocks used to trade on a peer-to-peer basis, like all of them back in the day, we had a hostile regulatory environment that didn't want any innovation to occur. And that has switched to 180 degrees. So all of these things line up for the time being now to be able to put new assets on top of the tech that everybody has been building for the last couple years.

Okay. Mossey, do you approve? Is this rug resistant? Yeah. I mean, like, honestly, like, I, I need to check out of it. But I would like to know, like, if you have time, like, how liquidity dynamics work, because it's like, the way I see it, it's like, I think the biggest challenge of this is, like, making sure, like, there's security, right?

because it's like, if you look at that premarker, and like after hours of trading on next, you're in stocks, it's like, like liquidity dries up like a ton. So it's like, I'm just curious and like, you use like an Oracle price like keep like,

like, like, yeah, like I'm just curious like how like how it happens. Like I'm just wrapping my head around. And like that's always been my question with like 24 hours stocks on chain. Like how will liquid that? I'm essentially water. Yeah, I mean,

the underlying concept is that a market maker should be able to traverse defy to NASDAQ, right, and be able to move shares between the two. And if they do that, then the free market should keep these in line. Now, on nights and weekends, you might have an independent price, and it's possible that when, you know, the market comes back Monday morning, you know, the two converge, either at the defy price or the NASDAQ price from Friday night. But that's decided by the market and the invisible hand. And there's real-en-markets are really good at this. This is not a derivative. Yeah, it's not a derivative. It's the canonical shares traded on either to the NASDAQ or on a blockchain.

Right. Okay. I know we've got to wrap. Mosey, thanks for coming on and sharing your insight with us. It's been real, and we look forward to seeing you

out there on the Twitterverse. Keep everyone in line, Mosey. Thanks, everybody. I'll see you all next week.