Unchained - The Chopping Block: Tokens vs Equity, Lighter's Robinhood Perps Deal, and Trump's $2.4B Crypto Windfall

Episode Date: July 9, 2026

Vladimir Novakovski of Lighter joins the Chopping Block crew to untangle one of crypto's oldest debates: what happens when tokens and equity coexist. The gang digs into the Venice/VVV controversy, breaks down Lighter's new Perps integration with Robinhood Chain and the fragmentation questions it raises, dissects the wild BonkDAO governance exploit, and reacts to the eye-popping $2.4 billion in crypto income disclosed in Trump's financial filings. Welcome to The Chopping Block – where crypto insiders Haseeb Qureshi, Tom Schmidt, Tarun Chitra, and Robert Leshner chop it up about the latest in crypto, joined this week by special guest Vladimir Novakovski of Lighter. The crew dives deep into the resurfaced tokens-versus-equity debate sparked by Dragonfly's investment in Venice and its VVV token, with Haseeb making the case that Venice is fundamentally different from Uniswap Labs style structures. Vlad explains how Lighter has approached the same dilemma through programmatic buybacks and a single C corp structure, and the group debates fiduciary duties, Delaware law, and what a merged DeFi/TradFi future for equity and tokens might look like. From there, they unpack Lighter's big Robinhood Chain announcement, including Lighter's new role as the native Perps engine inside Robinhood Wallet, and whether running a separate instance fragments liquidity. The episode wraps with a breakdown of the BonkDAO governance exploit that let an attacker vote themselves $20 million in tokens, and a reaction to Trump's staggering $2.4 billion in pre-tax crypto income revealed in his latest financial disclosure. Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pods, Fountain, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform. Show highlights 🔹 Haseeb breaks down why Venice's VVV token is not equity and not a Uniswap style governance token in disguise 🔹 Vlad explains how Lighter's programmatic buybacks and single C corp structure align token holders and equity holders 🔹 The gang debates Delaware fiduciary law, shareholder primacy, and what happens when buyback capital runs dry 🔹 Vlad lays out the vision of tokenized equity merging with crypto tokens into a single on-chain asset 🔹 Lighter's Robinhood Chain deal goes live with Lighter powering native Perps trading inside Robinhood Wallet 🔹 Vlad addresses concerns about liquidity fragmentation across separate Lighter instances 🔹 BonkDAO gets exploited as an attacker buys governance tokens and votes themselves $20 million 🔹 Robert compares the Bonk exploit to the infamous Beanstalk and Compound Humpty governance attacks 🔹 Trump's financial disclosure reveals $2.4 billion in pre-tax crypto income, sparking a debate on crypto's political future Hosts ⭐️Haseeb Qureshi, Managing Partner at Dragonfly ⭐️Tom Schmidt, General Partner at Dragonfly ⭐️Robert Leshner, Founder & CEO of Superstate Guest ⭐️Vladimir Novakovski, Founder of Lighter Timestamps 00:00 Intro 03:40 Tokens vs equity: the Venice VVV debate begins 06:12 Fiduciary duty, Delaware law, and Lighter's C corp structure 08:00 What happens when buyback capital runs out 12:42 Why Venice launched a token in the first place 19:18 Comparing VVV to BNB and overloaded crypto assets 25:28 Lighter's Robinhood Chain deal and native Perps launch 37:02 BonkDAO governance exploit and the $20M vote 44:02 Lessons from Beanstalk and Compound's Humpty saga 47:09 Trump's $2.4B crypto income disclosure reactions Disclosures Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Robert, what's your reaction to the Trump financial disclosures? That's a lot of money. That's a lot of money. That's a lot of money. 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.

Unnamed to trading firms who are very involved. D5.Eat is the ultimate policy. DFI protocol is part of the antidote to this problem. Hello, everybody. Welcome to the chopping block. Every couple weeks before of us get together and give the industry insider's perspective on the crypto topics of the day. So quick intro,

first you got Tom, the defy maven and master of memes. Hello, everyone. Next to you got Robert, the Cryptoconisur and Tsar of Superstate. Good morning.

Joining us again, we've got special guest, Vlad, Leveraged Legend and Leader of Lighter. Welcome back, Vlad. Hey, guys, good to be back. And I am a C of the head hype man at Dragonfly.

We are early-stage investors in crypto, but I want to caveat that nothing we say here is investment advice, legal advice, or even life advice. Please, you choppin,

block that XYZ for more disclosures. So gentlemen, we have once again one of these classic debates that has resurfaced on crypto Twitter. And that debate is about this perennial conversation about tokens, equity, and what is worth what. So a lot of this conversation was galvanized by a fundraising announcement that we recently led, at Dragonfly, recently led a fundraising round into Venice. So Venice, for those you don't know, it's a crypto AI project.

They're pretty large. They have like 70 million run rate. We led around at $65 million into them at a billion dollar equity valuation. Now Venice has a token called VVVV. Venice's token, they launched like roughly a year after the product existed. In an air drop, they gave 50% of the supply for free to their community. And they stated very clearly when they made the air drop that this is not equity in Venice. This is like, you know, here's specifically what this thing does.

It gives you the right to compute over time. And so when we did this investment into Venice, a bunch of people got really upset. And part of the reason why they got upset is that they were like, hey, this thing now has tokens. and it has equity, and the equity holders, presumably they have, you know, they're senior in some sense

to the token holders or something like this. And there's a perception that, okay, well, if you have a token, then probably like, that's supposed to be like equity. It's supposed to be where

the value of this business is accruing. And so, you know, this is, of course, not the only example of this. There's been a lot of conversation before about the progenitor of this conversation, Uniswap Labs.

So famously, this was like probably four years ago. Uniswap had a token, sold the token to investors, represented this is the governance token of Uniswap. And then later, raise money for Unoswap Labs, a for-profit corporation that was initially supposed to be the development corporation behind Uniswap. They raised venture capital separately.

And that caused them to eventually have their own wallet, have their own monetization strategy on top of Uniswap. And this is perceived by many people to be one of the original sins behind this, you know, having two masters, a protocol that has both token holders and equity holders. And okay, maybe it's zero sum between the two. too. Now, I made the argument and we had this video clip that went viral that I don't think actually Venice is like this. Venice is very different because Venice is a company. Venice is not a protocol. This token was never meant to be a governance token or have control over Venice.

But this has raised the question broadly, not just about Venice, but in general across the industry of how do we think about when tokens and equity coexist? First of all, of course, it's worth to talk about why they coexist. And Vlad, you know, we brought you on. Obviously, Lighter's been the center of attention for some of the... the stuff about Robinhood that we'll talk about shortly. But one of the things that people bring up is that, well, you know, lighter also raise money into lighter labs, also has lit token. Talk to us as a founder, how you think about the dichotomy between equity and tokens.

I'll talk about how we approached it at lighter. You know, I think we have enough stuff going on that, you know, I haven't really had the chance to think about like how other projects go about it. So I'll just talk about, you know, our perspective. But for us, we were always a U.S. C-Corp. We're building in the U.S. from day one. And that's the only entity that exists, right, is the U.S. C-C. Corp. There is no separate foundation.

There is no separate labs. The C-Corp is the entity. And so the token was issued out of that. I think there are three things to say about this. One, and this is something we've said a number of times since the TG, but worth repeating, like all value generated by later is accruing to the token holders. And the exact mechanic for that is programmatic buybacks. We've been running those bybacks since the TGE, like the algorithm for the buybacks.

It has been published. Like we publish, you know, on the website, you can see exactly how much has been bought back. We update the community. There's still, you know, I don't know why some people are still confused about this, but these buybacks have been going on for six months now, and nothing's changed there. So that's just kind of like based on it. One thing, second thing is that I think this is not something we've really talked about publicly as much,

which is that equity, you know, we did raise a number of months back before the TG, and prior to that kind of equity rounds. I mean, the understanding since we started working on Liner was always that the equity is kind of capital to build out the core tech, but once that's done, and once there's a token, all value will accrue to the token. So like all the equity holders, even before the TG, were aware that that's the plan. And in fact, the last round was like 5X oversubscribed.

And we told like all the existing folks on the cap table, like what's going to happen going forward is that the equity will give you token allocation and that's going forward. That's the only way you're going to accrue value. So if that doesn't vibe with you, you can get out at this round. And only 1% of the CAF table took us, took us up on that. And the rest stayed in, right?

So we, so basically not only have been doing the programmatic buybacks, we've also been very consistent in how we've talked to the equity holders like there. There's not going to be another equity round. Like this is the, so one of the points, so many of the, many of the people who are saying, like, look, this is the, there's a fundamental problem. one of the things that many of them say, if I can sort of play the devil's advocate, is that, okay, a C-Corp, it's a for-profit corporation, right? That means that you have a fiduciary obligation to your shareholders. Now, I should also disclose, Dragonfly, robot, we're all actually shareholders in lighter labs.

We also have the token or we have vesting whatever token claims. And so technically, you know, under Delaware law, or assuming it's a Delaware C-Corp, you have a fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder value. And so somebody might look at that and say, okay, well, yeah, okay, you're kind of saying, that you're going to move money in the token. But legally under the law of Delaware, you're supposed to maximize shareholder value and your shareholders might not hold the token or they might have sold it or whatever.

I don't know, blah, blah, blah. They obviously can construct many situations in which this is not maximizing shareholder value. What's your response to that? What would give somebody comfort that you're not going to, you know, go do that? Yeah, I mean, we've committed as a management team, both to the buybacks, but also not doing any other equity rounds going forward.

I think all of our investors have committed to that as well because they were told that this is the plan and they had the opportunity to get out of the cap table if they disagree with that plan. So, I mean, I'm not an expert on Delaware law. I mean, I don't know if this has actually ever been challenged in Delaware or if there's an actual precedent. Are you an expert on Delaware law?

I'm not an expert at Delaware law either, but I guess I'll ask a simpler question, right? The company has ample financial resources, right? You're at the company, you're going to build out lighter as a system for many years. I guess the question is, what happens when the capital that you previously fundraised runs out? Do you raise money again, sort of like pro bono for the benefit of token holders? Do you come up with a new funding mechanism? Or does the plan have to change out of necessity if the capital that you have eventually runs out? I guess how do you reconcile those things? Right. Well, I mean, right now, the buybacks are 100% of revenue. We want to maximize that. I mean, I think, you know, in the current state, right, like we want to have that buyback program be as strong as possible. And as you pointed out, right, like we have capital that we raised that can be used for operations for many years.

And, you know, we're optimizing our costs. I think, I don't know if you guys saw like we have this like all these proven machines we use and we're really optimizing our costs on that. But I guess the point being, I mean, at some point, the buyback program would need to shift to go from, you know, revenue to profit. that's not going to come for a number of years where that's going to be needed. Also, I think by then we'll have things like Clarity Act, we'll have other, you know, SEC and kind of other folks in D.C. We'll have thought through more on how this should look like. So, I mean, I think the end state is going to be something where it's more about profit and not just just revenue. And then then that'll be sustainable.

Yeah. I think another way to think about it is that, you know, for, think about Zcash, for example. Zcash is probably a good example because it's such an old. protocol. You know, it's been around for a decade plus. In Zcash, like, there's a portion of the Zcash revenue or inflation or whatever that goes toward paying the underlying team to make sure that there's some sustainability, right? So there's a dev reward effectively. If you think about MakerDAO, you think about AVE, there's a portion of, you know, the Dow treasury that goes toward compensating the team, compensating the developers, compensating the BG efforts. And this eventually

has to get drawn down from somewhere. And so I assume that in the limit, that's probably what lighter looks like is that, okay, lit token is the governance token for lighter. Lighter Labs is a contractor effectively to the Dow. And it goes and says, hey, this is roughly what I think my costs are. You know, if you're good with this, then pay me. And then obviously you keep the surplus within the lighter treasury. So yeah, I mean, I think that's how things used to work. I mean, I think we we have maybe like more ambitious goals for it, which is like to actually be one of the first companies where the we're essentially like merging of traditional crypto tokens and tokenized stocks as a single type of asset like you know because we are listing tokenized stocks online

or obviously not not for ourselves it should be for companies like SpaceX but like I think the end state again assuming that we make good progress on clarity and this is kind of going to be processed with SEC others but like the end state I think that would be really cool as if there's actually, you know, you can own shares of the C-Corp directly as a token and vice versa. So there's actually kind of a direct one-to-one mapping that isn't just a commitment by the management team, but actually in the smart contracts and in the regulations and in the law, right?

Like, I think that's the end state. In that world, if that doesn't happen, yeah. In that world, would the lighter tokens become the lighter company equity and vice versa? and then you just have one instrument and it's fully aligned. I think that's the future where, and again, and this feature doesn't, this is not unique to lighter. I mean,

I think this would be a pretty cool way to structure things for any company of the future. And this is kind of like what defy rails, you know, when defy and stratfi merge, I think it'll look something like this kind of for all companies. But, and, you know, if we don't quite get there on this go around with the regulations, you know, it's not going to be, like, I think some people are concerned about this, oh, if clarity doesn't pass,

or, you know, things are only going to be, are going to be as good as they are now and then some, right, no matter kind of what happens going forward. So, but I think, I mean, we're, I'm optimistic that this is the end state we're working towards where actually, like, defy and Tratfy rails merge and tokenized stocks and tokens for crypto projects become one in the same over the, the next few years. So how do we apply that idea to VVV and how we started this conversation? Okay. So let me maybe also sharpen the distinction, I think, between something like VV and something

like lighter. So most crypto projects that launch tokens, the token is a financing mechanism. You know, so they say, hey, I'm going to create this token. I'm going to sell it to investors. I'm going to sell it to retail, maybe. And I'm going to use it in order to go build the product. And that's a big part of the reason why I think there's an expectation from the market that like, hey, this thing is going to represent the value of the thing that you create if you are financing yourself by selling this token. It's important to like distinguish even though people think of like, okay, VV is the Venice token.

If you actually just look at the history of VVVVVV. Venice existed for like a year before they launched the VVVT token. Venice was self-financed by Eric Voorhees, the founder of Venice. He put in millions of dollars of his own money. VVVV was air-dropped. It was not sold to investors. It was not sold to retail. It was not sold to anybody. It was literally airdropped in its entirety,

or the 50% of it was air-dropped to early users of the platform. And if you go read the launch announcement of VV, it is extremely clear that VVVV entitles you to a portion of the compute on the Venice platform. And they say very clearly, Venice is owned entirely by its team. It's not owned by VVV. VV is not a governance token.

There's no forums. There's no voting. there's no fucking anything. We don't give a shit what VVVVolholders say in a forum. You don't own Venice. We own Venice. This is a asset that we are committing to honor.

And you can use VVVV to Mint Deum, which is a liability of the company. Right. So that's the idea. Now, VVVVV, like Venice has made very clear that they intend to use their subscription revenue to buy back VVV. And their goal is to buy back

all of the VVV supply over time. And if they do that successfully, then basically they're just a company with no crypto cap table whatsoever. Like if they successfully do that, then they are entirely just an equity cap table left. But it was equity before they launched a token. The equity preceded the token. There's now 9% of the cap table held by investors. But most of their customers are not crypto users, right?

They're a normal company that decided to create a token for a specific reason and specific purpose. But it's really not like uniswap or lighter or really anything else in this conversation. What was the reason that? Can you summarize, like, in your opinion, is there a legal? Why they launched a token? Yeah, why launch a token at all? Yeah. I mean, so the answer was that they wanted to give early users a right to continue using the product, right?

Like VVV gives you the ability to mint DM, which allows you to keep using the product basically for free. It gives you a certain compute budget that you have available in perpetuity. And the idea in the very beginning was that we should give this to users. Obviously, it was a very small product back then. They were pre-PMF. And if we give this to users, then more people will use this. the product, their users will remain sticky, that will be part of an early community. And the strategy

worked. Right now they're a large company. They have millions of users. They have 70 million revenue run rate. They're doing really well. They're growing really fast. But like there was no, I think it's important to underscore that like they were using a token for a different reason. And they were very clear the entire time what the token was for, what it was. It was not like a winky, winky, hey, there's a governance token. Maybe eventually we'll buy and burn it. But, you know, Maybe eventually it'll give you the right to everything, but we'll see. And so I think the conversation around it, I feel like, is collapsing some of the nuance of, I think, what's obviously been a very good faith team. They haven't sold any token.

They've only bought back more a token over time. But I've been very publicly, I think on the show, I've talked about the Uniswap Labs and Uniswap Protocol dichotomy as being really, really bad. And the same thing happening, you know, when we've had portfolio companies that have thought about doing the same thing. they saw that Unswap did it. They said, okay, why can't I do it? And I told them, look, I think this is really bad because your shareholders and your token holders are supposed to be subservient to the same asset. And now there's a divergence in those two cap tables and that's going to result in in pain, in conflicts of interest, right? Because it's all supposed to be working toward the same thing. In Venice, that's very clearly not what happened. That's not the history. That's not what the

token was framed as. It's not how the mechanics were. It's not how the fundraising happened. put their own money in the project. Can I ask, not the token holders money? Totally. Can I ask a couple of clarifying questions just to better understand the dynamic? Yeah, yeah. So if they air dropped 50% of the tokens to the community and their early user base, does the company still hold 50% of the tokens? Do they, have they sold any? Have they? 30 something, 40%? No, they haven't sold any. They've only bought back token. So they own more of the tokens than they started with it, the original distribution.

Right. Is there a plan for those tokens to go to the investors that invested in the company? Are they just going to destroy them if the goal is just to buy back the float of the tokens, right? So we got exposure to VVV. The investors in this round got exposure to VVV via options. Some more complicated structure, but basically we have to exercise the options in order to get them, which means we have to pay the company for the right to get the tokens. So by investing in the company, you also got exposure to the tokens on the company. Correct. Well, no, no, no. So we got exposure to directly receive tokens as well as the 38 or something. I'm going from memory. Like some very large portion of the tokens that are sitting on the balance of the company. So we got exposure to both. So the answer for us is that, look, we obviously think the VVV is valuable. That's why, you know, originally when we came to them, they just wanted us to invest in equity. And we were like, well, no, no, no, we want we want both. We want exposure to VV directly as well as the pass-through exposure and the and, and, and, and the underlying company economics. We want the whole thing. And so I think it's very compelling this idea of tokenizing compute,

specifically on the Venice platform. I think it's very original and an interesting kind of capital innovation. But I think it's unfortunate that people are clearly misinterpreting it by looking from a thousand-yard view and saying, oh, there's a Venice token. Therefore, it should be like a unoswap token without really having done the research of what it is, what it was represented at, and what the history of the company is with respect to this token.

I think that's where a lot of the... But it's fair for the Venice token holders out there on crypto-twitter in the community to see the value in the token because you see the value in the token, too. Yeah, correct, correct. But just not for having a say... Yeah, just not having a say. It's a token is viable.

I think it's, I mean, there are other assets in the world that have utility and have some maybe upside if sort of the issuer does well. Like I think of like famously American Airlines issued like these like lifetime, you know, flight coupons or like country clubs will have these kind of products too. And so it's like, yeah, you can use it. But obviously the value of it's going to go up if, you know, the club does well or the airline, you know, does well.

And so, but you don't buy it assuming that like, oh, this is giving me ownership in American Airlines. It's sort of, you know, this other third thing. And so, you know, you can sort of ask questions of an okay, we're like, where does this, you know, liability sit in. in the pref stack and like, you know, maybe you can wish that it's, you know, equity. But like, ultimately, I think, you know, to Steve's point, if people are transparent about what this thing is and what it's supposed to do, I don't know. That's like, that's kind of what the market is

about. And that's what the market's saying. I think the other thing, too, is like, I mean, I agree it's, I think, tough to do, like, equity plus token value capture. And generally, there's some, some cannibalism, you know, between the two. But I do feel like I've seen this less these days just because we haven't seen any really break out successes of any of these labs. Like, yeah, I've been some teams that have sort of raised in them, but like, it's not like, you know, these token teams are saying, oh, if only I could raise, you know, do an equity raise from my labs code and then we'd be like a multi-billioner. Like, it doesn't really sort of, sort of, you know, panned out. I think generally when people have been, at least recently

kind of upset about this is because the labs entity got sold for parts or got, you know, acquired somewhere. And like, yeah, that's unfortunate for, for token holders. But like, it's also unfortunate for equity holders and for everyone. It's sort of, you know, you're not even really covering the preff there. And so, I mean, I think ultimately everyone wants some sort of path forward to, I think, at least have a path towards uniting these two, you know, maybe clarity. And it's like we have, you know, Mr. Superstate on the pod today too. But it's, I don't know, it feels like no one's doing this out of some scheme. It's almost just like this was sort of a byproduct of what the market was able to support at the time. Yeah. And it's also worth pointing out,

like Venice is genuinely weird, right? VVV is genuinely weird. Not just because, okay, Venice is like a traditional company. It's not on chain. It's not a Dow. It's whatever. So that's one of the reasons why VVV is weird because it is an asset in the capital stack

of a traditional company. But the other thing about it that's weird is that it's kind of like a overloaded asset financially in that, you know, it's not just like airline miles of like, okay, you can use this product. You get the compute. It's also that, okay, it gives you some benefits on top of Venice. You know, give you access to Venice Pro.

But then also, they're buying it back with their subscription revenue, right? Which means that, okay, there is, it's kind of like, it's a little bit like B&B. I think BNB is probably the closest analogy to this. We're like, you know, what is B&B? B&B is clearly not equity in finance. I don't think anyone's confused of like, why isn't B&B voting on the fee rates or the fee schedule on finance?

Okay, we all understand BNB is not equity in finance, right? BNB is kind of this overloaded asset. It's got, okay, finance is burning stuff. There's also BNB chain. There's also, okay, they give you discounts. You get access to, you know, whatever it's called, the early access projects and the air drops and all this stuff. So it's like kind of this weird sum of parts valuation thing to figure out what this is.

And clearly, like, Binance's success matters for B&B. But also clearly, this is not equity in finance, right? This is some other thing. Now, I agree with everybody here that, like, look, clarity is going to give a lot more room for maneuverability in these kinds of kind of, you know, I don't know what the word is. sort of protean assets that don't quite resemble any one thing. It's not a governance token. It's not equity.

It's something else. And it's not even pure commodity. It's really genuinely something else. And ultimately, like, the innovation in capital stacks is like a big part of the reason why we're here. It's why we invented tokens, why we're so excited about all the things they can do. If the answer was that, well, tokens are just a fancy way to, like, issue equity through the back door. I don't know. I mean, that's fine, but that's actually just not that interesting.

You know, like we already have equity. we could have already done that. So that's a little bit why I chafed so much with this conversation. But clearly it's gotten a lot of people animated about, hey, what is a solution space to this look like? And I think this conversation is ultimately healthy because it means that everybody's now thinking, I mean, I know the Venice team is thinking about it. I'm sure Leiter is also having the same conversations internally of like, okay, people care about this. They care about, you know, what are the guarantees that this token actually gives me and what goes wrong if they don't? even like the Seacorp thing, right?

Like having a labs entity and then having an overseas foundation, that was a hack. That is not like, that's obviously not what Delaware. That's even necessary designed Seacorp's for, right? That adds even more things in the middle between the users, the investors, and the outcome. Right. Exactly. Exactly. So like everything in crypto is hacks on hacks on hacks.

Go ahead, Vlad. I mean, I think to me, like kind of like, you know, zooming out, if we think about like merging defy and trotfy over the coming months and years, right? Like the point I would make is, yeah, there are a lot of messy structures. I mean, some structures are simpler. Some structures are more complicated in digital assets. But I mean, there are a lot of complicated structures in Tratify too, right? Like, look at OpenEI and their corporate structure or even like, you know, my old firm Citadel, you know, there's Citadel the hedge fund, there's Citadel securities. If you bring all those things together and put them on chain, there are going to be a lot of

novel structures there. Like I think you're right for something like lighter. It's actually relatively simple for other projects that may not be. That doesn't mean like I think in things two examples I gave like both created a lot of value for every stakeholder involved. So you know I think that there's like a lot of the discussion online I think assumes that like complexity of structure is due to some like malicious intent on somebody's part. And I think that's that a lot of times complexity of structure is just necessary for a particular type of business on defy rails or on tradfire rails. Yeah, that's well said.

Or sometimes it's an answer to a bad regulatory environment. So, you know, I think for historically in crypto, we've had these just horrendous Byzantine structures. And that's largely the reason why that many of these things get saddled. But I think, you know, Tommy made a good point that usually when these things go badly, nobody's happy. So like, you know, some of these M&A, okay, LabsCo got. acquired. Nobody's fist bump. Even if you were an investor in the labs code, you're like, well, that sucked, you know, because I mostly invested in the token. And like this labs is like this tiny little nothing compared to my token investment. So, yeah, usually bad outcomes are

bad outcomes for everybody involved. So, but let's talk a little bit about, you know, speaking of the intersection of C-Fi and D-Fi, let's talk about what happened with Lighter over the last week. So there was an event in London by Robin Hood on July 1st called The World is Flat. I didn't totally get why that was the theme. But, you know, Vlad, I was there with you in London and this old church thing where they did this, I don't know, a bunch of skits about nautical themed skits where they introduced a bunch of new launches by Robin Hood.

So first, Robin Hood launched the Robin Hood chain. Their L2 is now live. Of course, they're built on the Arbitrum Nitro Stack. They have now 24-7 tradable stock tokens. They're going to be issued directly on Robin Hood chain. These are kind of Stock X. Is that the company, stock X-X style? And they also have USDG.

I'm sorry, X-Stox. What am I saying? Stockx. It's X-Stox-style tokens. These are sort of debt tokens, but that are supposed to kind of mimic the value of the underlying stock. And then you have USDG lending by amorpho directly on the platform, also Athena, partnered with them.

And then lastly, and kind of one of the biggest things that was pretty explosive was lighter is going to be the native Perps integration in Robin Hood Wallet. So this is now opening up lighter trading as the perps platform for Robin Hood chain for something like however tens of millions of customers that Robin Hood has available. Now, interestingly, you guys are offering incentives. So there's like 11 million worth of LIT that is being offered to Robin Hood users via points. So if you trade on this, you also get free gas and zero perp fees for 90 days. So it's not available in the U.S., UK, Canada, Switzerland, and a few other jurisdictions. Lit did very well on the news.

and there's a lot of excitement now seemingly around lighters go to market around this Robin Hood integration. But one of the things I was seeing a lot of questions about was about the fact that this is apparently a separate instance of lighter compared to the original Ethereum instance, which presumably means that you're fragmenting the order book, fragmenting liquidity. So, Vlad, talk about this deal and also talk about mechanically how you're thinking about if this is a separate instance of lighter, what does that do to the liquidity of the platform? Sure. Well, I think to start, it was a really fun event. You know, I think that definitely the other Vlad has a layer for theatrics that I think, you know, I do not. So, you know, they organize some really cool stuff there. And we actually, there was a real-time demo of

perhaps within Robin Hood wallet, power by lighter at that event. As it turned out, the trade that was demoed there, I think it was a SpaceX trade. That was actually the first trade ever done on that instance. And had the demo been like an hour before, it wouldn't have worked because like one of the market makers wasn't ready. So it actually was a pretty high stakes demo, but it turned out really well. I think everybody was impressed with kind of the speed and the the ux of that. But yeah, we're really excited about the partnership to your point. Like it's not right now, it's not available to every jurisdiction.

You know, with the work we're doing with CFTC, I think, you know, the Robin Hood US instance can route order flow to register, you know, DCMs in the US. And so we're excited about also kind of expanding to that. But the current product is live right now. I mean, you can trade many different assets there. You can use tokenized stocks as collateral. And lighter core is on top of Ethereum. Lighter Robin Hood is also on top of Ethereum kind of through the Robin Hood chain,

which gives definitely advantages to Robin Hood customers. I think we're working on something called lighter. EVM as well. And so there's actually this interoperability between different chains on top of Ethereum. So, you know, when you talk about fragmentation of liquidity, these are different markets, right? Like, it's relative to a different stable coin. There's some, they're going to be different forms of collateral. You're going to be different assets that these customers want to trade. But the important thing is that moving capital around between the two instances with ZK is going to be pretty much instantaneous. So market makers

who come in, it's not the same as like bridging from Ethereum to Solana or bridging from, you know, Ethereum to another L1. So that, you know, I think fragmentation is there's, it's not just black and white either, either, you know, because market makers have to find capital base.

Yeah, I mean, if market makers can easily, like, like, let's say you're market making BTC, USDC on one instance in your market making BTC, USDG on the other instance, and you can move capital back and forth, almost instantaneously prove that that movement happened with ZK proofs. Like, you can, that's, that's a lot more capital efficient for the market. It's almost the same as if they were running the same order book on one market. It's a little bit less efficient than that, but pretty close. Compare that to the market maker having to market make like one instance on Ethereum, one instance on Slashire. that's completely different, right?

Now compare it even further to market makers operating on defy and then having to hedge and stratify. That's really inefficient. So this is like as efficient as it can get, you know, other than being the same instance. Now, why would you even want separate instances? I think there are actually reasons for that, right? Because it's different customer base, different stable coin, but also different regulations. I mean, I think in this case, our regulatory strategy is very aligned with that of Robin Hood. But you can imagine, like, let's say there's another integration down the road in somewhere in South America or whatever, right?

That, you know, we've already done one with Telegram Wallet, too, which has a different approach than Romerton. But, like, down the road, there can be different instances of lighter that, for whatever reason, like, maybe there's an instance in some country that has, like, very specific rules around leverage and very specific rules around ADL. And actually, it makes sense for that to be a separate instance there for those reasons alone. But again, if the balance sheet is essentially interoperable and very easily moving back and forth with ZK proofs, that is as close as you can get to having just like one big order or globally. Right. Tom, you want to jump in here about this Robin Hood launch? I mean, I feel like we got the man himself chiming in.

I mean, it's exciting. I think we've kind of been joking for like the past. year that this is like global purification. And I think with the Robin Hood example is sort of a good demo. And I think it's also, I think cool also to see this like defy mullet thesis play out. I also think of like coin base really leaning into morpho and these vault products and obviously Robinhead having their own vault products. And like I think it's one of those things where you have these kind of industry leaders that are very well respected, you know, putting together the blueprint and sort of, you know, opening this, this window. And then you have like a million people kind of kind of, you know,

drafting behind them. And I think you kind of look at like the ETF launches as being like an example where, you know, Bitcoin was this weird thing. They wouldn't really want to do it. Then I was like, all right, you know, BlackRock's in. And so, okay, now everyone's going to, every everything's in, everyone's going to be offering, you know, ETF and we're like legitimized, you know, the idea. I think we're like, you know, basically on the cusp of a, you know, this being the legitimization of the kind of defy mullet play. And I think especially when people start to see, you know, the revenue numbers and just sort of the sense of having this, this model I wouldn't be surprised if we see every other financial services provider copied this the same way.

They've already kind of copying the stable coin playbook. Yeah, I mean, I remember when we first pitched later to you guys, like, I think it's been two and a half years. This is what we talked about at the time. It's like, defy is going to be the rails for not just the fully decentralized front ends, but also for C-Fi and even tradfine. Like, I think at the time, I mean, you guys got it. I think at the time the consensus was like, no, like, no. No one cares about the tech.

It's all about distribution and marketing. But like the reality is that defy is better tech and it's much better for even centralized or somewhat centralized front ends to sit on top of defy rails. And we're seeing that. I mean, I think our launch with Robin Hood has been fantastic. I should also kind of get credit some of our competitors right in the same week. Hyperliquid had, I think, of the largest exchange in Africa, adopt them as back in and I think extended, you know, Itoro, like these, these are all kind of part of the same thesis that

I think we had from the beginning when we started building lighter of like defy, tradfite, Cfi merging. Yeah, I feel like it's very similar to also what you see in stablecoins is that like a lot of these traditional fintechs or even banks starting to adopt stable coins, they're like, oh, it's actually just a better way to like accomplish our business goals as opposed to some, oh, you know, we love decentralization or we love crypto values and we're kind of virtue signaling something. It's that, no, these are actually better products. Robert, did you want to jump in here? I'm sure there's also a lot to talk about with respect to the tokenized stocks were allowed.

Well, I just wanted to jump in and say that I agree the defy mullet is being reborn. I'm excited to see a mainstream consumer product built on top of something like lighter as a back end. I think that's exciting. My only concern is the fragmentation of liquidity. We brought this up before. But, you know, it kind of stinks to have to start from scratch in a sense and, you know, build liquidity. in a whole new platform when you already have

such a great base of liquidity in one market already. Yeah, I mean, I take Vlad's point that, especially because this is being launched in non-US markets, very plausible that actually this is kind of a interesting hack

for them to allow a lot of their traders in non-U.S. markets to be like, hey, you want to get exposure to U.S. stocks via perps? There you go. This is like the way for you to do it. Or just, you know, other financial assets for which, you know,

As long as you have an Oracle, and you have some market makers willing to provide liquidity, like, boom, you've got a market going. So I can see the claim that actually the fragmentation is like, you know, these people are mostly not trying to buy just like the same old stuff, that actually there's very different appetite for assets, although I guess we'll see once the rollout is further along. Yeah, but later core is doing such a great job at building liquidity in these assets that should be attractive to XUS.

Right. That makes sense. Okay, so let's switch gears a little bit. One of the interesting stories here has been in the many trials and travails of governance tokens. There was a somewhat hilarious, although I'm sure sad for the victims involved, exploit, of a token called Bonk. So for those of you who do not remember Bonk, Bonk was a meme coin on Solana, one of the OG meme coins. and they have a governance process, I guess. I don't know why. I don't know what there is to govern with Bonk.

So basically there's this governance forum where mostly nothing was happening and nobody was ever looking at it. And so somebody came around and they proposed something on the governance forum. And the proposal on the governance forum was called Soelian Bonk Dow. I don't know what that,

is that referring to Thomas Sowell? I don't know what that means. And it was submitted a governance forum. And I think the governance BIP 76, which is calling to rebuild from the ashes, monetize their holdings, as well as reward all yes voters who are eligible for tokens by transferring bonk tokens out of the treasury. It's kind of sort of seemed like nonsense. I didn't understand what the governance token said, but it was very short. It was like roughly a paragraph. So they put it to a vote as they followed the governance process.

and seven people voted out of the 18,000 eligible votes, and there was roughly 1% voted no, and 99% voted yes. Now, of that 99% almost all of it was the attacker who bought $4 million worth of bonk in order to vote in this governance forum. And so basically, after voting closed, they voted themselves $20 million worth of bond tokens.

So people freaked out. They were like, what happened? Threatens of launching. enforcement and whatnot. And kind of here we are. Now, Robert, you're the OG governance guy. I think it's pretty clear there were some very basic governance norms that could have solved

this. Like proposal alerting, time locks, higher quorum voter turnout stuff, you know, like limitations on how much money can go out of the treasury. Tom, go ahead. This reminds me so much of who is that weird guy on the compound forums that similarly

had some like nonsense proposal to like Humpy? Yes. Yeah, yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah. Robert, do you want to summarize the Humpty Saga? It's the same thing as Bonk in a nutshell. I think that one was more sophisticated. At the end of the day, there's a style of governance attack,

which is buy enough governance tokens to be able to influence governance, right? In a community like Bonk that nobody even knows there is a governance process, it takes fewer tokens. In a system that has fewer checks, balances, safeguards, like Bonk, where there basically are no safeguards, it takes fewer tokens. But this applies to pretty much any token-based voting system where someone can buy enough tokens and then try to get what they want out of it. Same thing happens in any semi-democracy, right?

This happens, you know, people complain about the influence of money in politics all the time, right? But the governance attack, so to speak, is you accumulate enough of the vote, you try to sway it. Bonk, it was successful, right? This is not the first time. that there's been a successful governance attack in Defi. Years and years and years ago on the show, we talked about beanstock or whatever it was, you know, or someone was a bean stock.

They bought the governance tokens and then they took over the beanstock down. You might say, why did some weird algorithmic stable coin have a governance process anyway? It just enabled someone to steal all the assets. The same question applies here. Why would Bonk have governance? There's nothing to govern. The whole thing is nonsensical. But this is not the first time it's been successful, right?

There have been governance attacks that have failed, right? Like the Humphy one. There have been governance attacks that succeeded. Bunk, they succeeded. It had all the ingredients for it to succeed. No safeguards. Nobody paying attention. And a large war chest or treasury of assets to steal, right?

It had everything there for this to occur. I don't know how many other things match that pattern. If you run a project in the space and you have token-based voting, you should take a serious look at how it works, why it's there, and what safeguards exist. It's crazy that Bonk had so few safeguards. We pioneered some better implementations of governance that were basically open source standards for teams years and years and years and years ago. And I get that the Solana ecosystem doesn't have all of the governance tooling that the Ethereum ecosystem has.

I don't think that's why Bonk didn't have governance safeguards. But yes, I take your point. But it is what it is. You know, it's just an embarrassing moment in the history of on-chain voting. Yeah. I mean, this is the failure mode classically of democracy of 51% voting themselves, all the money. But it's not even 51%. It's 51% of those who show up.

And in a community where seven people voted. Which to be clear, it's also a failure mode of democracy, right? Like, if there's not high voter turnout democracy, the exact same thing happens. That's what happens in, like, small primaries where there's very low turnout and you get crazy candidates. Right, right, exactly. And so I think, you know, funny enough, coming back to the tokens versus equity thing, right? Like, this is one of those things that actually Delaware Court of Chancery has developed norms against this kind of thing, which is that if you are on the board and you're like, hey, I'm going to vote that the board gets paid $50 million a year and like we,

basically raid the corporate treasury, Delaware Board of Chancesley would be like, well, okay, maybe you have the votes for that, but sorry, we're not going to let you do that because it disenfranchises minority shareholders. That one might technically be legal. No, no, no, no. Like, basically the, you have a fiduciary obligation to, the shareholders have to sue. If they don't sue, then like, okay, they're not going to do anything.

Right, but if the shareholders approve the package, right, you said specifically that the shareholders approve it. No, no, no. I'm saying the board, if the board approves a, whatever, a resolution to start paying themselves a shitload of money and, like, raid the corporate treasury. Or, you know, the preferred shareholders, vote themselves all the money and screw over the common shareholders.

These are all challengeable in court, and the Delaware court of chance we will say, nope, you can't do that. You have to protect minority shareholders as well, even if they don't have a voice at the table. Democracy doesn't work that way. Democracy does not work like Delaware Court of Chancery. There's nothing stopping you from saying,

you know what, we're going to vote, you know, all the billionaires give all their money to everybody who's, you know, a college graduate. There's checks. Let's see, there's two houses of Congress. There's a president and there's courts. No, right, but that's democracy. That is itself the democracy.

If the democracy, if that apparatus agrees to it, there's nothing that stops you except in principle of Supreme Court, which says, oh, the Constitution, I don't know. Anyway, whatever. I'm obviously approximating. Vlad, what stops somebody showing up on the lighter forums and voting themselves all the money? Well, you know, we don't do a lot of this, like, decentralization theater around governance. I mean, I think that's been something, you know, I guess we talked about kind of in the past. ways that were needed. Structures that were there because of lack of clarity

and someone's led to this weird structures. But I mean, I think like zooming out, there are a lot of weird things that happen in Defi, right? Like we had something this week related to lighter where somebody was trying to buy lit with eth, and I think they used one of the aggregators to do that instead like they could have just moved the eith two lighter and bought lit there but instead they they used one one of the aggris i think like they spent like two million worth of eth just to buy like 14k

worth of lit and just the rest went to uh mev so like so weird stuff like this happens in in defy but it's like you know it's it's it's like rails for the future of finance and there as that gets built there's like they're like weird corner cases that'll emerge that's like it's like saying the internet is, like if you compare internet to pre-internet, there are a lot of weird things that happen on the internet, but that's still much better system net. So we still believe, like, defy is the future, even though there's these like weird corner cases that happen. I don't know the details about, I mean, I think you just described it there, but sort of, I mean,

that particular situation wouldn't happen on lighter because there is no doubt, right? There is no structure like that. It's all just one entity, as I mentioned. But, but again, even in kind of the lighter ecosystem, we, weird things happen with if somebody, uh, like, like this, uh, uh, well, sounds like that was a third party. Yeah, it sounds like that was like a aggregator that was kind of broken. If they allowed something to make a trade with like 99% slippage, that sounds like that's right. The aggregator's fault. Yes, for sure. But I mean, I think like broadly

speaking, it's all you can say, well, like someone coming from traffic, I could say, well, that that's weird. Like that, that should never happen. Like that would not. Similar to your point about like Delaware, somebody can say, well, in stratify, there will be protections against that. But, but I think, you know, there are going to be these corner cases as defy grows. And I think in, in a lot of cases, there can be protections built in. Yeah, it's worth underscoring that like, look, this is a, this is a meme coin. Obviously, to the extent they had governance, it was kind of Mickey Mouse governance. So they were, they were larping a little bit and having a governance forum for them.

I guess, and like, unfortunately, they actually had governance and assets for which to govern. Most governance, like, this is not a problem of first impression, let's say. Like, we already know how to solve this problem. So maybe a little bit unlike some of the other issues that we're talking about, like, this is a solved problem. It's just kind of funny that this, I mean, obviously sad for bondholders. But it is kind of like, come on, guys, if you're going to govern tens of millions of dollars of an asset, you should do, like, even just the base.

So if nothing else, it's a worthwhile warning to people who are doing this kind of thing. Last story that I wanted to cover that's gotten a lot of play is the, of course, every president, they are legally mandated to make these filings annually of their earnings while they are in office. I believe that, you know, Obama, when he made these filings, it was roughly eight pages. Biden's was 11 pages. Trump's disclosure was 927 pages. Now, when people trawled through this gigantic disclosure of all of the financial assets and business dealings of Trump, what they found was that he has made roughly $1.4 billion in post-tax income from crypto. In fact, he's made more from crypto than any other U.S. listed crypto company.

He made more than Coinbase did. Personally, $636 million came from licensing Trump token, $594 million came from World Library Financial, and about $200 million. came from equity sales and I'm thinking this like that stuff, I assume. His pre-tax income was roughly $2.3 billion from all of the crypto ventures combined. This is roughly matched by, you know, people did some accounting of all the losses of the people who invested into Trump token of World War that Be Financial. That was roughly about $2.3 billion as well, seeming to imply that this was somehow a perfect kind of frictionless transfer between retail investors into Trump assets and the Trump family

directly. He put up minimal capital into World Warfare Financial and Trump token. It was less than a million dollars in total. And nevertheless, he obviously received enormous proceeds from the sales and the trading volume associated with these assets. So Trump made a lot of money from crypto. If you didn't know that, now you know, I think this is already pretty obvious, but I think just seeing it kind of boggles the mind with respect to the scale of income that he made. Robert, what's your reaction to the Trump financial disclosures? That's a lot of money. That's a lot of money. That's a lot of money.

Clip that. Amazing reaction. That's a lot of money. I think people are genuinely surprised by it. I think everyone assumed the numbers were lower. He's had a lot of ventures that everyone has known about, right? Everyone has known about the Trump family's involvement of world liberty. Everyone is known about what was that publicly traded company he had?

Trump media. Trump media that then became a Bitcoin. digital asset treasury company as well slash Bitcoin miner or something like everyone knows about that his involvement in crypto has not been a secret, right? I just don't think people understood

or appreciated the scale of how successful it's been. And so that was what surprised people. I assume the future earnings from crypto are significantly smaller. Frankly, like, you know, when he entered the market, it was much more of a bull market. The indivority has,

were much more successful. I think a lot of that's front-loaded. If he had to do additional disclosures year over year, I would not expect him to be earning anywhere close to $1.2 billion a year in the year since. And the years going forward, I think it's probably a much smaller number. And so it is truly a large haul. I doubt that future years are going to look anything like it. Yeah. Vlad, what's your reaction to Trump's take home? Yeah, I mean, I think it is a lot of money, as Robert said. I don't know all the, you know, I didn't have a chance to read the, what is 600 pages of the disclosures. Sorry?

900 pages, 900 pages. Okay. Yeah, I mean, I think that. War and peace level, penis. Right. You know, lit holders get mad if I spend 30 seconds writing a tweet. I don't think they'd want me spending time reading all that stuff. But I'll just say, I think the president has always been involved in many different types of businesses.

So I think it's no different when it comes to crypto. But the fact that the administration has embraced blockchain is definitely not good for the industry. But yeah, all these different businesses, I'm sure it'll be interesting for folks who have the time to read the disclosures to understand how they are. work. But I think net and that it's like great for for for the administration to take such a positive view of this industry and actually under actually be part of it. Tom, what's your what's take? I mean, I think this is kind of how everyone expected the meme coin thing to play out. Like, it kind of sucks. And it's also like, you know, what did you kind of expect? I, um, I, I am curious. I feel like people have sort of maybe jumped the gun on, you know, assuming the worst. And like obviously the

the numbers, you know, it's like, oh, it perfectly maps. Like people, you know, it's like you sent the president 2.4 bill when, I think if you read it, it's like this royalty agreement with celebration coins, which like started the meme coin. And the income is also listed for assets that you receive in kind. So he has like Ethereum staking that, you know, he lists the dollar value of, you know, the ether that he received from staking. And so it wouldn't surprise me more if, like, a lot of this were just the, like, ownership of Trump tokens and, like, the creation of it, that's income.

and therefore you owe taxes on that. And I don't really know the specifics of the royalty setup because, again, it's not like, you know, he sold 600 million dollars. But you think he might be underwater post-tax or what are you saying? No, no. I'm saying like, it's not as if, hey, literally people send him $600 million in cash to purchase this meme coin and then he took him $600 million. It's more likely some blend of, hey, maybe some of these sales or LP rewards or wherever

this royalty thing was structured in addition to this in-kind realization of Trump, I'm guessing he covered his taxes on that. But like, if you look through it, I mean, he's also apparently like he has, he's getting some yield on USC on chain because it says it's kept in his cold wallet and he lists income on it. So I don't know if the president's yield farming somewhere, but shout out to Barron. So yeah, shout out to Barron. Yeah, Barron's, Barron's his yield guy. But anyway, I mean, the whole thing is, I think, I think the unfortunate story is like this thing, again is, crypto is becoming very politicized. And like, I think this it just makes it such an easy target for coming elections.

And so, you know, independent of these weird, specific, wonky details, the headline does not look great. And I know, I'm hoping, like, you know, we'd get more kind of bipartisan movement as we saw with genius. Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious that, like, this is right now what's holding up clarity is this, you know, ethics provisions, which basically says, okay, you know, president and or the executive branch of people in government can't do stuff like this. They can't issue coins. They can't get involved directly into the crypto industry for profit. And this is why. This now is going to be animating Democrats for the next, obviously going into the midterms

and potentially even for the next two or three years. I think it won't be obvious until 2008, whether or not Trump's involvement in crypto ultimately was a liability or a boon to the industry. Like we sort of are getting the front half and the front half is the good half, right? There's United Congress, the ability to get legislation passed. There's basically total control over the United States government at this point. Pretty soon, Trump is going to be a lame duck president. And there's going to be much less focus on passing legislation so much as probably him defending himself

when inevitably you're going to have a Democratic, either split Congress or fully Democratic Congress coming after. What's the polling market on that? Right now, I believe it's 84% to win the House. and Senate is like, what, 50-50, I think? Yeah, it's highly correlated. Yeah, it's highly correlated. So if they do win the House, it's more likely that they also win the Senate.

If they win the Senate, they'll definitely win the House, right? Because obviously that means there's a gigantic blue wave. So, yeah, I think there's a, there's an unfortunate reality here, which is that we're going to kind of see, but I suspect there's a lot of political pain coming because of this. Like, this is just,

there's a lot of stuff in crypto that's hard to understand. This is easy to understand. President made $2 billion from crypto and everybody who invested in it lost money.

That feels bad. And like, almost like the perfect, obviously, like, to your point, Tom, like, that money was not made

by like, traders losing money or something. Like that, that obviously can't be the way in which Trump monetizes royalties or something. But that perfect equivalence

between the two makes for just a really bad narrative for this whole ethics conversation, which is increasingly going to be animating the conversation around crypto. So we'll see. But yeah, I think it's a bad portent of what's coming over the next couple of years, because we're going to hear a lot more about this coming soon. The one thing I'll add there is I think this could potentially be a positive for getting

clarity past because I think it gives the Democrats in the Senate an opportunity to get a win. I think if they can negotiate an ethics compromise, if they can get something on paper, it really puts the ball in the Republican side to get this across the finish line. And so I know it's a high stakes game that Trump has created here, but I think it creates a path for everybody to find something to be happy with. I'm skeptical that this makes that easier. I feel like this makes that harder because it's now becoming so politicized and it's becoming such a powerful political point

that before might have felt a little esoteric of like, oh, Trump made a lot of money, now it's like, okay, this is really a democratic talking point now. Like this plays. And I think the other element of it is that, I mean, I take your point, Rob, I think you're right, that probably Trump is not going to

make anywhere near this kind of money over the next couple of disclosures. You know, like there's just not, there's no more juice to squeeze. There's no more retail, you know, unless you're handsome, there's no more retail trading activity to squeeze. And so maybe that would give Trump more reason to say, okay, yeah, I'll give on ethics because, like, I already made my money. Like, I'm good. You know, like, I don't think I'm, I don't think there's another billion in here for me to make. But, you know, knowing Trump, like, he obviously is very self-confident. So maybe he's like, oh, no, no, yeah, I got another one in me. You know, maybe we launch a baron coin next. I hope not. All right. Well, if we do, obviously, chobbing blog, we will need our Baron Trump allocation. So if you're listening,

Aaron, hit us up. No, Robert doesn't want any? I don't even make those trips. I'll take Robert's allocation. Yeah, I see he gets the whole thing. Okay, all right, thanks. Vlad, what should people check out? Where can they find you?

Anything you want to direct them towards? Lighter.x, yz, you know, we have continuing to add assets to trade. Now there's, you can also go to the Robin Hood instance. You know, definitely follow us on X, Lighter underscore XYZ. Lots of exciting stuff coming out. we're working on options next. So, yeah, we know we're pumped. And yeah, maybe, maybe, you know, we'll add some exciting new, new perps in the coming week as well.

Great. All right. Thanks for joining us, Vlad. And we will see you all next week. Thanks, guys.