Unchained - The Chopping Block: Will Tokenizing RWAs Finally Click This Time? - Ep. 517

Episode Date: July 13, 2023

Welcome to “The Chopping Block” – where crypto insiders Haseeb Qureshi, Tom Schmidt, Tarun Chitra, and Robert Leshner chop it up about the latest crypto news. This week, the crew is joined by Goldfinch co-founder Blake West to talk about the momentum around asset tokenization. Whether it’s private credit (what Goldfinch specializes in) or U.S. Treasurys (what Robert’s new venture Superstate will tackle), real-world assets (RWAs) are en vogue among the crypto set. What’s driving this fresh interest in an old concept that has failed to take off? Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Overcast, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Stitcher, Castbox, Google Podcasts, TuneIn, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform. Show highlights:  how Blake got into RWAs why Robert launched his new company Superstate why Robert hates the term “real-world asset” why the only actual RWA in the blockchain space is the U.S. dollar, aka stablecoins why other non-native crypto assets have struggled to migrate onto blockchains how having on-chain T-bills could push demand for stablecoins why private credit is a good thing to bring on chain, according to Blake what the not-so-obvious benefits of bringing these things onto blockchains are whether Arkham’s model of de-anonymizing people goes against the ethos of crypto Hosts Haseeb Qureshi, managing partner at Dragonfly  Robert Leshner, founder of Compound Tom Schmidt, general partner at Dragonfly  Tarun Chitra, managing partner at Robot Ventures Guest: Blake West, cofounder of Goldfinch Disclosures Links Unchained: Compound Founder Creates ‘Superstate’ to Bridge TradFi and Blockchains Arkham Launches Bounty Marketplace to Trade Crypto Wallet Intel MakerDAO Mulls Proposal to Allocate $750 Million More to US Treasuries MakerDAO Has Brought in Real World Assets. Is It Worth the Risk? CoinDesk: Tokenized U.S. Treasurys Surpass $600M as Crypto Investors Capture TradFi Yield Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Not a dividend. It's a tale of two Kwan. Now, your losses are on someone else's balance. Generally speaking, air drops are kind of pointless anyways. Unnamed trading firms who are very involved. I like that eight of the ultimate pump. DFI protocols are the antidote to this problem. Hello, everyone.

Welcome to the chopping block. Every couple weeks, the four of us get together and give the industry insider's perspective on the crypto topics of the day. Quick intros. First, we've got Tom, the Defy Maven, a master of memes. Next, we've got Robert, the Cryptoenoconassur, and the Tsar of Superstate.

new intro for Robert. It will be talking about it today. Then we've got Tarun, The Gigabrain, and Grand Puba at Gauntlet. And today we've got a special guest, Blake, the real world asset ringleader at Goldfinch. And then finally, you've got myself. I've received a head hype man at Dragonfly. So 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 see Chopin Block.

That XYZ for more disclosures. Blake, welcome to the show. We are going to do, for the first time ever, a real world asset show because cryptos, has gotten so boring and so uncool that we decided we finally, and I'm kidding, I'm kidding. We had, of course, it's big news that Robert announced the launch of his new company, Superstate, which we want to dive into a little bit on the show. But we thought it was a good opportunity to dive, not just into what Robert's doing, but the broader landscape of real world assets.

And we thought there was no better person to bring on board than Blake, who's been, you know, kind of an OG in the real world asset space and has been added for a while. Blake, maybe we could start off with you giving an introduction about yourself, and Goldfinch, what it is and what got you into the realm of real world assets? Yeah, sure. So first off, thanks a much for having me on the show, a big fan. And in terms of a quick background on myself, I used to work at Coinbase as an engineer back to joining 2018 and left in 2020 to start Goldfinch, which is a private credit platform

built fully on Ethereum. Everything happens fully on chain. And from the very beginning, we've been excited about doing. I mean, you know, what was now been termed real world assets, RWA. And we were just, you know, at the time, I think, and still largely, you know, crypto is a, you know, mostly kind of self-referential landscape, right? And we felt like we really needed to kind of break out of the matrix. And we were just really excited about bringing the value of crypto to real businesses,

who were doing real stuff and maybe didn't have to already do with crypto. And so that's what we've been doing since 2020, largely doing private credit lending to businesses in emerging markets, but also we have about 20% of the portfolio in America. And so that's the thing. And I think your world assets is really the place where crypto has to go in order to grow in my mind. So let me just step back a bit and define real world assets because maybe for us, it's kind of, you know, we know exactly what we're talking about. The history of real world assets and crypto goes back a very long time. Like I remember when I first got into the space, people were talking about real world assets.

And at that time, it was like asset tokenization and, you know, the kind of the terms of evolved over time. As far as I know, the first real world asset to get tokenized and still the largest real world asset on chain, is dollars, right? So technically, every single stable coin, except for algorithmic on-chain stable coins, are basically real-world assets. There's dollars in a bank. They're in the real world.

That's why they call them real-world assets. There's something off-chain that's being represented on-chain, some kind of claim or some kind of monetary equivalence between what's happening off-chain and what's happening on-chain. And then I remember there were things like Digix,

which was an early attempt to tokenize gold. Tether has tokenized various other assets. Like I think they had silver. They had other non-USD currencies. But for the most part, and then of course, I remember in the 2017 cycle, then again in the 2021 cycle, a lot of excitement around, okay, can we tokenize real estate? Can we tokenize other kinds of assets like apartment complexes and boats and, you know, all sorts of things that maybe people might want liquidity for? And I think we've talked about on the show that I think

in the past there's been some magical thinking, I think on behalf of a lot of people around asset tokenization, the idea that if I tokenize something, then magically it will become liquid. and there were a lot of companies that kind of got funded and kind of drove this excitement of this idea. They're like, wow, you know, crypto trades 24-7, crypto, you know, anybody can buy and sell at any given time. There are a lot of real world assets like real estate that are really painful to transfer or to sell

or, you know, there's all these documents. They take forever. They don't work on weekends. And it's like, wow, can we bring the crypto magic or the on-chain, blockchain software-based intermediation to all these traditional businesses? And I think this led to a lot of unrealistic expectations. A lot of people getting disappointed.

They're like, hey, why hasn't there been more progress? It seems like still today, by far the largest market is dollars. And not a lot else is working. So, Robert, let me bring you in. Tell us about, okay, that's kind of where we are. I don't know if you disagree with that characterization. Tell us what led you to be like, cool, I'm going to go do Super State. Sure.

So I'll start by saying that I hate the term real world assets. It describes the opportunity. So it also insults all of the assets in crypto that are crypto-native assets. So I like to segment the world into two camps. One in which assets are issued on the blockchain for the first time. That's where they live. That's where they were created. Ether is a great example.

It lives on a blockchain. It doesn't live in like a database or a spreadsheet or something like that. All the tokens issued on Ethereum are crypto-native assets. And then you have traditional assets, which are issued on. on other ledgers, spreadsheets, physical paper, old-ass database software, things written in cobal, whatever. Crypto-native, and then traditional assets. Everything exists in the real world, in my opinion.

So I don't like to use the term, but I know a lot of people in crypto do use that term. But I'd just like to segment it real quickly between crypto-native and things that are not native to blockchains. So what got me excited was actually the opposite of excitement. It actually goes back to 2017 when I started compound. In 2017, I thought that by 2022, five years later, the whole world was going to be tokenized. I remember when I pitched VCs in like 2017, I was like, oh, man, by 2022 in five years, everything's going to live on the blockchain. And so a market-like compound or uniswap or whatever would be able to interact with all of these incredible assets where you could build one system, something like,

compound or something like uniswap or something like, you know, any protocol. And eventually more and more things would become interoperable. But there would be more assets. Eventually would handle stocks. Eventually would handle bonds. Eventually would handle commodities, you know, whatever. And that never really occurred because not that many things came on chain from off of the blockchain.

Dollars, incredible use case, incredible product market fit. You know, we've seen, you know, $150 billion plus at given points of stable coins. obviously there's a lot of demand for that and the invisible hand really pulled it onto the blockchain. But that's pretty much the only thing that's migrated over so far. What, you know, we have seen early signs of life for are things moving the other way, things moving off chain, right? And I'm really excited to talk with Blake about this. But like when I look at Maker, when I look at Goldfinch, a lot of times it's wealth from the blockchain getting sent to something not on the blockchain and like kind of like this

opposite direction migration. Obviously it builds a much more unified system and it's incredibly important and incredibly exciting and incredibly powerful. But it's oftentimes dollars moving the other way. Like MakerDA now has all of these real world assets or RWAs, but it's dollars moving away from the blockchain, away from the crypto nativity, not onto it. It's kind of like this like reverse migration in a sense. And so, you know, the thing that got to me was saying, well, it's been now six years, right? I originally thought it was going to be five years and everything would live on a blockchain. It's been six years. Nothing besides a, simple dollar actually exists over here. And what can we do to help facilitate this migration?

And so, well, hold on, Robert. Let me pause you there real quick. Why do you think that is? What's your theory of the case of why other things haven't migrated onto the blockchain? Well, I think it's a supply and demand problem. So I think this is really like the invisible hand of markets, not getting people excited enough because like when there's enough demand, when there's enough of a pain point, when there's enough excitement, it will happen. People will figure it out. the one thing that has gotten people like moving, so to speak, are stable coins. Like there is a clear demand for stable coins. There's clear product market fit.

That is a use case where the market ushered it into existence because so many people around the world demanded it or wanted it. I think when it comes to things like, you know, tokenized real estate, the demand is like microscopic still, right? There's very few people who are like, man, I'd kill for that skyscraper live on the blockchain. It's incredibly cool. doing it is like, you know, achievement unlocked, but I don't know how many people demand it.

I don't know how much like capital demands. I don't know how big the invisible hand is that wants to will it into existence. It's super cool. But how much like capital demand is there for that? I don't know. It has, I don't think it's very high. And I think that's one of the reasons why we haven't seen, you know, more of this succeed. I might also add. I think there's a lot of just like regulatory issues, especially for public assets to come. on chain, right? Like, you know, sort of like, whatever, the thing in crossing the cas are really talking about like total cost of ownership. There's like the cost of actually using the product, but there's sort of the total cost of ownership that goes outside of the

product, which, you know, for a lot of these funds and especially wealthy individuals or family offices who might be buying this type of asset, well, there's also like, well, how does the accounting work? And like, do I still get the same tax treatment? And like, this headache and brain damage of having to think about blockchain assets, I think is just too much for a lot of that stuff to have migrated over so quickly. And I think that's another piece that just needs to get figured out before we're going to see the mass migration in my mind. But it's also true for USC, isn't it? The like USC, at least I think until recently or I don't know if that has changed at all,

but like it's not treated as a currency for tax purposes, correct? Yeah, I think the, and the demand has largely come from crypto-nated. People who probably don't need to think about all those same issues. Like they just go on Coinbase and they, you know, send in their dollars, they mince USC and they go up, go back their day. Right, right. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so given that starting place, the two of you pursued different directions of which real world assets are the most interesting markets to pursue. Robert, let's start with your story for Super State. Can I go ahead, Drew? I'll add one thing. Disclosure is that Robert and I are small investors in Goldfinch.

I realize we didn't say that. Yeah, something we see may be very, very slightly biased. And we'll be used against you. Yeah. All right. Go ahead. Go ahead, Robert. So yeah, tell why, given this backdrop, why Superstate? Yeah.

So, you know, in trying to solve this problem of like, why haven't things come on chain for the most part, you know, we're starting with the idea that it's because you have to go to where the demand is. And where we see the demand right now are for not just dollars to come on chain, but low risk, highly liquid sources of yield to come on chain. And in a massive scalable way. Where we sit, you know, we think that treasuries and T-bills and short-term, you know, extremely high-quality instruments are what people want to hold on blockchains. And so what we're trying to facilitate is just the path for these types of assets to come onto the blockchain,

not for the dollars that were on the blockchain to go off-chain and then buy them, but for those assets in a regulatory structure to come onto the blockchain. So what we're doing is we're spending a lot of time focused on. on the legal and regulatory process to bring these assets on chain, because that's where we think that demand is. And over time, as there's more and more global demand for additional assets on chain, whether it's real estate or commodities or whatever, fill in the blank, ideally there's a path to bring those assets on chain as well.

And so, you know, really it's a fund creation business with a structure that enables those funds to become crypto. Okay, so, I mean, I get it. Rates are north of 5%. A lot of people, you know, probably everybody in this thing included, we have some money, you know, getting short-term interest from the government. You are not the first to do this, right? So there's Ando Finance, which is the largest, I think, that's kind of purely defy-oriented. Franklin Templeton has some, on-shay thing on Stellar, I think, or something.

I'm not totally... Yeah, Maple has one. Yeah, as I said, this is being discussed on Twitter today, but the Franklin-Templet thing is actually bigger than Onus. which is like very counterintuitive. By like two at almost two S. Yeah. It's like it's like, 300 million in like money market

ETF tokens on on stellar. You should actually. Maybe you can show the RWA. That's Y, slash treasuries if you want to see. Yeah. And so to be clear, if you want to, the process right now,

if you want to own one of these is you need to like go whitelist your address. You need K.YC. White list your address. And then you can go and buy these treasuries and you get some yield on Stellar. Or if in the case of Ondo on Ethereum. Can you zoom in a bit, Tom? Because I think it's pretty hard to read. So, yeah, yeah.

Franklin Templeton, Ondo, Matrix stock, which really is actually Matrix ports. Product, STPT, it's like tokenized treasuries. Maple has this pool. And I think this, this site is slightly often that they count flux finance, which is Ondo's compound fork. So it's a money market that they built that is white listed for anondo product. So you can take your, tokenized money market ETF that you've, you know, onboarded and purchased through Ando, put it into flux and then borrow against it at a rate that is pretty attractive. I mean, you're paying like, you know, half of, you know, margin rates on like a traditional brokerage. And, you know, these people are also getting, you know, yield if you just put USDC in and

you're not buying the treasuries. So you're not, this is not actually tokenized treasuries, but it's being lent against tokenized treasuries and flux. I think something kind of interesting about it, too. I believe that whole kind of market is partly, there because the rates on compound were lower than what was getting paid out onondos, people I think were basically leveraging that capital and then lending it into flux, who then bargains and buy more onto treasuries. Right. So there's an interest rate arbitrage that once people have access to treasury yield,

they can use that, they can borrow against, you know, stable coins and basically increase demand for stable coins on chain, which pushes up the interest rates on stable coins and pushes them closer to parity. Obviously, they're not going to get exactly to parity, but it does mean that the rate on stable coins should get closer to that risk-free rate, which is not really possible when you don't have treasuries on chain at all. Now, the treasury is on chain right now, it's on the order of like a few hundred million, right? Maybe 500 million. If you aggregate everything. A little over 100 themselves. Yeah. And then Franklin Templeton is like, you know, close to 300 or

something like that. So right now, the outstanding supply of stable coins, obviously in the tens of billions, it's a massive, massive amount of stable coins out there. So there, there is no way right now, just with the differential in how many treasuries are out there to actually do the industry rate arbitrage and push the yield on stable coins up. But okay, there are a lot of people doing this. Robert, what are they doing wrong? Why do you need to come in and fix what these people, the mistakes these people are making? Yeah. So, and the first thing to say is that there's obviously room for many different approaches and many different companies, right? Like there's both Vanguard and Fidelity and both them are managing trillions upon trillions of dollars, right? It's not that anyone's

doing anything wrong, but we're just taking an approach to Stately. different. So there's really two names you've already mentioned, Franklin Templeton and Ando, Superstates somewhere in the middle of the two of these. So Franklin Templeton is going the route of creating registered investments where they file a prospectus and then it's available to be purchased by anybody. Ondo is going a different route where they're relying on exemptions from registration and saying, you know, you have to be a qualified purchaser, which means you have to have $5 million to purchase their fund. Ondo is super Ethereum native. Franklin Temple is on stellar. Superstate is kind of the hybrid of these two approaches where it's a registered

approach where we're creating a registered investment. We submitted a draft prospectus, a preliminary prospectus to the SEC about two weeks ago. So it's a registered approach, not an exemption from registration so that it can be held by anybody. The goal is to be a very Ethereum native on-chain component. And so it's kind of in the middle of those two. And we believe that that's something that the market is going to want, which is something that, you know, has a clear registration statement and is Ethereum native as sort of the best of both worlds. And we'll see how it plays out over the next couple months, years, decades. But that's the approach in a nutshell. And Robert, actually, what kind of access is going to be possible on this phone?

Who can purchase it? Yeah, U.S. investors or offshore investment with U.S. addresses. Retail investors, here? Yeah, so basically anybody who can buy a mutual fund today, they can they can buy a stake in the super stake fund. But, you know, a smart contract or an AI or a DAO or whatever, they would not be able to directly own the super state mutual fund. All right. So let me take a step back.

So I think we understand the approach. Let me ask kind of a broader philosophical question is like, why is it good to have more tokenized treasuries on chain? And maybe let's just start there and like I kind of want to dig into this discussion because I think it's actually quite interesting. Robert, why is it good to bring tokenized treasuries on chain? Well, if you zoom out and look super abstractly, why is it good to have a blockchain at all, right? Wait, is that where we're starting?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, let's start really low, right? Okay, cool. So really foundational, I think having assets that are administered and owned and tracked on blockchains is better than traditional ledgers. It's better than the stack that they currently reside in tried fine. Because in the end run, you're able to get more from them. You're able to get all of the composability of defy.

You're able to get all of the automation of smart contracts. You're able to get the transparency of a blockchain where every action that's ever occurred is auditable. Plus the programmable open source nature of it. You're able to get the instant settlement. You're able to get the massive speed and portability advantages over prior ledgers. Having things on a blockchain is super, super good. right? And so having the old assets, the Tradfai assets, move over and start to live on the blockchain more and more and more over time is just overall going to be a net benefit for society,

for investors, for regulators, for everybody. I can also add a little color later because I actually talked to the Franklin Templeton people months back. We were actually kind of looking to do a Treasury's product as well in Gilfrench. And we talked with Franklin Templeton. They had actually, they spent quite a long time getting the SEC comfortable with this fund. They started it a while ago. For them, it was actually originally sort of like almost a science experiment. They were just like, hey, let's do something on the blockchain. This was like years ago when the rates were still zero and they didn't really expect anybody to use it. But they were like, well, just go through the Hong process because it takes quite a while

to a while to take a while. Anyway, they spent all this time. And like, they were talking to SEC. It's like, well, how do we get to like subpoena you for records? And they're like, it's right here. It's right there. You just need to look at it. And they also told me that once they actually been running this for a while, their actual cost of operating the fund are substantially lower from what it costs them to administer a traditional fund. So I think this other Robert is talking about is spot on, and we have some evidence already of that from Franklin Templeton, at least from the phone calls I have with them a couple months ago.

Interesting. Let me maybe propose a counterpoint that I was just thinking about actually while I was taking a shower this morning when we were preparing for the show, is that, so right now in Defi, right? So we talked about this interest rate arbitrage. It's not really being done yet because there aren't enough tokenized treasuries on chain. when this interest rate arbitrage successfully happens and the rates on chain go up, another way of thinking about that is that, you know, what the Fed has been doing for the last two years

is they've been raising interest rates. And because they've been raising interest rates, you know, they've been kind of crushing investment. I mean, we're all VCs. We're all investing less, you know, the incentive to take risk, incentive to innovate, all that stuff goes down because it gets crowded out by basically just, you know, government paper, right? And so effectively what the government is saying is invest less, take less. risk and instead just give your money to me and I'll hold on to it and like cool down the economy. And so when you are bringing more tokenized treasuries on chain, basically what

you're doing is you're raising the on chain interest rate, right? You are basically playing that intercessory role of like bridging what the Fed is doing in the real economy and bringing it to the on chain economy and telling the on chain economy, hey, invest less, slow down, don't invest so much in growth. And instead put your money with the U.S. government and just have it sit there and kind of do nothing because we want to slow down the economy. This is going to make yield farming more expensive. It's going to make token issuances or like token emissions more expensive. Is that not going to, yeah, it may bring more tokenized treasures on chain and maybe it's

all great. It's so efficient for, you know, on chain mutual funds for treasuries. But isn't that going to result in slowing down the rate of innovation on the blockchain? Or it'll speed it up because people have to create entirely new things. Yeah. The rate of innovation is quite the right metric there to go with the interest rates going. going up because it's taking quite a lot of innovation just to just to do it. Yeah, but it is it is directly tied to the cost of capital, right?

I mean, the cost of capital on chain goes up. It's harder to get USTC to provide liquidity for a blah, blah, blah. I mean, you can argue whether that is innovation. I don't know, Tom, what's your take? I think you're sort of positioning us as either or, like either your assets are in treasuries or they're being, you know, deployed elsewhere and invested elsewhere. And I think, I actually kind of think, look at like steak d'Eath and liquid-staking integrative is sort of a comp of, you know, the eth,

yield is basically the risk-free rate, right, like block emissions plus transaction fees. And that competes with everything else. So, hey, it's not super attractive to, you know, loan out my ETH for 1% when I can stake it and earn 4% or 5% or something like that. And that's true for everything, right? If I have my ETH sitting in like Blur, waiting to bid on an NFT, or if I have my eth sitting in a Dow and, you know, waiting to, you know, commissions a proposal. And so instead of kind of the current trend actually is replacing ETH, with liquid staking derivatives like staked eth. And so the two sort of composed.

So I can have my eth, I can get my yield, and I can use it in all these different other places as well, where I might normally use vanilla eth. And so instead, these rates actually sort of composed with each other and complement each other. And so I think similarly, like we could probably see a similar thing with, you know, these tokenized treasuries or something like Flux USDC where, hey, if I'm using this as collateral to trade on some, you know,

decentralized perps venue, I don't have to sacrifice the risk-free rate in order to trade perks, the two can actually sort of compose with each other. Yeah, I mean, I think another natural thing in that vein is that, yeah, staking derivatives didn't like completely crush everything else, right? There's still, there's still enough liquidity in other assets. Like, a lot of it definitely went away. I think the bigger question is just more like how well can these high rates diffuse through the existing defy ecosystem, right?

Like the real advantage of staking derivatives is they are basically more or less. equivalent to ETH in DFI. From the perspective of most of DFI, there's really not a difference between ETH and a bunch of the stake integrative. But the treasury assets are a little bit weirder, right? They do have some restrictions. You have to go through this sort of

indirect route of borrowing against that. There's clearly some friction to them diffusing through the ecosystem. So that's the thing I think would be more interesting. I don't know if I buy the token emissions have to up type of argument, though, because what will end up happening is if fees are denominated in that, if those tokens have some claim to fees, well, if the rates went up and they have

something where they're collecting fees denominated in that asset, they should be earning more too, right? Like, I'm not saying it's perfectly, you know, reflexive in that sense. But there's a, they should be, if they're able to utilize those assets and charge fees in those assets terms, they should be at least earning some of the beta to the growth of that asset. Now, if the protocol is not able to do that, then that's different. But I think maybe from the perspective of innovation, that would be the part of innovation that probably would have to happen, which is like... I love your assumption that protocols charge fees.

That's very charming model of how the blockchain works. No, no, no. But the LPs earn fees, right? And the LPs are also earning the farming asset. And so there's sort of, it's not totally clear to me that you have to overcomes. In fact, you may have to compensate them less than the native token because they're getting more like raw rewards in treasury asset that they're earning fees in. Right. If they're earning fees in FUSDC, it's like, I'm just saying like, I don't think it's.

I mean, look, I think the reality, though, is that like, look, if you're farming, you have to farm in stable coins because you need it to be open and permissionless, right? Presumably. I mean, maybe not. I don't know. Maybe there's some world where you can be K-Y-C and have on-chain treasuries. Yeah, I think, like, you know, there's a lot of people now launching, like, CDP platforms or, you know, basically forks of, like, you know, liquidy or whatever that use liquid-staking grid as collateral instead of ether.

And, like, you know, those are quickly rising as, like, the dominant form of collateral. I think Avey is now over-Eath. Maker's, uh, state-Eath is about to overtake ETH as, like, the main form of collateral. So, you know, the two can compose. And I think, you know, again, as long as you have players who sort of bridge these two, markets, the rates should converge, right? Like, you have something like Flux, you know, USDC, and then you have the actual tokenized treasuries themselves. And so, yeah, they're not going to be on par, but, you know, anybody can go and use Flux USDC to go do, you know, farming if they want. And

in theory, they should all become, you know, more liquid over time. Yeah, I mean, another sort of reverse experiment of the thing you're talking about is in 2021, when rates were basically zero, and crypto rates were very high and suddenly, additional finance people were able to access the crypto rates via centralized entities. Now, of course, that didn't work out the way they planned. But they were able to access it, and they immediately went towards that. And it actually had sort of a this feedback loop effect. Some of it could, some of it had, a lot of it bad.

But I think you should expect the same thing. I don't think there is, I think like at the end of the day, if an asset's a really good collateral and taken everywhere and it has positive. yield and negative carry and like low carry costs. Like people gravitate to that, right? That's a, it's a very interesting point to run because you're sort of analogizing, okay, well, you know, raising the rates on chain is kind of like what Terra was doing

of having these really high rates that are kind of pulling capital into crypto and that capital then disseminates and the cost of capital gets lower in crypto. That argument works if there's a differential between the interest rate off chain and the interest rate on chain, right? In this case, the industry on chain is actually lower than the interest rate off chain. and what the tokenized treasuries are doing is they're equalizing the interest rate across the two. My mental model of capital on chain,

and this might be part of why I think we might be looking at this differently, my mental model of capital off-chain, or sorry, on-chain, is that there's really like two kinds of capital. There's opportunistic capital that is just looking for yield and they're like, you know, just kind of cut-throat hedge funds, they'll do whatever. And then there's like capital that's kind of stuck on-chain,

which is, you know, people in China who are, they're just like, look, I want dollars and, you know, tether is the best way to hold those dollars. And so that capital is captive and they'll take whatever rate they can get. So if the best rate is 2% on compound, it's like, great, I'm going to get 2% on compound. I'm not going to be able to KYC and get, you know, the 5% from Superstate. So I'm just going to live with the 2%. So be it. Or maybe I'll take a little more risk and put it into private credit through Goldfinch.

But that capital isn't moving, right? And so that kind of, that black hole of pulling in more capital from off chain, the terror was doing. I think it's not likely we're going to see that just because we have tokenized treasuries on chain that those actors, even if you live in Hong Kong, you can get access to treasury yield from Hong Kong, no problem, right? It's not something that you have to be in the U.S. to get access to. What do you think of that take? Yeah, I agree that there's some version of that that's true, but I do think, like, suppose there's another bull run, ETH price goes up, suddenly the USD ETH staking rate looks significantly more attractive than treasuries.

But maybe I actually want to hold a portfolio that's like 60-40 ETH USD. But I don't want my USD portfolio to be only a carry cost for me, effectively. I do actually want to be earning some nominal yield. This is a perfect product for that, right? And my point is people rebalancing into the bull and bears, they're not going to be like I'm going out of Eth completely to Stablecoin or vice. Other than board apes owners, they're not going to be kind of, you know, doing that, right?

They're going to have this kind of in between, but they kind of want yield on both sides. And I think it, like, makes the rebalancing costs actually a lot more palatable. You know, and like as these portfolios get larger, especially due to staking rewards kind of spreading through the ecosystem, you definitely could imagine that this has a place that is viable collateral to compete with USC or retailer. So, Blake, let's bring you in. Give us the case, you know, we talked about. treasuries. Give us the case for private credit as being an attractive real-world asset to bring on-chain. Why perfect credit? Yeah. So I think it's actually a good kind of compliment here because

as I remember we're saying, bringing these treasury yields on-chain, that is, I think everyone would agree. That's largely a product for crypto-native investors, right? For the people who are already on-chain because for the most part, you know, what Al-Dos is doing, they're literally giving you a BlackRock ETF, and they're adding 15 bibs and then saying, here you go. Now you can buy it on-chain. So people from the off-chain world or so traditional finance, they're not going to be taking their dollars and bringing it on chain to buy the onto product, generally speaking, I would think. I mean, as like a, I was just by my default case. However, because not as always is, it's very, very publicly available. It's really, really easy for anyone to try to find to get access to their rate already. The private credit thing, on the other hand,

it's actually very hard to access, generally speaking, especially for a more like kind of normal everyday investor. It's very, very difficult to access. And so, you know, this is sort of the whole other into the spectrum where it's not public, it's very hard to access, and it's very bespoke to. And it takes sort of a lot of expertise to be able to look at these deals and decide whether or not they're good or not. And so that's where, like, we actually, again, with our whole, all the thing, we want to bring people who are outside the crypto space into the crypto realm. And so offering these private credit deals, you know, we want to bring investors who aren't

already into crypto and bring them on chain through an act, through an ad set. Can you give us an example of a private credit deal just so, I mean, a lot of people might know exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Totally. So, you know, really private credit is just doing lending to businesses by large. And so, you know, an example of a borrower that was on a goldfinches company called Payjoy. They do smartphone financing in Mexico. And so, you know, you buy a phone from them, they'll pay for it. And then you pay the back over, you know, the next two years or whatever.

And you do monthly installments. And if you don't pay back, they happen to have software on the phone that will shut off your phone. And so everyone wants their phone to work. People pay it back. And so you can do that with tons of businesses all over the place. You know, that was sort of specific fintech lending business, but you can do it with invoice receivables. You can do it with real estate. You can do it with all kinds of stuff. Goldfin sense to focus on fintech lenders as our main borrowers. But that's just the rough idea of private credit. And private credit as asset class, by the way, has just been growing like crazy. And this is, I would say generally a really exciting time for private credit because as the rates go up, that actually pushes up, that's like

the floor of rates that every business in the world needs to pay. And so all of the rates that everyone is paying have gone up by basically four or five percent in the last couple. years. So you have really high quality companies offering, you know, 10% plus yield. And of course, that is going to take on more risk than going to the treasuries, but it's also much our yield. You're not talking to 10% plus. And in a world where the stock market is kind of questionable and you're not really sure is this going to be a good year or bad year. People are starting to reallocate the portfolios and a thing like bonds, then, you know, private credit also needs to be really attractive. And you have people like KKR and BlackRock, everybody who's really doubling down

on private credit now. This is kind of like a golden period of private credit or the golden age. And so we think this is a great time to be offering credit credit to people. And we're going to still be doing it fully on chain. We actually, I'd say different than a lot of other places, we want to be focusing actually kind of more away from the crypto native investors into a more mainstream investor. We're going to try to take advantage of things like layer twos and account abstraction and embedded wallets to make the experience really, really seamless. And we want to bring that kind of normal mainstream investor and then barely even realize

they're doing everything fully on chain in a self-custodial manner, but get access to this deal that they can't get anywhere else. And so then I think that is, that's a good way to bring more people in because, again, it's not this thing they can just go on their fidelity account and get. It's something that's unique to what we're doing. And also in terms of investors, you know, if we can take capital directly from investors anywhere in the world, there's all sorts of payment processor fees that don't have to take place on chain. And then, you know, eventually we can get all these other benefits of interoperability and

transparency and stuff that, you know, Robert's been talking about. I want one actual other thing that I think might be worth mentioning to, our listeners is the private credit market, say, in 2022 and 2021, a lot of it was actually serviced by banks like Silicon Valley Bank. And I think like once they had kind of had their explosion in February, it became clear that a lot of these credit opportunities had to be funded by like fully private entities versus like pseudo private entities like a FDI insured bank. And I think like that has contributed just in a way that to the boom. I mean, Blake, yeah, you know, it seems like that has been like one of the big drivers I've heard of.

So that boom is actually, and that story you're bringing up with banks, you know, used to do with this landing and sort of receding away from it. That's actually been going on since the financial crisis in 2008. After those new regulations came into place, Bankford basically asked to hold on to more cash and more safe assets. And so if you look at like their balance sheets, their balance sheets have actually shifted up about 20% in cash and their lending has kind of gone down, right? And they're just sort of flipping. And so that's like a huge amount of money. It's like over a trillion dollars worth of lending that was taking place 10 years ago or 15 years ago and isn't now. And so private credit has been just continuing to fill the gap over the last

15 years. And so you have all these different private credit funds and stuff who kind of specialize in the different niches of, okay, I'm going to focus on fintechs in this region. Okay, I'm going to focus on trade finance in this region. And they really learned to understand that business and that industry and they learn specifics of what kind of stuff they need to put into their loan documents. Do they make those as safe as possible? And that is where we've seen this just explosion of private credit. It's really the last 15 years. It's not just the last two, but the last two may have accelerated it. So taking a step back, the real world asset story, when I hear from large institutions, right, whether it's the black rocks of the world,

I mean, you can see in Larry Frank's annual letter, he talks about asset tokenization being a big story. You see it from Goldman Sachs. You see it from Wellington. You see it from, you know, a lot of these really large groups are looking very closely at the idea of bringing real world assets on chain. That said, it's taken a while and, you know, things haven't, you know, we're not, we're not seeing explosive growth. Things are growing and things maybe are going to start working, but we're waiting for that moment when this stuff really starts to kick into gear. If and when it does, and let's take it for granted for the moment that it does, what does it, What happens downstream when all of a sudden you have a large private credit market on chain,

when all of a sudden you have very large pools of treasuries on chain. What does that change besides the obvious thing of, oh, interest rates on chain go up? What else changes because of that? I think all of a sudden, you know, you have interoperability of these assets. You have a lot more transparency which should be able to increase the accuracy of the pricing that can take place. You know, because historically, if someone's holding on to a private credit asset that's in some random funds book that no one knows, and most of these funds are not, they're not even

tech enabled by and large, right? It's not like they're not on chain. They're just like not even on computers, right? They're usually holding documents in some, you know, custody partner that they work with or they're, you know, holding themselves. And so I think getting on this stuff on chains are going to drastically increase the amount of information we have about these loans. So we're able to see the payments coming back from the borrowers, right? And you say, okay, yeah, this thing's been paying back all the time. Loan documents can be pointed to through, you know, URLs that you can put on chain, that kind of thing, which should just, I think really help facilitate these markets. Now you said before and I think it's true. It's not like this stuff is going to magically be liquid, right? And,

you know, for private credit and real estate, all this stuff is very, very bespoke, right? Like, even one house over in the same neighborhood is not the same house. You can't just assume it's the same pricing. But I do think as you bring more of the stuff on chain, you can start having things that are probably built on top to help increase that liquidity, like ratings agencies and things that are looking at stuff and you're like, okay, you know, this stuff, it's been underwritten by this team. They're like pretty good. They have this long track record, which we can see. This bar also has a long track record. It's other stuff. We can see all the stuff. And I'm going to call this B grade, whatever, right?

And now if you can really bring all these different private assets and call it under one risk category, then I think you can actually really legitimately create a lot of liquidity. But I think it's going to be a while because this is kind of like multi-step process. We're going to get the stuff on chain. And then once it's on chain, then I think other people can probably build on top these kind of ratings things that can help increase the liquidity. But also just nice stuff around, you know, moving money around quicker if people, you know, actually send money from one thing to another. Like one thing that was interesting about a recent gold financial loan, we did this callable structure with a company in Singapore called FAS.

And that callable structure is this thing where investors have the right to call back their capital whenever they want to, you know, every quarter. They're like a redemption right, basically. And for, you know, a regular borrower, that's actually, that's a pretty annoying thing operationally to do if you have lots and lots of investors, right? But because you'd have to have different bank account information of people in different parts of the world and like how you'd handle all that and who's going to pay for it. But in blockchain world, we tell them, hey, look, it doesn't matter how many investors we end up getting. Like one payment to one smart contract every quarter, it's all you need to do. And operationally, that's a much easier lift for them. And that is a, I call a liquidity enhancing structure that is really only possible through something like the blockchain.

And so I think you just get a lot of these nice little benefits that can add up over time. But I also generally view the blockchain as like this, it's a social technology, right? Like, it's more powerful than more people who believe in it and more people who are using it. And so it's this slow kind of exponential thing. So we actually start seeing a lot of people use it where that interoperability comes into play. So that's why it's just it's surprising all of us at how long it's taking. It seems like another big difference. So you mentioned the digitizing a lot of these businesses, kind of pulling them forward into the 21st century, let's say, same time making things more trustworthy, making things more transparent, making things, you know, always online and very easy to execute for just trusting the cash flows of these businesses that otherwise would be very difficult to underwrite.

another thing that seems to me to be a direct consequence of getting more real elastic on chain is a different class of consumer coming on chain than who's there today. Today, most of the people who are on chain are speculators. Just by volume, obviously there's some people who are on chain because they want to just hold some U.S.TC and they want to have some safe assets or they want to hold some Bitcoin and they're not really speculating per se. But a lot of the people who came on chain over the last few years are basically there to gamble and having a set of users who are there to make more or less sound financial decisions

and basically save for the real world really changes the kinds of products that we can start offering on chain and actually get adoption with. And how do you guys think about that? I'll say I think a thousand percent. And this is a big reason as well as why we are trying to make this shift really increase the user experience so that we can go after this mainstream audience you're talking about. because the DGens who are on there today, they want 10 to 15% like a day, right? And like fundamentally the product we're offering is 10 to 50% a year.

Right. And so like, you know, we just can't sell those people. And so we have to sell them more mainstream investor who wants to make these sound financial decisions. As you were saying, we want to give them the opportunity to do so. We want to do it on chains. We want to be building this whole platform for the future where we see everything headed. Robert, what's your take on that? What do you think changes when you start getting more kind of risk-averse investors coming on chain?

Well, I think what winds up happening is it winds up being a more permanent, like, overall financial marketplace when there's many different types of customers, many different types of investors, many different types of end users, all looking for different things, right? Like, the more use cases and the more sort of like end users in one place, the better and the more things are just going to like happen. And the more like connections get made and like products evolve and like the assets evolve as well. So I think increasing the diversity of end users is only going to be a good thing, right? Like because, you know, they'll stick around and do something different and like they'll use another product and they'll put money somewhere else and they'll reinvest something and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and it all compounds. And so the long term outcome is just going to be like, you know, I think of like 15 years

and I'm really bad at this because I used to think, you know, we'd have all the real world assets on chain right now. So I'm totally wrong. But I think in like 15 years, you know, it'll just be like, oh, everything is here, right? It's just like Wall Street 3, you know, it's just like on where things operate and, you know, they don't operate on the paper and pencil way anymore. They just operate here. Yeah, I think it also, it'll decrease the volatility of the space substantially. Because as Robert's saying, when you have this diversity of use cases and people doing it for different reasons, then, okay, well, just because, you know, XYZ tokens aren't doing well anymore.

It's risk off. that doesn't mean you leave crypto land. You stay on because, oh, well, now I can get private credit. Now I can get treasury yields. Now I can hopefully eventually get public equities and things like that. It'll just really decrease the volatility. Make it more of a real economy. Yeah, I think to this point earlier about the type you're talking about the treasuries of like,

oh, why wouldn't I just leave crypto and go buy it? If the rebalancing cost is just so low to do it without leaving, like then you won't leave, right? Like people will just. And I think that that, that, gets to this disappointed blakes me. It's like,

transaction costs for this stuff are not zero, especially for the, especially for the like kind of not D-Gen stuff in the sense that. In the back of my mind, I'm like,

oh, that's also what casino say of like cheap drinks to keep you in the casino. It's like, all, look, that's human nature.

For the real money makers, which is get you to buy JPEGs. That's human nature, though. That's like, that's not a, I think that casinos just make it more in your face.

Of course. So Robert, Robert, Robert and Blake are the bartenders who are keeping everybody, keeping everybody past midnight. Yeah, I wasn't even say, I think the, the two approaches, like Robert and what we're doing, they come together. They really are complimentary in the sense that like, you know, if we're bringing someone on to do private credit, some of their portfolio, they may want to say, hey, I've got some dry powder.

What do I do with this before the next investment? Well, maybe they're investing in emails, maybe through Super State, right? And that's a really good combo, right? We want to be able to. That's made in heaven, Blake. Yeah. So they're not buying any JPEGs, is what you're telling me. Well, not the rest.

All right, all right, all right. I mean, to be fair, one of the funniest tweets I saw this week was someone complaining about how people aren't trying to acquire failed NFT projects. And like, they have no exits. And it's like, what were you thinking? Obviously, there's no, like, what are they buying the Discord? Like, you're talking about selling the issuers or selling the, you? collections. I think it's like the issuers had technically had companies that receive the eth or multi-sigs that receive the eth and they want to like sell whatever they think they are.

The NFT holders do or the owners of the projects do? Owners of the projects. Like there were just people lamenting like there's no M&A for NFT projects and I was like, what are you talking about? So somebody makes like sad apes, right? And like obviously it's like knock off and nobody wants it. the sad ape owner is looking for somebody to take over the sad ape project that has already sizzled out. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Wow. Yeah, weird. This is a very weird industry. So just one more thing that I wanted to touch on. So you guys were talking about, okay, you know, we're starting with tokenized credit, private credit, or sorry, tokenized treasury's private credit. You know, maybe eventually we'll get to public equities.

I was to think of Mirror. So for those of you don't know, Mirror was one of the projects in the terror ecosystem was basically like the, you know, basically building perps on, you know, US treasuries. And this was a meme for a long time and something that we took a lot of interest in as this idea that, look, look,

if you take these, you know, delta one derivatives that people love in crypto and you just wrap them around traditional assets, you can basically create synthetic forms of just about anything, as long as you have a price feed. And you can do it for, Bitcoin, obviously, with a perp, but you can, with a professional swap, but you can do it for any

assets so long as you have an index. And there was, there was a moment when some of these things were getting some traction or people were excited about synthetics, people were excited about mirror, and they all kind of fizzled out. And it does seem like this is probably the best theory for why, which is that there was nobody on chain who actually wanted to make sound financial decisions. And that basically the part of your portfolio that you were acting like an adult with, you were not bringing on chain. You were keeping that in your brokerage account or whatever. And the stuff you were bringing on chain. You were keeping that in your brokerage account or whatever. And the stuff you bring on chain. You're like, hey, yo, I'm here to gamble. I'm here to farm. I'm here to do

whatever. But I'm not here to, you know, buy some Apple stock and, you know, hope that the Oracle's works. Yeah, it's sort of the, I totally agree. I think it's also sort of the same reason why we haven't seen, like, on chain, it's like no one's trying to diversify their portfolio on chain. They're trying to go, go 100x long pepe. Like, it's just a very different sort of mindset. They diversify with apes and milades. Right, right. Ah, true, true. Which actually. is where that that diversification actually may have worked out. What is the

what is the 60-40 portfolio of NFTs? Apes and milades. Apes of Malades. That is that is absolutely correct. No, but what ratio? What ratio? No, you still have, you have to come up. 60-40, 60-8-40-40-40-Malady.

Okay. Wow. Yeah, you might be 80-20 the opposite direction now. I don't know. You got to rebalance. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Auto-rebalancing. auto rebalancing. Okay, there's one more story I wanted to cover today. So there's a, there's a company called Arkham, which is kind of a blockchain intelligence company. They, you know, they do kind of a bunch of data that you can see about what's happening on the blockchain. And so they had a token launch. They're launching a token, which I had not realized that they

have a need for a token, but apparently they do. So they're launching a token, I think, on Binance Launchpad or something. And this token, well, first there was some kerfuffle because they have some referral program where you can post a link to like, hey, sign up for Arkham with my referral link and this referral link was a base 64 encoded version of your email, like your raw email. So people could just read each other's emails

from posting these referral links, which was hilarious. They eventually fixed it. But that's just funny. But the product itself, the product for which this token is being created, is basically a kind of communal tagging system. where you can, I don't know what the token mechanics are, but more or less, you know, you stake something

and you're like, ah, this person, this address corresponds to this real world person. And I'm staking this amount of risk on it. And it's basically like a crowdsourced tagging, you know, who is who, you know, how to real world identities correspond to on-chain addresses system. And a lot of people got upset about this because they're like, hey,

this seems like basically a kind of incentivized de-anonymization network. This is like, this is bad. This is going against the crypto ethos of allowing people to maintain their anonymity if they so choose. Curious to get thoughts from the panel on, is this good, is this bad? Is this part of growing up as an industry that like, hey, you know, I mean, obviously, EtherScan has this tagging mechanism. And there's Nansen that has, you know, it's not as though these things don't exist somewhere, but it does seem to rug people the wrong way of like, hey, I'm just going to like pay people.

I'm just going to crowdsource it from people and pay anyone to claim that this person corresponds to this address. What do you guys think about this? I just think it's a faulty mechanism. Like, what's stopping me from going out and getting a couple tokens and saying that 0x, 1, 2, 3, 4 is Haseeb, you know? And just, I don't care about losing or burning my tokens. Like, it's a troll against a sieb, you know? You know, who would have thought the Oracle problem was hard to solve?

Yeah, who would have thought that this is a difficult thing? I may have heard of this. I may have heard of this. Well, I'm kind of inventing the token mechanics. I don't actually know if this is how it works, is how I assume it works. I can't imagine how else it would work, but, yeah. You know, like, you can register thing. People are, like, staking on these facts.

We do not speak of token registries. This is like an auger throwback, really. You know, it's like you stake the token, you have discused, you like escalation game. This is like true story. Actually, you are, you're completely right. Presumably it would be the same mechanic. Now, again, I have not actually read the thing. And I just heard, we just heard about another podcast that was sued for,

not correctly reporting a story. So I'm going to caveat what we say very clearly that I have not read the token mechanics so it could work in a totally different way. So, Arkham, please don't sue us. Although it is, I will also say, it's a very shadowy name for a company that makes me afraid of lawsuit.

It's still trust. I'll say that. It's with, Arkham is the name of the insane asylum from Batman. Isn't it the name of the, no, the Gotham is the name of the city. We got the city, but Arkham's the name of the insane asylum. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. I don't know. they issued a, like, a statement today or yesterday, and there was this other sort of funny meme running around where people were looking up the founder on, on LinkedIn, and, like,

he had, you know, his past history, and then he had, like, one interest, like, one thing that was interested in on LinkedIn, and it was the CIA. And then everyone, in their statement today, they had a section that was, like, are you, like, the FBI or the CIA? And they're like, no, we are not, we are, like, not associated with any law enforcement. And I'm like, I feel like your company is really not going well. And when you have to specify that in public, like, we are not a government project.

Are you the cops? Wow. Okay. That's a, I mean, I, I mean, you get us a little bit around. Why are people having to ask? Yeah. Okay. Well, interesting.

So I think we're all on board with like, we don't think this is going to work. Let's say there was a version of this that did work. Or that was a trustworthy repository of addresses. I mean, look, regardless. of whether or not this Arkham system works. Etherscan does this. Nansen does this. Is this good to encourage this to reinforce it?

What do you guys think about these kind of address registries? There's also Ethereum attribution system, EAS, which I believe a number of people, I know for sure why I'm not sure I'm just saying. A large company is working on building something to help do their own attributions or attestations. Sorry, attestations is the word I mean to be saying, the Ethereum attestation system.

So that's like an open standard. I think a bunch of large companies are going to be doing that, which sounds, I'll say, better than any sort of token staking mechanism. I honestly would probably just prefer to trust some large company who has a reputation at stake, which is actually something really valuable for them rather than these tokens, which will fluctuate and value wildly. But that's a self-adestation, right? That's like saying, I'm Coinbase, this is my address, correct?

It would be like Coinbase saying this is this person's address or this person has been KIC. Oh, for third party. I see, I see, I see. Yeah, yeah, third party giving accusations about someone else. Which is what I assume Arkham was trying to do here, like someone else is staking telling I fit. Yeah, I, I, like, I understand some of the motivation. I think it's maybe not as nefarious as people assume.

It is very laborious and manual to actually like tag a bunch of the, you know, market maker wallets and some of the exchange wallets. And you can do some, you know, basic heuristics to sort of identify them. But like, you know, someone has to go there and go through all these things. And like, it's not always going to be 100% accurate. And so I think part of their thinking, and I think Arkham basically tries to compete with Nansen and sort of being this token on-chain intelligence platform, hey, what if we can bootstrap our own data set? And instead, I think it is obviously can be used this way, but I think it's also been sort of presented as it's a doxing, docks to earn platform. Well, doesn't the white paper start off with the sentence, the inevitable end of blockchain is to have everyone docks or something? It has some ridiculous, something that sounds like it's out of like Peter Thiel meets Batman fan fiction.

That's, I don't, I don't. Wow. That is pretty dark. The white paper is just so, so. They're really living up to the name. It was just, like, written by someone who, like, seems a bit, like, lacking any form of social empathy with any other human on the planet. Ouch. Too many years in Gotham City will do that to you, man.

it wears you down. Wow. Okay. Robert was there something you want to add? I was just going to say they're clearly playing up that like dystopian fan fiction element. They're feeding off that for their own brand and their own energy. Yeah. Okay. Well, either way, well, let's hope that they managed to get this.

I mean, I don't actually know what I hope. I don't know what their registry to work or to not work is kind of unclear. Here's the phrase, de-anonymization is destiny. That was like when I saw that. Wow, wow. That's a very good tagline for the CIA. Yeah, it's like everything they write just, you know, seems to just be like, you know, I could have trained chat.

I could have asked Chat GPT to write what would Peter Thiel say about blockchain data and monitoring people and like it would have come up with this. I feel like DARPA must have been their lead investor or something. It's a little too on the nose. Anyway, all right, before we get sued, we have to wrap the show. To be clear, these are all,

we have no idea what's going on, so don't take anything seriously. Let's go ahead and wrap. Blake, thanks for coming on the show. It was great to hear about what's going on at Goldfinch. Thanks, much for having me. I wish you all the best. And Robert, congrats on the launch of Super State.

Anybody who has money put it in, this is not an investment advice, but you should absolutely maybe, if it's appropriate for your portfolio, you should buy tokenized treasuries. I love the descending sequence of disclaimers. That was like the best part of that. I'm getting better at this.

I'm getting better at this. My ability to disclaim as something as soon as I say it, is being in this industry, you get on top of it. Anyway, all right, we got a wrap. Thank you, everybody. See you next week. Yeah, there.