Unchained - Uneasy Money: Who Owns Stolen Crypto? The $71M Fight Testing DeFi Limits

Episode Date: May 9, 2026

A legal battle over frozen KelpDAO hack funds is forcing DeFi to answer questions it has long avoided. Thank you to our sponsors!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Coinbase One: Get 20% off the first year of your Coinbase One annual plan at coinbase.com/unchained. Multichain Advisors: Get help navigating TGEs, go‑to‑market, BD and partnerships, capital markets advisory, PR, media placements, KOL activations and more at multichainadv.com. When the Arbitrum Security Council froze $71 million in funds tied to the KelpDAO  hack, it was hailed as vigilante justice. Now lawyers representing families of North Korea's victims are claiming that same money in a New York federal courtroom, as if theft transfers title.  Meanwhile, an AI agent running on Base got robbed via a prompt injection hidden in Morse code, and Coinbase cited artificial intelligence when announcing 14% layoffs.  Kain Warwick, Taylor Monahan, Luca Netz, and Kelsie Nabben, author of Decentralised Digital Security, work through what DeFi's security layer actually is, who gets to decide when to act, and whether any of it survives the arrival of autonomous agents. Hosts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Kain Warwick⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, Founder of Infinex and Synthetix ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Taylor Monahan⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, Security Expert ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Luca Netz⁠⁠⁠, CEO of Pudgy Penguins Guest: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Kelsie Nabben, Research Fellow at RMIT University — Author of 'Decentralized Digital Security: Code, Community, Crisis' (2025) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, everyone, I'm Kane Warwick and welcome to UnEasy Money because what happens on chain never stays on chain. Before we begin, here is a word from sponsors that make the show possible. Multi-chain Advisors is an emerging technology growth firm that has helped create 50 plus billion dollars in enterprise value for 80-plus clients over the past four years. They're the partner to help navigate markets. Build real traction today at multi-chain ADV.com. Hey guys. I'm here with. my co-host Taylor Monaghan security expert and Lucan Nets the CEO of Pudgy Penguins and today we're joined by a special guest Kelsey Nabin Research Fellow at our MIT and author of the new book Decentralized Digital Security Code Community Crisis. It's out this year and it's open access

courtesy of the Ethereum Foundation selling all its teeth. So I'm glad to come on to a good cause. All right. or smarter than you and I. Look at that. I don't. Yeah. We must be doing something right because we're getting some smart people on here. So it's good. I love this. So our first segment, we should just have like a rolling Ave segment.

It's just always Avey the first. Like the theme music, right? Yeah. This is our Ava update section. Yeah, literally. And now for more Avey news. So, Ave is in the midst of this. And I mean, you could argue that maybe it's not even AVE.

It's like slightly Avey, slightly a bunch of other people, I would say, not necessarily directly Abe, but obviously the proximate cause of this is Abe. So there is a 71 million dollar court order that, you know, is basically fighting over the recovered, helped out hack funds that Arbitrum re-stole? White-white stole? Immobilized. Immobilized. Immobilized. Okay.

So, yeah, there is now a group of lawyers, and I think maybe you have a better sense of these guys than I do. Hey, like, are they, like, good guys? Are they like lawyer scammers? Like what like where on the spectrum do these guys full? I would put them firmly in the schemy, scammy lawyers. I think this is. So these guys have been around for a while. Actually, they are the same guys who sued pool together back in 2021 with the.

Oh, my God, that's okay. Wow. Crazy. They, uh, yeah. For those that don't know, the pool together lawsuit was a wild one with basically like an Elizabeth Warren staffer who didn't even lose because there was pool together, but put in $200. And then this lawsuit came from that. And it was all these are. Anyways, they lost.

They lost the case. They did some other like Dow ones. They went, I think maybe like B's the Ax. There was something on Lido. They have not had much success. However, in the last, let's say, like six months or so, they have collected up every victim who has a judgment against North Korea or Iran. They have collected them all. And they have filed those judgments in New York, in SD&Y jurisdiction.

And right now. One of the vast jurisdictions. And so basically, for those who are not, you know, not like super legal and stuff. These people have sued literally North Korea or literally Iran for damages. And these damages stem from harm that has befallen them or their family members, specifically like their families were murdered by these regimes. And so they have sued them and then they've gotten a court to issue a judgment.

These are default judgments. because obviously these regimes did not actually show up to defend themselves. North Korea didn't show up to New York to make their case? How strange? So basically now all of these people have this open claim to North Korean or Iran funds. And so, like, they're owed this money. And it actually makes sense. Like, if you were to have, like, an ex or a business partner or whoever that wrongs. you. You can sue them. You can get a judgment against them. They have to pay you back. If they can't pay you back, you have various ways to, like, collect on your, like, what's owed to you. These guys have

decided that they are owed. The money that Arbitrum, the Arbitrum Security Council immobilized. They also, they filed stuff against Circle. They filed stuff against Tether. They're currently fighting the actual U.S. government for some funds that they've frozen and had like, they were in the process of being forfeited to be returned to HDX. They're fighting those. They're saying that's their money too. So yeah, they're pieces of work. And I, in my opinion, lawyers like this operate for money and money alone. They're hoping that they can make all these novel claims and in the end if their victims get any of this money they're going to be taken like 10 20% off the top at minimum right so that's why these lawyers operate like this

well they're not they can is well so so there's two questions in my mind one is like is there definitive proof that it was even north korea yet like these these are always somewhat like speculative like they're not like they claimed North Korea hasn't come out and said like that was us right that's not that's not how they work

they actually came out and said this is not in response to TRM's blog post wow they called they called the accusations being made against them for the cyber heist they called like the journalists in the media they called them

reptile organs these are all lies perpetuated by the reptile organ journalists wow classic really I like that that's a good

that's a good little barb I might use that I'm definitely so they're so like the like clearly right there would need to be some

ability to prove that the the hacker was North Korea for this to even make sets and you don't have that definitive proof? I think Zach XPT was annoyed about it on X because he was quoted in terms of like his

open source research was quoted in on some of the court documents. But obviously he's done that, you know, as a blockchain sleuth, like an unpaid, a volunteer researcher. And also he was on the Security Council that froze the funds. So there's one question about are they actually DPRK funds? and then another one about, well, if they're not DPRKs, and who are they? Because, you know, we'll get to the AVE claims about not your money. Yes.

Yeah. So, yeah. The first part, the very first part is like whether or not it's DPRK, these things are always hard. And the reality is, like, most of the intelligence that exists for these hacks is, like, national security secrets. it's so like even sometimes if I do get that information during the course of an investigation like I shouldn't know it you know what I mean but in terms of like their hard evidence like it doesn't it doesn't exist in the public sphere in in this regard there's been no post-mortem from layer zero right

they did like a post and they they they've said that it's probably North Korea which is like one and things that they're excited. But again, like, I mean, honestly, if there's any, if there's ever a big cryptocurrency hack that's not a smart contract exploit, like, it's probably DPRK, just by the numbers. So it's hard to like say, I don't know, it's tough for me to say that like. It's not better. Yeah. Well, like groups are going to wash that type of money, right?

Like they own the banking rails and they're like to actually wash it through their form. Yeah. Yeah. And then the second question though is like, and this is the one that just morally and like in my soul I feel like very strongly about it's like even if North Korea stole this money, that doesn't make it their money. They stole that shit from us. Like from the office users, from the helped out from everyone involved here. Right. Like they took that money by force. That doesn't make it yours. If I go rob a a freaking bank, if I rob you cane, if I show up in your house and take all your stuff,

like, that doesn't mean it's not my property. It's still yours. You know what I mean? I just have like temporary, illegitimate like possession of it, right? And so that's, I think the stronger argument here is going to be like just because they stole it, doesn't make it theirs

and doesn't put us into this like claim state where lawyers can now bicker over like but like it it opens the door right and this is this is kind of the fundamental you know like the lesson is never try sort of thing right like i think you know the the um that one of the arguments and i don't think it's like the soundest argument ever but one of the arguments that you know historically a lot of teams have made is if we start doing stuff Yes. Stop bad things from happening.

Other things might happen. And therefore, and like genuinely, this is a hilarious outcome because, like, it's both, like, frivolous, but also it is stuff happening because someone did something, right? Like, it's, like, directly related to that. And, you know, so, like, it just, there's unintended consequences of you taking action that. that, you know, there are unintended consequences of you not taking action, but no one comes and bothers you, like, typically, right? Like, you can, you can sort of, like, sidestep it and, and nothing, nothing really happens. So, you know, now it's like, oh, no, these people took action, and it's really

easy, you know, there's a bunch of articles about, like, this Dow did a thing, like, no one, you know, there's, there's not, like, uncertainty as to who was involved in. this, right? And so, you know, you become the target of any person who's like, I would like $70 million. Yeah. And I also argue that so to me, this is actually still like where we're at, like it's a pain in the butt. These lawyers showing up claiming it's their funds. Pain in the butt. It sucks. Don't get me wrong. I actually don't think there's a huge amount of legal risk. And I don't think that DFI should like change its operating behavior based on like, specifically this lawsuit.

That doesn't mean that there's no legal risk. There is so much legal risk in everything right now. But this lawsuit is like the very bottom of the barrel. It's 100%. Like, you can also get sued. It's not a super strong case, but you can get sued for not taking action, right? But also in this specific case, you have so many involved parties. You have layer zero.

You have Kelp Dal. You have Arboretum Dow. Arboretum Security Council, off-chain labs, AVE-L-L-C, AVE Labs, A-V-DAL, random A-VA users, Avey Wales, right? Like, you have these whole mess of people. Theoretically, any of them could sue any of the other people and try to, like, claim that that, whoever they were suing, caused them harm and try to collect all that. Whether or not they'll be successful, it's like a whole other question. But, like, they could do that. And I think that those, I think there is legal risk there.

All that said, this lawsuit is like below that legal risk. A fault of legal risk is the fact that if you can do something, Lazarus can hack you. Period. End a conversation, right? Like if you have those keys, if there's admin functionality, if there's servers, these things exist. Your biggest number one risk is that Lazarus comes in and steals. all the money, not just the $71.9. So step wall.

It is don't have the money. Don't have, don't have, yeah, don't have the money, don't have a, whatever, a DVN with a 101, don't have a EOA with a one of one. But it's such an interesting question about whether anyone ever should do anything or not, right? Like the actual blockchain security landscape, there's people coming out saying, well, this is what happens when you have a security. Council, you know, like stuff will happen and then you'll get tracked down. And like, Kane,

you mentioned the book, which kind of documents, you know, for the first time that I'm aware of, because it was as it was emerging, this like ad hoc quasi, like vigil anti-social layer of security that's kind of come about in parallel to the economic security of crypto-economic protocols that we know. And, you know, this is the stuff that Tay talks about all the time because she's like one of those people in, you know, she's one of the vigilantes. Yeah, in still 911, the people like, you know, monitoring the channels 24-7, you know, as volunteers to, you know, in the name of this like, kind of code of moral good. And I think that makes a lot of people really uncomfortable in these kind of deeper questions about decentralized networks because, you know, what came through really clearly

is that there is this, you know, white hat hacker, like, you're fine, do whatever you want and like make a heap some money and do crypto stuff, like, until you do harm to others. So you can't actually break in and steal my stuff all everyone stands by and watches if there's an ability to do something. But then that's making people quite uncomfortable because it raises all these questions about, like, who does what and, you know, what's, you know, endogenously governed. Like, what do we get to govern as a blockchain industry? amongst ourselves and then what happens externally where you know legal systems and

things apply all answer questions such good question so yeah what what what what what are what are what we doing here today I don't yeah I'm uh okay so I think my like all this adage that actually has never failed me is that instead of getting like two into the weeds on like all these theoretical things, just take the situation that you have today and look at it and be like, okay, can we do something about this? And if the answer is yes, then you should. And if the answer is no, then well, you can't. So you shouldn't. And I think that people get really deep into the weeds on theoretical and like what if this and what if that but the reality is like every single situation

is is different i think a lot of people assume now that like oh since the security council did this thing they can now do this for everything else or why didn't they do that for everything else i'm not going to see her and like say that they can or can't like technically it's just it's really hard right and so even another situation comes up where the Security Council is asked to do something, the answer, like the first question they have to ask is like, can they actually do this? And in most, if not, like, yeah, I would say in the vast, vast majority of cases, the answer is going to be no, right? Because the money is moving, because there's no way to enact the thing, because

because there's uncertainty around what the hell even happened, on and on and on. You just simply can't get the group of people, which is a very large group of people actually, together to like take this action. In other cases, though, it is much easier. And I think a lot of people choose to like lie about what actions they can take realistically and choose to like say, oh, we're decentralized when in fact they're not. And so I think that's, again, I think I've said this before. In my, in my head, every single time I go to a team where I go to a protocol and I'm asking these questions, in my head, it's a win-win. Because either they literally actually can't, in which case they're in a better position security-wise and it won't pop up on my radar because they got hacked by Lazarus in the future.

Or they can and then they do and then they deal with the fallout and become more, usually they become more secure as a result. right? And then there's like a sliver of people who deny that they can do anything, even though they really could. And those people are the ones that I sort of write off in my head because they're actually the ones that are typically like not great builders, not great at making decisions, especially hard decisions, and usually not secure because they're not honest with themselves or others about what their protocol actually is, where the controls are,

they just don't have a good lay of the land. And that's like prime time. It's like the best dessert for like Lazarus to come in. Right. If you don't have good eyes on your servers, on your keys, on your people, they're just going to, they're going to go to time on you sooner rather than later.

Awesome. There were a couple of interesting takes. Lex know Gabe Shapiro. had what I thought was a pretty interesting legal take as he usually does, that it wasn't that this is the hack, the original hack, right? That it wasn't a smash and grab. The exploiter forged a cross-chain message, minted unbacked RSE, and use it as collateral to borrow E from AVE protocol in an arm's length transaction.

And, you know, this is always like super interesting to me when you try and apply like the world to defy and get like some weird result that you like weren't expecting. And you're like, oh, that's like not how the code works. Like surely it must be this person. And so the conclusion from that was like the exploiter acquired title. The fraud of the lender's remedy is against the exploiter, not ABE. Yeah. Which which is like a very interesting conclusion.

right um you know and and i think like to to kind of take it one step further it's like the the lender used ave as it is but without the intention of repaying right like using like you know false collateral or something right like the the ava protocol didn't realize that this aith was not real eth when or r s ath was not real rc that it was unbacked um and and and therefore like like, AVE kind of did the right thing, but these guys tricked Avey into letting them borrow borrow the Eats. So, yeah. So Avey should sue DPRK, get a court order and then make a claim on the frozen funds. But it gets more complicated because, and this came up in court this morning,

the very first question that the court asked is like, Avey, who the hell are you guys? And why are you in my freaking courtroom? because you literally don't have these assets. Like the assets in Avey are not your assets. You don't have control of them. You cannot credit or debit or change or hold or pause. Like you can't do anything. These aren't your assets.

Why are you in my courtroom claiming that you're like an interested party, right? Because that's like the baseline to be able to like fight this in court. Is that like an interested party? Someone who has an interest in this problem. property comes forward. I think that was like definitely the the Gerstein, the scummy lawyers, they were going hard on this. They were like, Ove is just like a random company, they have no interest.

Luckily, Avey argued, it was a good argument, argued that they're an interested party because this is their platform, this is their business, this is what they do, what their employees do, what their partners do, is they build this thing just because they don't have literal custody of the assets doesn't mean that they aren't impacted by these assets being stolen in the first place, being used in the course of a robbery, and then obviously the assets that are now frozen on Arbitra. Like, they have an interest in them. And I think the judge is, I, my, my read of it was the judge was accepting of that as like standing. And then, yeah, the second part of it was, God, this poor judge. That's all I'll say.

you have these two lawyers show up in your courtroom at like early attack in the morning and they're explaining what's actually quite a complex series of events right it was a forged message in layer zero that allowed the attacker to withdraw the RSE the attacker then took that RSEE

bridged it to Arbitrum and then put it in AVE to withdraw real Eif on Arbitrum and then this other random party from some of the funds. That's why they're like in court, right? And that conceptually, you could tell right off the bat that the judge was like, don't help me.

Literally, why, like, why is this happening? Why did you guys do this? Why? Why did you enable whatever this nonsense is? Yeah. And so that was, she had one good analogy. I always like Normie's analogy. She had one good analogy where she said, okay, so if you're at a party, right, you're at like a party and you notice like this other party person checked their really nice, fancy, like expensive fur coat into the coat check, right?

If you were to go and steal their coat check ticket out of their pocket and go take their coat for your own, is that theft or is that fraud? meaning because the whole legal question is if it's like a good faith loan the title transfers or if it's like a good faith purchase the title transfers but if it's stuffed as soft so the titles of the transfer that's why this is relevant so yeah that was her analogy and like my answer to that is like obviously not like that doesn't give the thief the like ownership of the poor code that's ridiculous. There's some other good analogy. She like compared to like the net,

like she kind of compared all day to being the NASDAQ as like, you know, then the NASDAQ doesn't necessarily like literally have people's money. If something were to happen to like a core part of their system, they would be interested and be impacted. So. Right. Like there's the venue under which the, you know,

transactions is happening. Yeah. I should say, that the take from Gabe was actually Claude's take, not Gabe's take. But I will also say this. If you ask Claude a question and then posted on Twitter, you own the response to that question.

Yes. So you can't use, you can't ask Claude a bunch of things, have it say random shit, and then post it, be like, this is what Claude says, not me. Not me. Yeah. No, that's insane.

I'm not, I mean, at this point, I'm completely, lost of what the hell Gabe is trying to achieve with his commentary, but it is what it is. I think there's a lot of people who are just, like, so deep into the weeds and have completely lost sight of what we're trying to accomplish here. At the end of the day, we're trying to, like, let's see, not incentivized stuff, not cause harm to people and, like, build really cool stuff and allows people to do really cool things and make one's money.

That's the goal here. I'm not sure why defending scummy lawyers or North Korea or maybe North Korea and hackers is like a good situation, in my opinion. So speaking of scummy lawyers, this is kind of a funny aside because you mentioned the pull together lawsuit. So when this happened, this was like 2021, I want to say, something like that. And I was an investor in pool together. Were you on the lawsuit? So, so I'm out somewhere, right? And I get a message for my wife that's like, hey, the Australian federal police are at our house.

And I was like, huh? Well, that was bound to happen. For you or for me? I was like, okay, cool. And so they were like looking for me, right? She's like, why would they be looking for you? And I'm like, I don't know. Like probably some fucking D-Fi thing happened.

Anyway, so they're like, oh, we'll come back in the afternoon, right? And, you know, my wife is like freaking out. She's like, what is going on? And I was like, I don't know. Like, let's see what the deal is, right? Like, it'll be some random D-5 thing or whatever, like someone who has like some flame on something, right? But like, my assumption was it's synthetics related. right like someone's like uh synthetics did this to me or like you know because we had we had a bunch of

situations like this where like you know someone kind of proximate to the protocol with like steel s us d or something like bzx got hacked like four times it was always sUSD and every time we're like guys you just secure your fucking protocol or stop using our stable coin like either one is fine right anyway so so um they come back and they're like we're like we just are serving you with this lawsuit. And I was like, I was like, oh, shit. Okay, that's like actually way worse than I thought. And so I opened it up and on the top, it's like, all together.

And I was like, I was like, oh, this is totally fine. And like, these ups are like, what is the wrong with this guy? Because I was like, oh, this is like not even a thing. Don't worry about it. You're like all the bad things that could have happened that this could have been related to. It was like the best bad thing that like I was like oh this is not even a thing and they were just like okay buddy like see you later. So that was my that was my pool together reminder when when you said that was the same lawyer obviously that was these guys. It was.

Luca, have you been served? Oh, I've been served. Have you? Was it terrifying? Yeah. When I was younger, I got served. We were we lived in this house in Miami and we were like driving like motorcycles in the pool and the kid the landlord's tons followed us and and the guy was like you need to pay me for the entire house. You drove a motorcycle off my roof.

You guys broke doors like we were I was in my influencer era. I was the guy making the money for the influencers. So I was living with them. and the guy wanted 10 million bucks. So buy my house from me. If not, I'm taking you for 10 million bucks. Funny story, I actually would have bought that house. I would have made like 40 million bucks at $5 million house today

because my name completely skyrocketed. But I was really scared because he was, you know, billionaire on paper. You know, he had sued his sister for $100 million and won. I mean, this guy was ruthless. And I was like, he's going to tease like, I'm going to take everything from you. He like, set me in my face. Like, I'm taking everything. from you. That Shopify dashboard you showed me

when you first placed the house, I'm taking it all. And I'm like, what? Like, yeah. So I'm in serve. But I learned a lot. I learned a lot. He didn't take anything from me. You know, he showed me what having a good lawyer and an amazing lawyer looks like in a

mediation room. An absolute sharp on his side. And I couldn't believe my bozo lord just froze like a deer in the light. While this complete savage just completely debunked Our whole case, I was just shell-shocked. So I learned a lot.

I learned a lot and haven't been sued since. So grateful for that. Knock on wood. Knock on wood. Do you have like some motocross influencer like doing like backflips off the roof or something? Like what? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's like the, you know, boy influencer especially was that nine, 10 years ago.

Like it's just just being boys and being rambunctious and these kids were from Florida. They were huge. They were the biggest thing on Instagram at the time. And the whole thing was just like being chaotic and just causing chaos. And that was all documented on the internet. And so when this guy went to the account, kids are like, oh, my God, dad, they're at our house. He's like, what are you talking about? He's like, oh, my room being broken into by a freak, a zoid that like we hired to go rammed the door down.

And the guy calls me, he flies down from Connecticut. he was Connecticut and Miami guy. He's like, I'm taking everything. You should invite Luca River to your house next, Kane. You can bring some motorcross guys. All right. I was just going to ask on that too. We haven't mentioned Defy United,

which is a very interesting whole of industry, almost, defy effort in response to some of these things. And I'm wondering as well about claims on that, you know, lovely pot of money now that it exists. Yeah. So the way that it came up in court so far is they are representing that it is a, like a movement. It's not a formal organization. It's a group of it's a movement. I actually, I like that representation.

I think that that's very accurate. Sure. It's a movement, but like a movement doesn't have legal standards. Like that's not a legal construct Like oh we're a movement Don't worry about it like we're not a doubt But I mean in terms of like what In terms of what DFI United is doing

Like and the efforts and like what's actually been realized That's less at this point is less A legal thing and more a Like uniting everyone bringing everyone together With the explicit purpose by the way of not just allowing victims to be made whole, but also to ensure that all these disparate parties that could sue each other don't.

Because if we cooperate, then it's going to be okay. People are going to get their money back. But if, like, Kelp starts suing Layer Zero or Ave users start suing Ave, or Ave start suing Layer Zero, like the whole thing breaks down and nobody gets any money back, right? everyone just like gets one the lawyers take all the money two it just becomes like a complete mess

and it eats up your mind share eats up your energy it eats up everything um and so that's like i don't know what the legal entity underneath it is i'm sure there's something right but it's going to be it's going to be a lesser of the the effort i think is what's really cool right done that so far did you guys see kelp hide uh brian pelegrino's response in the comments i told you guys my guy was clear help because because if anything's incriminating on kelp side is the fact that you're hiring or that you're hiding the big boss's uh comments under your thing dude told you guys pellegrino is in the clear day one the only thing that i'm amazed about with the kelp comment is that's mostly their announcement that they're moving to chain link and they sort of buried the lead

just shitting on layer zero. Yeah. And meanwhile, she links like, yeah, yeah, guys. You know what that's called? You know what that's called. Tay, I know this term very well. It's called a grant.

It's called a payment. It's got somebody got a grant. Yeah. Well, I mean, honestly, I don't blame them. Like, if they want to go move because of the situation, like, and that's going to help them rebuild trust. It is what it is.

I thought it's funny because like usually the chain link new partner announcements are joyous and chilly oh not always not always there's a history there sometimes it could be quite not joyous um all right um let's let's wrap this up we'll go to a quick outbreak and come back and talk about bankerbot getting robbed by morse code Oh, God. You know what I'd do with a share of $1 million? Honestly, I'd probably buy a one-way ticket to an island, bring a good book, and invest the rest. And if I were sitting VIP at the World Football Final this summer, I'd be dancing in my seat the whole time.

And both are possible this Coinbase 1 member month. Hit a 14-day streak to split $1 million in Bitcoin. And the first to finish gets a VIP trip to the World Football Final. Make at least a $25 trade, stake, deposit, or spend on your Coinbase 1 card. Any of these count. And do it for 14 days this month. If you want that VIP trip, that means you have to start today and be the first to complete. Coinbase 1 is the ultimate membership to make the most of your money.

Zero trading fees on thousands of crypto assets. 3.5% APY on USDC. Boosted staking and lending rewards. And up to 4% Bitcoin back. with the Coinbase 1 card. If you trade crypto regularly, the basic annual membership can pay for itself. Hit a 14-day streak to get your share of $1 million. Plus, you still get 20% off the first year of Coinbase 1 annual plans and a $50 Bitcoin bonus when you spend $100 on a new Coinbase 1 card in the first 30 days. Don't miss your share of $1 million at Coinbase.com slash unchained. Again, that's

That's coinbase.com slash unchained. Multi-chain advisors is an emerging technology growth firm that has helped create over $50 billion in enterprise value for more than 80 clients, like Pith, MoonPay Commerce, and Wormhole. They've worked with some of the largest and most impactful companies in the space. They're the partner you want when you're navigating markets and trying to break out from the noise. They help navigate TGEs, go-to-market, BD, and partnerships, Capital Markets Advisory, PR, media placements, Kewa activations and more, driving execution from launch to scale. Their results are measurable. To learn more and start building real traction today, visit multi-chain adv.com.

All right, we are back. So banker bot, which is an AI agent that runs on base, was prompt injected by a Morse code, But it's actually more interesting than that because it was it was not just like a user saying something to the agent and getting it to do something. The user said something to Grock and then Grock replied decoding the message, which then was able to like get through the, you know, kind of protections that they had to stop this. So like BankerBot has control of wallets and can do things, but it's got, you know, some checks. to make sure that it doesn't send random funds, et cetera, to random places. And, you know, this is not the first example of an agent with access to funds that's also tweeting being exploited. The first few were like intentional ones, right?

Like there were people who were like put up an agent and they're like, hey, here's this agent that has money, try and exploit it. And the crazy thing is like they always lost like 20 seconds. They're like, hey, we've locked it down completely. And then like it's like the third message is like, I've given all the funds. My life is up. So, so, yeah, this, like the LLM to LLM X surface here, I think is the thing that people are concerned about. And, you know, for what it's worth, like this is something that we've been thinking about a lot as well

because we have multiple agents in our system. And one of the ways of gating them is to like separate the agents apart. So you go from like one agent to another as like a bit of a firewall so that, you know, the user is not talking directly to the agent that has control of things, right? But as this demonstrates, you know, anyone who's talking to an agent, whether it's an agent or a person directly, you know, you can chain prompt injection by like asking the other agent to say something weird that it shouldn't say because it doesn't understand it because it's Morse code. And then it's like, oh, this is Morse code. Let me just translate it.

Like it's hilarious in it's like. Isn't this like a normal like don't we see this as smart contracts though? Right? When they, when you get entrancy, when they get hacked, right? you get entrancy from like one of the other authorized smart contracts in the system. Right? You like burrow in here and then you get that one to call that. And you're not supposed to be able to like.

Yeah. Isn't that this thing? Is that what happened here? It's kind of that. It's amazing. I love this world. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. It's kind of that because it's like this isn't like you should listen to this agent, right? But then we've got like a protection to stop this agent from saying certain things. to you. And then they were like, oh, let's see if we tell it in Morse code, what it'll do. And, and it's like, it's so funny because it's, it's this like idiot savant kind of thing, right? Where like, most people, if you're like, ah, here's Morse code. Like the agent gets like nerd snipe. And it's like, I can translate Morse code.

And it just does it without thinking about what it's translating. Like, you just like, distract. it a little bit and it's like, oh, okay, this is totally, like, it just doesn't think about the content of what it's doing. And there have been a few, a few attacks like this where, like, people try to hide the message into a request to, you know, decrypt this. And I think, you know, we've, we've talked about this a lot. Like, you know, one of the, one of the most funny things to me in the early, like, uh, LLM days inside of Cursor, is cursor had in their system prompt this invocation to the agents that they couldn't see the environment files in a repo, right? And so the environment files are like the file that have all of the keys and access and like, you know, secrets and APIs and what have you. And so cursor were really smart. They were like, oh, we'll just tell the agent that it can't see that. And so you'd have this, like, hilarious thing where, like, the agent would know that it could see it, but had been told that it couldn't. And it would, like, spaz out and be like, no, like, no.

And I'm like, but you, like, you can. And so you had to kind of almost to get it to modify that file, you had to prompt inject it and, like, trick it into being like, well, you obviously can see it because it's its other file. And so like people started making like differently named E and V files to like bypass the things. And it's like there's almost no way for you to stop like this is not discrete code. Like it's a it's a ball of map right. Like there's almost no way to stop an enthusiastic prompter from prompting their way through whatever checks you have because like it's it's not. discrete code like it's not just like oh there's a there's a hard check on this thing so therefore it won't happen and it can't happen as soon as you give an agent control of money and let it connect to the

world it's like someone will find a way to to route around it so um Kelsey what do you think what do you yeah is there any way to is there anyone ever going to survive the coming of the agents it's a great question I mean looking at the blockchain industry is a great way to think about the future of cyber security, because I feel like it's a front line when there's money on the table. You get to see this stuff like a red herring for potentially just online life more generally. I looked at some of the early Dow experiments as well around giving agency of voting access. And in a blog post from 2023 I have with Michael Zagam, we kind of argue that giving direct control,

to an AI agent without human oversight is premature. And so you became like the whole, the premise of these things is so cool in terms of like, hey, here's my wallet, like go do stuff. And, you know, I looked at the banker website and it's like, these people's agents are making this much money for them a day. But I think what's undeniable? The flop factory, like, you know, basically with AI at the moment, anyone who says, hey, you can be lazy, because everyone wants to be lazy, and this thing will let you be lazy and solve all of your problems.

It just goes like gigaviral. Like whatever the thing is, like, hey, you wanted to like learn how to play guitar, but you're too lazy to do it. This now an agent will play guitar for you. And you're like, oh, cool. And then it just like goes like every single I'm like anyone posts anything like this. And the crazy thing is if you're actually using the tools, we. we had this uh my my head of engineering uh was like we need to actually go down the rabbit hole and look at some of these harnesses again uh because it had been like three weeks so like

the taking the card had completely changed and so we we got five within a room we did a bunch of research on like what were the different harnesses right and and he had two that he had to pick and i won't name them right so he goes and like installed the harness and he is like i swear to god zero people have used this software. Because the instant you install it and try, like, it's all over everywhere with people being like, this is solved all of my problems, all of the issues that I had with like managing agents have been solved by this software. And it's like you absolutely didn't even install it or use it because if you had,

you would see that there's like immediate issues where it just can't work the way that it's supposed to work. And so like you have this weird adverse selection. problem of like create a thing that says that it solved all the problems that you don't need to put any effort into it and you get these AI slough influencers that are like this solved all my problems. The website says this will solve all your problems and then like all of these guys start retweeting and being like it solved all my problems. It's amazing. It's like just so hilarious. Yeah. I mean the website says and I quote like we handle security like dot dot use our agents.

But I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of like adding an agent as an actor in your system widens the attack surface. So like AI is undeniably like a key actor now in security, not just for, you know, generating attacks or, you know, trying to improve defense, but also like in this agentic sense. And I wrote down like some recent examples of literally the past like a couple of weeks. like there's poisoned training data which got its way into Solana code. Anthropic agents find $4.6 million in smart contract exploits. DPRK is leveraging AI tools. So they use LLM chatbots to craft more authentic spearfishing messages, as well as AI-enabled social engineering attacks.

And there was one report of an AI deep fake interview. someone like hopping on. Yeah, yeah. Kate knows. Wyatt, Wyatt doesn't show white face anymore. Yeah, he, he shows a deep fake version

of whoever he's impersonating. It's a deep fake modified version, that's not a raw defake. It's kind of sad. You'll get there, guys. Keep trying. Yeah, so you don't need to get up early anymore for this podcast.

You just want to do fake yourself with your agent. But yeah, they're leaking, in some cases, they leak their own company's private keys. So if you give it your private keys, it's like, come on. Don't do that. Yeah. Thank you, Tay. The challenge is though, right?

That like, and, you know, this is both, this is just petrifying. It's not even both. It's just petrifying is like once you have an agent that is in your machine and like for me, for the first year, I completely air gap. like completely separate machine, like no access to anything, whatever. And then it just got to the point where it was like so annoying that I started to have, you know, agents running on my main machine, even if they're sandboxed or whatever. But like once an agent is on your machine, it has your shit.

Like it just does. Like it can get into everything. You can get like they're so good at getting into things. It's crazy, right? Like, and so so it's, it's almost. most impossible once you, unless you do fully air gap and like have a separate machine, separate everything. Like you have to treat almost everything on your machine is compromised.

Crazy. Yeah. It's insane. Like, um, right. And I got, I get why people keep connecting, keep putting it on their hot machines. Like, I totally get it. And like, for me, the struggle is knowing that people are going to do this because there's value in doing it.

Like, these agents are really. experimental, but like, there's unlocks happening, right? Yeah. And you can't stop that. So then the question was like, okay, if you can't stop it, how do you at least make it so that like, you know, the whole thing doesn't get completely wrecked, right? Because this is something that we're still not even that great at just with crypto, right? Like, how do you make it so that like if layer zeros, RPC endpoints get wrecked? That doesn't lead to a $300 million half, right? And that's something. thing. I feel like we need a couple more years before the agents got here to figure that out with

like hard math smart contracts or like, you know, like security. And like the agents are here and I'm like, that's like so aspirational. I don't know. I don't know. But now with the agents, it's so imprecise as well, right? Because with the smart contracts, like there's holes and like you can, I think it's a bit deceptive, but like it feels like you can patch the holes.

Like you can like, you do more smart contract audits. You close the re-endency. Put circuit breakers on the other end. You put monitoring. Okay, we got like we can do that. We haven't done it. But like we could do that. With the agents like.

There is no way. I just, yeah, I don't feel like there's a way to ever secure them. So then you're basically like left, which maybe that's better, right? Maybe it's better that we accept that it's going to be insecure. There's no way to make it secure. And therefore, 100% of the effort is on like. mitigating the harm that comes, right? And like stop gaffs and pawbacks and plazzo and whatever comes at that like after step.

I think the approach is like to assume and you know, this is this is the posture I think of most protocols today, but it wasn't back in the day, right? It's like assume that someone is in your systems. Yeah. Right. Like if DPRK is in your machine right now, how much damage can they do? Right. And if the answer is any damage, then, like, good luck to you because they're probably in there, right?

And so, so, you know, the approach of like kind of thinking from like the worst case scenario, right? Like, and, you know, people who are not security conscious, like they have these, like, they just hope that it won't be them, right? Like, oh, like it probably won't or whatever, right? But if it's like, if you assume that your machine's going to get owned, what's the blast radius of that, right? And if the blast radius is like not the end of your life, then fine. Then cool. Like, do the thing, right?

But make sure that the blast radius is contained. And like that means, you know, don't have all of your keys to your entire protocol on one machine. Yes. Yeah. Key takeaway from the book on blockchain security. It's like, you know, you are in a persistent state of insecurity. So it's about like making that legible and addressing it, but not assuming that you create security.

And one of my favorite quotes is by P. Cavasaccio, which uses his handle on X is Oshu. And an internet and on that leads Seal 9-1-1. And it's like the effing paranoid about everything you touch in this space. But to flip side on the agent thing, like Kane, you've mentioned that they're in your systems or your companies using them for things. So like what useful stuff are they doing that makes it worth it to have them around? Yeah, it's a good question. I think one of the most useful things, and this is something that we're like reorienting the entire platform around, is they are so much better at tracing issues and like bug fixing and bug fixing and bug hunting than any human could

ever be, right? And like, I've given this example before on, on the show, I think, but like, one, the first proof of concept that one of our guys built, he, he, like, basically took everything that we'd ever produced, like, every commit, every, everything, and put it into this, this kind of markdown tree, right? So that the agent could, like, follow and flow through, right um and someone was like uh hey jeff the agent's name right like hey i've got this like weird issue right um and it was like oh i found the problem it's a commit from like 1986 and you're like fuck how did okay and then it's like here's the proof and it's like they're autistic geniuses right like they it knows everything that ever happened and so and it can make it's like here's

connection so fast, right, that like a human can't have that context in their brain, right? Like they would have to go back sequentially through all these things like search, look. And then it's just like, no, I know this. I've seen this. This is it. Right. And so, you know, having systems that are like somewhat agentic, I think is really powerful. Another, another thing that we've started to do, and I think this is like the biggest show. for us and tempo is doing this as well is like the last 18 months of a genetic building has been i would call it like synchronous single player mode right so you know you go and have a meeting and you say hey we're going to do this feature or thing right and then one person and five agents or

whatever right sit together on one person's machine and like synchronously prompt like like try this, do this, build this thing, modify this function, right? And you can sit there for eight hours and just like synchronously do it. And they just like, how about this? And you're like, no, not like that. Like do this thing. Right. And that is super inefficient. Like crazily inefficient. Right. And so where we've gotten to is we will sit in a room and say, okay, we have a big refactor that we want to do. Right. We, we have. an issue in this large platform, it's big code base, and we need to do this refactor.

And so with an agent in the room with like five of us, we will talk through what the refactor looks like, ask the agent, you know, like what about this thing? We'll try this thing, whatever. Come up with basically a plan to kind of decompose the problem, have the agent like go and like look from first principles. And then we send the agent out for like eight hours. I say agent, right? like it's managing a swarm of agents that like go through,

assess every function, assess every module, assess every file, write audit reports and then at like go out, fan out, aggregate it back. And then we sit there and go, oh,

here's the order report, which is looking from like eight different angles, which if you like go back to two years ago and you were to try and do this, you need a hundred people with like two weeks each, right? And the ages is go and do it. And the more narrowly scope they are, the better.

So you have this like team. of agents go out, look at every single angle, every single thing, they find a bunch of weird bugs and shit that you've never encountered in production. And then they go, here is the order report. And then you sit there and go, okay, now we have so much better information than we would have previously had, or we would have gone by like some rough heuristics. And so you have these agents that are like, you know, people say like a team member, but it's not even really like team member. It's like this crazy tool that you can run asynchronously, right? And if you take this to its logical conclusion, and I say this to my team all the time, right? Like, the logical conclusion is here.

You're all fired. No, so literally, like, genuinely no, right? Like genuinely no. But like the logical conclusion here is you have 10 people, 20 people, 50 people, 100 people in a room or like 10 people in 10 rooms talking about things. And there's a pan-opticon agent that's listening to what you're talking about, right? And it then goes, hey, you know, I've run 5 million agents in the background based on the conversations you had yesterday, right? And here are all of the features of everything that you talked about, all of the tweaks, all of the bug fixes, all of the everything, right?

What do you think? And you're like, yeah, cool, like, do it. And, and like, genuinely, like, if you, if you, you're kind of, again, take this to a logical conclusion of like, you have a super intelligent machine, right? Your, your job becomes look at what the market is doing, like, read X, see what competitors, like talk about things, discuss, like the creative kind of thing. But then the execution side, it's wild to think that like the people should be involved in that, right? Like the agents are so much better.

But what we haven't yet done is worked out like the orchestration method for that. Like how does the agent know what you're talking about? How does it then reason about it? How does the prioritize it? But once you have this continuous asynchronous process with agents just doing all of the things, it's crazy. And like it's more effective and, you know, you end up with something that is a very different looking organization than what we have today. Yeah, that's super interesting. But it's not, it's not the pre-announcement that you're laying off 14% of your head count. No, so, yeah, so, so, so, so Coinbase, um, so yeah,

so Coinbase, uh, this, this is, um, I guess like, I don't know, the 20th thing here that we've It's a cycle, it's a cycle, but this one is different. This one, this one, this announcement is funny. Yeah, this announcement feels a bit different. But, you know, if you read the announcement buried in the bottom of it, right? And like, AI is a very easy scapegoat for we hire too many people and our revenue is down. And, and like, you know, there were definitely some like justifications like in the tweet from from Brian where, you know, he was like, we're really profitable. but but like our costs are higher than they need to be

et cetera et cetera and also we're like reconfiguring for this new world that is agentic and and you know so I feel yeah wait hold on let me read this because this is insane to me that this went in the layoff announcement because again like I've lived through many layoff announcements from Coinbase and others big ones they happen because of the cycle you crypto is so cyclical that it you can't help but get excited and then hire too many people and then you have to you have to refocus okay so this is

this is like fairly normal okay but in this announcement he goes so we've made the difficult decision to reduce the size of coinbase by approximately 14 percent i don't actually know how many people that is like thousands though um done a second AI is changing how we work over the past year i've watched engineers use AI to ship in days what it used to take a team weeks. Non-technical teams are now shipping production code and many of our workflows are being automated. The pace of what's possible with a small focus team has changed dramatically and it's accelerating every day. That's why he's saying that there's, well, that's one reason he's given for the layout. I'm not saying he's lying. I think that there's like truth in here.

I don't think that's why 14% got laid off. I do find an incredible that non-technical teams are shipping production code. That's like, yeah, people freaked out about that online. Like, sorry, what? I think, you know, like, there's an aspirational component to that, right? Like, and, you know, this is, this is part of the tradeoff space, right? Like, we have people, I have engineers that are working, on things that they would never have worked on before.

Like, it just, there are things that were like just not ever going to be sufficiently valuable for you to justify someone doing the thing. And like the calculus has just shifted, right? You know, like you can, you can try things and do things in a way that you would never have contemplated, which means you can explore much more efficiently the design space of you know, whatever it is that you're doing. It's just wild. And like, we are absolutely,

we're in the phase where everyone is speculating on how this changes work, changes orgs, changes everything. And everyone's fucking retarded. No one has any idea. Like, literally no one has any idea. They just don't. Like, you can sit here and go, like, I think it's, like, even me. I'm like, oh, like, you're going to be in a room talking to an agent.

It won't be that. Whatever it is, it will not be the way that we think it is, but it will be wildly different. I promise you that. Like, it will be wildly different to how we've worked. It's too powerful of the tool for the world to not rearrange itself around this tool. How we rearrange ourselves around it, like what the optimal arrangement is, no one has any idea. They just don't. Yeah.

I do. times. This was like also buried. We are flattening our org structure to five layers max below the CEOC.

I read that and I was like, whoa, five layers. You had more than five layers? Shit guys. So,

yeah. Yeah, and no peer managers and then they're moving more to pods. We found this at consensus as well. We found that

you judge you start just fighting against the managers for managers' sake thing. It feels like you need them because it feels like you're not being productive in a certain way. And so then you add this structure that you think feels necessary. And then you realize that it didn't necessarily solve the problem. It did add a lot of calls and communication and overhead to everyone's life. But I'm trying to think five layers is so. We might have five layers like in support.

We might have had five tiers all the way down. But like, I mean. But it's not, sorry, they're consolidating to five. So it was. They had more than five. Yeah. Five plus end. Like so, so I think, you know, but again, like to your point about like managers

and coordination and, you know, this, this shift, my, my heart take is like the highest cost you have in any or is the coordination. player, right? And like the two biggest levers are you can have an individual person or two or three people doing things that would not have been possible before, right? So you just reduce the level of coordination required, right? But then you also have, and this is the challenge, right? Like this is, the harsh reckoning, right? The output gets so much higher that your need for coordination to figure out what you can actually ship or do or whatever significantly exceeds the like organizational capacity.

Yeah. You're just not geared up for like shipping a million lines of code a month. Yeah. And then the other thing I'm actually really interested to see, especially large works like Coinbase, right? One of the things that I found with consensus is like you get into this, if you get in the habit of doing like sync calls, right? Because this is like remote first.

So you get in the habit of having calls to sync on work, to communicate, to writing. Yeah, sure. You have like notes, but then you also have communication. You have GitHub. You have all these different things that are happening that are sort of like collectively documenting. But like there's this call is like the human way of like sinking and making sure that everyone's in the loop.

The problem with that is that then you, the call is. become sort of mandatory to understand like where people are at. But it's also if you miss a call, if you're sick or whatever, it's actually way harder to like catch up or like sync, even with like the notes, right? Where when I'm working like in little pods or teams, like, and we never have calls ever. Like I've, I've been on the phone with like Sam like once in my life, right? It doesn't mean that we don't do things together. It doesn't mean we're not in sync. It's just like a completely different way of operating, I think that that way of operating is actually way more conducive to the agents. Because again, you don't have to necessarily read every single message or every single thing.

The agent can go suss it out, right? The agent can go pull that context and go figure out why the decision was made. If it's sort of documented, if the reasoning is there, it'll be interesting to see if people start moving away from the calls. If they do, I think it'll be much, it'll be so much more productive. I swear calls are the most unproductive thing on planet. Yeah. I mean, like, meetings are bad, but calls are so much worse.

And, you know, but so like, this is, this is, I think, it, Georgios from, from paradigm slash tempo, right? Has been talking about this. If you follow, if you follow him, he's been talking about it. And then Sam Oldman was like, Tempo is doing this thing, right? where they have like a Slack channel that is the thing that's doing the work. And this is sort of where like what I'm what I'm kind of talking about, right? Like they have a bunch of people talking to an agent, right?

And an agent is a cluster of, you know, models doing stuff, right? But the agent is always on. Like imagine like, and you know, this is kind of how we tried to do. do remote work to some extent. You like, anoint some person as like the context managing person and hope that they're like terminally online. And whenever you need something,

they're like available to answer your question. But like an agent is that. Like it's just 24 seven watching everything. And to you go, hey, why did this thing happen? And it like knows why it happened. But that's like trying to force.

If everyone's doing things synchronizing. with agents, right? And then you try and get an agent in the middle of that to like track everything that's going on. It's super inefficient. But if the agent is the thing that does all of the things, if it's in all the meetings helping make the decisions, like it just knows what's going on. And so I think this is the shape that, and again, I've got no idea what's going on and it's going to be completely different. But like my intuition right now is that like having an agent that owns a product roadmap or like the implementation. or research or whatever,

means, like, you just go to that guy and say, hey, why do we do this? And it knows. The same way, like, you go to that guy and you go, why did this bug happen? And it goes, well, there were two people that no longer work here, but, like, in 1982, they, like, act together this thing

to solve this problem. And you're like, oh, wow, cool, nice job. Yeah, it's an interesting question about, yeah, what does AI mean for the future of organizations? It's actually the shape of the current multi-year research project I'm on with a number of team members at RMIT called the use of automated knowledge in organizations and we've come up with this theory of artificial organizational intelligence which is exactly that point of like how do you talk to an organization and how do

you get organizations to talk to each other but like looking in depth at an experiment around like infrastructuring the protocols and data and permissions and everything to be able to do that reliably. So stay tuned or check that on. If it's into it. I'm super excited for that one. I'm so funny. I think about it. I have to get like a real job again just so I can see it from because I'm just like looking from the outside and hearing stories right now about how like the work structures are shifting. But like it's going to be so it's so cool.

So so I'll give you a funny story. Right. So my brother who is a 3D one of my brothers. I got a lot of brothers. But this guy is the like autistic 3D. animator guy and he was trying to like build a film right like or TV show sorry he was he was trying to make a TV show so looking at like the state of the art models or whatever and I said to him I was like you build all these workflows like when he was a 3D animator he like would create these like cracked workflows to like create dust that looked like dust and you would be like oh why does it and like he'll be I don't even worry about it, but like the lights would shine on in weird ways. So it looked like dust on a car, right?

And he's like, it's really hard to make dust look like dust. You can't use dust. You got to use like, you know, rocks or whatever. Anyway, so he started making this workflow. And I was like, you should just vibe code this workflow, like build software to do it. You can do it now. And he was like, no, I don't think so. And I was like, seriously, trust me, do it.

So he spent 10 days, built this workflow that can create like, a 10, 20, 30 minute continuous film, right? And this is the funniest thing ever. So my head of engineering is sitting there. And I pull up the video that he's made, right? And he's like, what's that? And I was like, oh, my brother wrote this, like, code to do this thing. And he's like, his mind was blown because he's like, a non-engineer built an entire

application to make AI things. Like the layers of AI that, like, through this whole. thing and the funniest part was um i'm talking to my brother and i was like what did you write this in and he was like uh i think like electron and like my how exploded because i'm like he doesn't even know the programming language that he's like it's insane and that's by the way that's why it kind of gets problematic because like the AI will spin out like a totally insecure database hooked up to your website and people are like sick yeah you need someone to actually production this, right?

But you don't want to just yellow ship it. All right. I mean, yeah, it's, it's, it's freaking, it's super cool. Well, it's $2.15 also. It's just great. Like, someone could build an entire, like someone who's never written any software can build an entire application themselves, like one person, right? Like, we're going to get so many more things.

You just wouldn't have gotten before because it was impossible, right? Costs is too high. So, cool. All right. Thank you for joining us for this episode of Uneasy Money. Remember that what happens on chain never stays on chain. We'll be back next week. Thanks.

I'll see for joining us. Until then, do your own research before aping in. Nothing you hear on Uneasy Money is financial advice. We're just three builders talking about what's happening on chain, and we want you to always do your own research before aping in. You can find all our disclosures at Unchainedrippler.com slash uneasy money.