Circle ARC ICOs at $3 Billion: What does that mean for crypto?#CryptoTownHall

Summary

---

The Wolf Of All Streets – Crypto Town Hall

Episode: Circle ARC ICOs at $3 Billion: What Does That Mean for Crypto?

Host: Scott Melker
Date: May 11, 2026

---

Overview

In this lively Crypto Town Hall session, Scott Melker and a panel of industry experts dig into the news that Circle has launched the ARC token, raising $222M from major TradFi giants (BlackRock, Apollo, and others) at a $3B fully diluted valuation. The episode explores what this move means not just for Circle and its investors, but for the broader crypto ecosystem—especially regarding layer 1 tokenomics, equity vs network value, governance, and the role (and value) of tokens in decentralized networks.

The show features a deep and at times skeptical discussion about the real utility of tokens like ARC, institutional participation, comparisons with other network launches (like Canton), the intersection between equities and tokens, and the speculative (and often misunderstood) nature of token value in crypto projects.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Circle ARC Token Launch & Tokenomics

• ARC Token Details:

  • $222M raised from BlackRock, Apollo, others, at a $3B valuation ([01:28])
  • 740M tokens sold at $0.30 each (7.4% of 10B supply); Circle retains 25%.
  • 60% to ecosystem, 15% to reserve.
  • Vesting: Min 1 year, max 4 years.
  • Use case: Security, validator staking, governance—not used for network “gas” (USDC will be the gas token).
  • Refund clause: If milestones aren't met (PoS transition by May 2028), investors can get their money back—a sharp contrast to retail ICOs of the past.

  Scott (A):

  “Circle will always own 25%. 60% go to ecosystem, 15% to reserve... [but] the token is for ... validator, security of network and governance and USDC will be the GAS token, not ARK.” ([01:28])

2. The Question of Token Utility

• Panel deeply questions whether ARC serves a genuine economic utility.

  • If ARC isn’t used for gas and doesn’t offer real utility or economic rights, is it just a “pet rock” or “cash grab” ([03:42], [04:18])?
  • Comparison to ETH: Unlike ETH, which accrues value via gas fees and burning, ARC’s value is ambiguous.
  • If token’s only utility is governance, and real benefits (fees, discounts) accrue elsewhere, why hold it?

  Dave (B):

  "If it's not being used for gas, if it doesn't get you discounts... if there's no actual utility and it's just governance, then what the hell's the difference... in that and equities?... I don’t understand why it’s worth a dollar much less three billion.” ([04:18])

3. TradFi Giant Participation & Institutional Structure

• Notable moment: Amount of institutional capital and credibility. Traditional VC is going straight for tokens, not equity.

• Institutions have much better downside protection due to refund clauses, unlike past retail ICO participants.

• Raises the question: Is this the “new big structure” for institutional dealmaking in crypto?

  Tony (C):

  “It’s really amazing that these tradfi firms like BlackRock and Apollo are doing these VC type deals, but instead... taking tokens. It's fascinating.” ([06:12])

4. Value Creation: Equity vs Network vs Token

• Debate: Should you buy Circle equity (if accessible), or the ARC token?

  • With Circle equity valued ~$30B and ARC’s network valued $3B, does the token have independent value?
  • Are tokens like ARC just tools to give companies like Circle a “free lunch” by creating $750M in balance sheet value instantly ([20:23])?

  Scott (A):

  “They just basically magically created $750 million of value by owning 25% of a network… without giving away any equity in the company either.” ([20:23])

5. Layer 1s, Governance, and Purpose of Tokens

• Consensus: Only networks that truly require a native token for operation (for security, consensus, or gas) have a defensible reason for tokens.

• Many projects add “governance” as a fig leaf but grant tokens little real power; clear mismatch between token and equity rights and incentives ([08:38], [13:15]).

• Example: Chainlink’s network is valuable, but questions remain about the direct utility of its token.

  Mickle (D):

  “It creates massive odds between the token holders and the underlying equity holders… Governance seems like a way to slap a piece of utility onto a token that doesn’t have any utility in my eyes.” ([08:38]-[13:15])

6. Token Valuation Models and Speculation

• ARC and similar networks may set precedents for valuing infrastructure tokens vs company equity.

• In absence of clear value accrual mechanics, speculation often drives token prices; investors “bet on the horse” even when utility isn’t clear ([14:13]).

• Comparison with meme coins and NFTs—sometimes tokens succeed just by community and narrative, not utility.

  Tony (C):

  “There’s a speculative aspect to all markets. So people are still going to bet on these horses... even though we may not like it.” ([14:13])

7. Institutions, Distribution, and Competitive Dynamics

• Visa, Mastercard, and other “incumbent clubs” are entering crypto rails; their large user bases make it tough for tokens to bootstrap new communities ([51:43]).

• Much like owning a black Amex card, “membership”/community tokens may be most trusted when issued by familiar brands ([54:25]).

  Gary (F):

  “If you have the distribution, the token will follow. Y’all are suggesting the token's going to invite people into a big party. And I just question that.” ([51:43])

8. Meta: What Makes Crypto Valuable?

• Network effect vs fee-based value: Most successful chains will be those with deepest network effects, lowest fees, and real demand ([36:11], [37:32]).

• There is still no clear, industry-wide standard for how token value should accrue to holders, especially in separation from equity ([31:13]-[32:51]).

• The best bet: protocols that are truly essential, embedded, and irreplaceable.

  Mickle (D):

  “All of them... are going to spiderweb and create as many networks... throughout the traditional financial system. ...Tokens that sit adjacent to those networks that are actually there for a purpose... will ultimately appreciate greatly...” ([43:16])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Feels like a grift based on what you just said, but I don’t want to say that until I’ve dug in more.” — Dave ([03:42])
• “A governance token where there’s no equity rights, no rights to any economics, to me, is complete bullshit. Always has been.” — Dave ([08:38])
• “Why Circle needs to do this... if interest rates go back to ZIRP, like, stablecoins don’t make money.” — Scott ([11:36])
• “Just slapping the word governance on something seems like a cheap way to try make that statement make sense. And I don’t think it’s really worked.” — Mickle ([13:00])
• “Institutions can get their money back... you give me a free option... of course you’re going to do it.” — Dave ([09:06])
• "We could make fun of crap all the time, that's easy. But understanding where value is going to be created is what people really do care about." — Dave ([34:29])
• “Circle is going to be the US central bank digital currency and that's what people are investing in here.” — Guest ([34:50])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:28]: ARC tokenomics breakdown and investor protection
• [04:18]: Deep skepticism on token utility
• [06:12]: TradFi’s pivot from equity to token investing
• [13:15]: The (lack of) value in “governance”
• [18:13]: Discussion of network vs company value (Ripple vs XRP analogies)
• [20:23]: The “magic” of balance sheet value creation via token launches
• [25:05]: Comparing ARC/Circle to Canton and other models
• [31:13]: Misalignment of token and equity holder incentives; regulatory nuances
• [36:11]: The case for network effect and low fees driving value
• [43:16]: The long-game thesis for layer 1 tokens and industry structure
• [51:43]: The power of distribution (Visa, MasterCard) and uphill battle for tokens

---

Tone

The conversation is analytical, skeptical, and often blunt, with moments of humor and candor. The speakers don’t shy from challenging industry narratives, questioning where value truly lies, and calling out practices they view as unproductive or misleading.

---

Takeaways

• Institutional structures are reshaping token launches, shifting risk and value toward “big money.”
• The utility of tokens—especially those without fee linkage or critical network role—is under heavy scrutiny.
• Value, in crypto, remains a function of network effect, real economic flow, and at times, speculation or meme-driven narrative.
• Token vs equity debates are intensifying as lines blur between corporate and decentralized projects.
• The next era of crypto tokens will be defined by clearer models of value accrual, regulatory clarity, and genuine network purpose—not just “governance.”

---

End of summary.

Transcript

[A]

Good morning everybody. Welcome to Crypto Town Hall. Every other day here on exit 10, 15am Eastern Standard Time. I love Mondays, Dave. We just get to continue on all the things we missed on Macro Monday. And in this 15 minute gap I've done a lot more digging on the new ARK token, if that's going to be the title.

[B]

Yeah, I think that the reason that I wanted to talk about this from is we always have these conversations and you know, look, we can look at the market price and we can talk about that, that's cool. But the real question has been that the market's been struggling with is what's the value of token X? Whether it's X is XRP or Solana or Ethereum or Canton or Avalanche or Avax or token number 600 or 700, 800, 900. And what we have here are some of the A list investors on the planet looking at a business circle which has economics and understanding and that business has decided to create their own token which they will eventually release into the wild. And they're putting a value on it that is very relevant for what will the value of other infrastructure plays be? And in fact the ratio of the equity to the infrastructure matters a lot. So I think there's a lot to unpack here but, but I'd love to hear what you dug into because I used this to take a break. I did not do any reading in between the two shows.

[A]

Yeah, I mean it's just largely tokenomics and clarity on what the token will be used for. So they raised basically $220 million for the token from BlackRock, Apollo and the long list of others that I mentioned here before. But that's at a 3 billion fully diluted valuation. So they basically sold 740 million tokens at $0.30 each. So about, you know, it's 10 billion total tokens. So we'll call it 7.4% of the tokens they sold for 222 million. Circle will always own 25%. 60% go to ecosystem, 15% to reserve. It said that the shortest vesting would be a day, I mean a year, the longest would be four years. But interestingly they said that the token is for, you know, validate validators, security of network and governance and USDC will be the GAS token, not ark. And I think more interestingly if you read the circle disclosures that I find the exact language, so I don't say it wrong, but basically that if they don't reach specific milestones, then BlackRock, Apollo and friends can get a Refund. So not the same risk that retail has taken on ICOs in the past. There's a proof of stake transition I believe in May of 2028. And if they don't meet that everybody can get their tokens back and get a refund. But basically ARK here, institutional infrastructure for stablecoins built for purpose and backed now by the largest institutions on the planet who have bought $220 million worth of tokens.

[B]

But okay, so I'm confused.

[A]

So Circle owns 25% of the network. If you're wondering how it accrues to the stock. Now, I'm not saying that it has value, but if they have 25%, in theory, a quarter of the network value would accrue to Circle as a company.

[B]

Sure, but that I understand. But, but if there, if it's not being used for gas, then what is the point of.

[A]

That's what I didn't understand. Well, it said, they said government security validator staking and they said it's like Ethereum is to eth. But that's. That. That's what it says every. In every article. But that's just not true because ETH is used to pay for. For the gas fees. Right.

[B]

So in ETH gets burned when. Yeah, you know, from state, there's. It's interesting. I mean, look, this feels like a grift based on what you just said, but I don't want to say that until I've dug in more. I mean, you know, I literally had a conversation last week which I thought which with, you know, the, with the law, the GC of the Crypto task force, where their view is that there needs to be a very. There shouldn't be a regulatory arbitrage between whether something is a security or a commodity or that. That's their job to eliminate that and they know that that's a big deal. That the notion of a token shouldn't be prohibited from passing through token economics, that is, you know, if you own the token, it matters for the network, but if the, if it's not being used for gas, if it doesn't get you discounts in terms of what you're using for. If there's no actual utility for the token itself and it's just governance, then what the hell's the difference in that and equities? Unless the network is going to have residual value and the tokens represent a claim on that residual value, I don'. Understand why it's worth a dollar much less three billion. That's the question. And I'll Be curious if. Am I looking at this wrong? I mean, you know, what, what do people think? Because, you know, if in point of fact, that it was a value play and you made the statement and you looked at it, the numbers are the numbers, right? You know, they're valuing the network at 3 billion while Circle's equity valuation is 30 billion, which means that the network would be worth 10%, give or take, of the equity value. And that's an interesting line in the sand that tells you a lot about XRP and Ripple, which is inverted right now. And so that, that says some things. It tells you a lot about the potential value of layer ones in terms of relative to the total addressable market that they're going to be. That they're going to be supporting. And I think all of those things are interesting, but it's much more interesting if it actually makes sense and if it's not just a cash grab. Right.

[A]

I would love for people to jump in their thoughts on this because I'm mixed. Like, I know why Circle has to do it. There's no question. I'm just wondering how the value accrues once again, as you said. Anyone thoughts or people?

[B]

Just stunned by the numbers.

[A]

I'm stunned by the participants even more than the numbers. Tony, go ahead.

[C]

It's really amazing that these tradfi firms like BlackRock and Apollo are doing these VC type deals, but instead of taking equity or taking tokens, and earlier this year, or maybe even late last year, Apollo, they invested 9% in Morpho. BlackRock also bought Uniswap tokens, Citadel, they bought Zero. I think, I think it is, but it's just so fascinating. And today's questions, I'm also struggling with that and I guess it's to be d. Honestly, I don't know how this all plays out, but it's fascinating.

[B]

Yeah. I think from a crypto valuation point of view, though, it does start to give people understanding of something that we've talked about a lot. I mean, you know, we don't have anyone from the XRP army up here. Oh, Mickle's a listener. Maybe you can get him up on stage. I'd love to hear his reaction to this.

[A]

He's requesting. He's up, he's connecting.

[B]

Okay, cool.

[A]

He must have heard you say XRP and you summoned him.

[B]

No, no, I mean, I think it's very important because when you mental model Mickle, you up here because I see you as a listener, but I see

[A]

your hand, I see his hand up as a speaker. Mikkel, you hear us?

[D]

Yeah. So I didn't hear the first part of. I like what Circle's doing, so I'd be curious to get an update on that. But long story short, I mean, this is something that I've always had a problem with in terms of different tokens in the ecosystem. I mean, it makes a whole bunch of sense for a layer one to have a token, because, like a layer one theoretically at the moment could not exist without a token. So the token is critical infrastructure in order to make a decentralized blockchain function. But for a lot of these layer twos and a lot of these other things, there's a token associated with it. And people are drawing all these crazy loops and trying to incorporate the token into these different pieces of quote, unquote utility. But the truth is, is a lot of the times the network doesn't even sit in a native place where the token is. So I see this all over the ecosystem and in my opinion, it creates massive odds between the token holders and the underlying equity holders, because a lot of people push it to governance because. But who actually has the governance then? Is the token holders or is it the people who are holding the private equity? So I think there's a huge problem with a lot of these tokens that don't actually have a layer one network to support the token, because it gets to the argument of what is the token actually for? And I don't think that's been well defined in a lot of cases.

[B]

Oh, I screamingly agree with you. I actually made the statement last week that Gensler and Warren were actually evil geniuses. And by pushing people into governance tokens and of course memes, they were more or less big, digging a pit, filling it with snakes and spikes and all sorts of stuff, and just waiting for people in the crypto world to kind of step into it. And I think that that, that has taken a lot of money out of the ecosystem and it's hurt the crypto ecosystem a lot. I mean, the notion of a governance token where there's no equity rights, no rights to any economics to me, is complete bullshit, always has been. And one of the things the regulators need to solve is giving the, the, those governance tokens and the, and the founders and the people who built it the ability to pass through in a clear, articulated way some of the economics of the network. Now it could be as simple as gas being burned or tokens being burned as earn it, money is earned and so it becomes more scarce, but you nailed it. The key is those are necessary. But if Scott is correct, and I have no reason to believe that he's wrong, that USDC will be paying gas and the Ark token is functionally a pet rock inside the network, then I have no understanding of what the hell is going on. So I kind of hope that that's not true. I mean, these people are not dumb people. I mean, but, you know, everyone gets seduced. And if you give someone a free option, which is what Scott basically said, you give me a free option that you can buy this thing and get your money back. If it doesn't work or if you can't make money by selling it, of course you're going to do it. You know, who wouldn't do that trade, right? I mean, Scott, did I articulate anything wrong?

[A]

Yeah, perfect. I agree with all that. I'm. I'm just. I'm kind of dumbfounded. Yeah, I mean, I'm reading. I continue to read this entire time, and I'm still just not really getting it. I mean, once again, I fully understand why Circle needs to do this. Like, let's be honest. So Circle is in a unique position. Position where stable coins are growing massively. But because they're publicly traded and they actually have, you know, quarterly earnings and such, if interest rates come down, there's no way that stock can go up unless they somehow massively replace that income from their passive earnings on Treasuries and figure this out from another side. So it seems like they have to go into the token market and create a layer one in the token. And I do think there's reasons for them to do that. Listen, like, I've said this before. If you need this to be institutional and, like, banks are going to use stable coins and grandma in Omaha, who doesn't know what she's doing, like, send something. You can't have Grandma, like sending to a salon address instead of an Ethereum address or stablecoins. Right. So, like usdc, it makes sense they would have a chain that's highly centralized and that you can have customer service and fix transactions and things like that. You can think whatever you want about that, but they need this to make money. If interest rates go back to zirp, like, stablecoins don't make money.

[D]

Really. They actually.

[A]

Because the fees are commoditized.

[D]

Yeah. They've become almost a massive cost because, I mean, you have to look at it like Circle's growing revenue, and they have a nice clip there on how fast they're growing revenue. But interest rates, as you were saying, could decelerate at a massive rate. I mean even cutting interest rates in half, I mean that would still put interest rates at over the past 20 years higher than they have been. And I mean circle's looking at 50% haircut on revenue. So they need to figure out a new way to make money quick. What I think does a disservice to them is I think there's been a huge amount of credibility, or at least behind the scenes given to cryptocurrency companies who have taken a step back and actually assessed whether or not they need a native token. I think that's been something that's been refreshing for a lot of people because when you have the conversation of what does this token do? If you're jumping through hoops to try to answer that question is clear that it was just a money grab to get extract value from the crypto ecosystem. I think being able to say hey, we don't have a token because there's not a defined purpose for it is a huge benefit. I've always looked at it as kind of a huge contradiction. It's something that absolutely needs to be solved. And in my opinion, and this might not be 100% true all the time, but just slapping the word governance on something is seems like a cheap way to try to make that statement make sense. And I don't think it's really worked. Especially when a lot of the tokens hold all the power.

[A]

What does that mean for actual value anyways? Like governance? I understand why that's of a value to the network that you know there that people who have skin in the game vote on the future of it, but how does that actually accrue value to investors or anybody who buys a token anyways?

[D]

I think without a clear framework of how that value is defined. Right. Like most of the governance things we've seen is the liberty holds, holds all the governance anyway and then they issue some fake governance to everyone else and. And then that's at complete odds with the underlying equity of the foundation or whoever they're calling themselves who actually has the power to execute on all these things. So it's just one of those things. It's like this governance thing is just seems like a way to slap a piece of utility onto a token that doesn't have any utility in my eyes.

[C]

Johnny, I was just going to add that. Look, obviously we know that a public blockchain can be successful without a native token. Right. The aspect of decentralization, having liquidity, incentives and all that. However, to your guys points how does the token accrue value? I think that is something TBD we still have to figure out. And I think to Dave's the crux of the issue that Dave's highlighting for a while. I don't think anyone has figured that out.

[A]

Right.

[C]

Maybe eth. As far as the token being used for gas and there's some burn elements there, but what else? Right. Maybe the staking. So a lot of chains still have to figure that out. But while we may sit here and say well that sucks, it doesn't accrue value. There's a speculative aspect to all markets. So people are still going to bet on these horses, so to speak, and we may not be able to stop it even though we may not like it.

[B]

Well, that's certainly true. I mean Scott, you were pointing out that bored apes and even ether rocks have gone up in value recently. I mean it's like, okay, I mean that can happen. But look, I think there's one other aspect of this which is fascinating to me and that's why, and Mikkel, I'd specifically like to ask you about this. So if forget the mechanism for a heartbeat, which of course by the way is probably a dumb thing for me to say, but just go with me for a second. We know Circle's equity value is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 billion, give or take depending on how one measures it. And if their native token is worth 3 billion, is that relevant? I mean the fact that the token being, I mean the token needs to be worth less than the economic value of the entity that can that controls it and monetizes it because nobody would, you know, it just, it doesn't make any sense for the token to be worth that much more than whatever. But do you think that that's a relevant thing that anybody should care about or you know, is your opinion, Nina, for forget which, which token, forget XRP or anything, it doesn't really matter. Whatever the network is. Can a network be worth more than the economic value of the actors that use it? The answer is no, in my opinion. I think you agree with that.

[D]

No, I, I, I actually heavily disagree. I think the market is just saying where the per more perceived value is. For example, Circle, the company. Right. I mean from all eyes, in my opinion, Circle has been massively successful in terms of being a high quality stablecoin issuer in the crypto space. In terms of this new network they're launching, I mean most Circle, most USDC is out on Ethereum and a lot is issued on Tron. So that does absolutely nothing for the success of the network. So it makes a ton of sense to me that that underlying network would be at a severe discount to the company itself that's had massive success. I think in a future where Circle's new network is hugely successful, and let's say I. And I've done zero research in this, so I highly doubt it's going to be accurate, but let's say this network is massively successful, outgrows Circle, the company and becomes a new stablecoin standard. So, like, everyone's just plugging into this new stablecoin standard. I would high. I would be 100% convinced that the network would ultimately surpass Circle, who is just a single actor on a highly successful stablecoin network. Now, I don't think that's going to happen. I think Circle's kind of already been a little bit late on having its own protocol to do those kinds of things. But I think the market's just telling you what's more powerful, what's more important. Is the network itself more important? Can it expand past just that single company, or is that single company more important than the underlying network? That's how I look at it.

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

I'd like to get other people's thoughts. I mean, you know, Gary, I don't know if you've looked at this, but you're one of the most sane voices at valuation up here. You know, what are you. Does this mean anything to you or have you had a chance to digest any of it?

[F]

I haven't really dug into it, but can a network have more value than its underlying asset? I think that's probably true. I mean, Visa is worth more than what they earn.

[B]

Right? Right. It's generating. It's generating income. Yeah. So if the network itself is generating income. Yeah, yeah, that's absolutely right. But in this case.

[A]

Yeah, but this network would be generating income in usdc. Right. So I, if, if the gas fees are paid in usdc, then maybe their play, which I don't understand why people would invest in it, you know, otherwise. But their play is that it increases usage and value of USDC as a stable coin. But isn't the better. I mean, for any of these cases and Mickle, maybe like we always have the debate XRP vs Ripple shares, which is. But Ripple's obviously not publicly traded. Isn't buying Circle stock a better expression of the value in this case than the Ark token?

[D]

I think, once again, it depends on where you want to bet on success. Right. If you want to bet on the success of Circle the company.

[B]

Right.

[D]

And Circle saying, you know what, we don't need to be reliant on a specific chain to succeed. We're going to be the highest quality issuer of Fiat in the digital world, then you would be betting on Circle the company. If for some reason you have this supreme thesis that most other chains out there at the moment don't fit the actual role of what the future rails of the digital dollar is going to be and this new chain that Circle is releasing. Oculus. Right. And is the future, then I would bet on the Ark Token. Now, it sounds like to me there might be a little bit some confusion about the actual purpose of the Ark Token on the Archulist chain, but it just depends on what you're betting on. Like for the Ripple and XRP example. Right. Like if I was betting on solely Ripple success as a centralized company and I just want to have access to what they're doing on the prime brokerage side, on the custody side, and it's just making a bet on that company, then I would go get Ripple private equity. If I have a vision that a blockchain with fast and efficient utility is going to be important into the future and there is going to be a new platform for financial conduct contractions, and I believe that is going to be the XRP ledger, I would bet on xrp. So I think you just have to have a defined thesis of what you're betting on, what you think the future is going to be, and you have to place your bets accordingly. Trying to substitute one or the other. I mean, let's face it, they're different things.

[A]

You want the really cynical view, Dave? Now I'm thinking about this. So they just raised $222 million from the biggest institutions on Earth at a $3 billion valuation, which magically put $750 million on Circle's balance sheet in tokens. Since they're 25% of the network. Where tell me how that's not their major upside. They just basically magically created $750 million of value by owning 25% of a network that's now they can that they can now justify a 3 billion dollar

[D]

valuation on without giving away any equity in the company either.

[A]

Or spending a penny.

[B]

Yep. Now ask yourself how Brian Armstrong wishes that base had a native token from the beginning especially.

[C]

They're going to launch it soon.

[B]

Yeah. But it would have been a hell of a lot more valuable if they had launched it when they launched it.

[A]

I wonder also to that end, if launching Ark and doing this and using USDC in some way actually minimizes Circle's reliance on Coinbase.

[B]

There's a lot of corporate stuff that goes on that we'll never know. But it depends on how those agreements are written. Right. Anyway, David, you have your hand up. So sorry, I didn't mean to jump on top of you.

[A]

Yeah, no, I was just going to

[B]

say the value of the network from

[A]

a valuation standpoint, say we look at

[B]

a stock as opposed to a network here, you've got a value of present earnings and then you've got a factor of how much value to put in the future.

[A]

And it looks like this deal basically is all betting on the cum laude.

[B]

And I love the fact that the institutions can get their money back. And yeah, Scott, you're dead right.

[A]

I mean this is a way where

[B]

we've got Circle is building and they've monetized it.

[A]

I wouldn't be surprised if they borrow

[B]

against the value of it or try to at least. So it's kind of a build. Borrow die. Lou.

[A]

Magic.

[G]

Hey guys, rather than Ripple, is Canton a better thing to kind of compare

[A]

this to their own news today, by the way?

[G]

Yeah, I mean that's a $5 billion.

[A]

300 million. Yeah, 300 million raised. Led by A16Z. By the way, A16Z also is leading all of these.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So A16 Andreessen Horowitz also led the Circle investment.

[G]

I don't know Canton. Well, I don't know if anybody on the call does and why their network is valued at that rate, but I think that could give insight into Arculus.

[D]

Well, Canton has a layer one. So like, like one of the things that I don't push a lot of pushback on is like when a layer one has a token like what I push more back on. And I don't want to name a specific one, but one of the things that I have like a little bit of a harder time would be, would be something like the link token where they have this Oracle network that's highly successful, but then the link token is issued on Ethereum and it's like, doesn't directly incorporate into what they're doing on the Oracle side. If Canton has a layer one where the Canton token, like the Canton network itself, could not work without the Canton token, it makes a lot of sense for a token to be there and then the market will figure out the long term value of the token. Like what is the long term value of the token? I don't think there is any way any of us are going to be able to forecast that it is this brand new asset. Nothing like this has ever existed. It's a digital commodity that's completely different from a company having private shareholders, having a successful network and then saying, okay, let's go issue a token and we'll figure out what that token does later. I think that's why you see all the top tokens in the market right now are all layer ones the market has determined. Look, these things have real value because the underlying networks could not exist without them. But when you have a network existing already, let's say like the base network, and then all of a sudden a token comes out of nowhere and it's like, well, the to the network was already working, People were already using it, it was already highly successful. What could this token possibly be? It seems like artificial incentive to me.

[A]

I mean this, so this, I mean if you're looking at the news on Canton, I just looked this up because I was actually curious there. Their headline is canton Network builder nears 300 million raised led by a 16 crypto. This is an equity raise, not a token raise. And their token already exists. And as you said. Did you say 5 billion is Canton? I haven't looked. I don't want to speak out of line.

[C]

Yeah, close to six.

[A]

Like different approaches. Yeah, it's different approaches to effectively the same thing. But both of them, you know, have an equity side and a token side which maybe is our new new big structure for institutions to make a ton of money.

[D]

And just, just one quick one on that. If I'm looking at Canton's market cap, can't. Canton's market cap, it's 38 or 6 billion ish right now. If you're looking at diluted, it's much higher. But that's a case where they have a lot of rwas. And I think the network will probably be at a higher valuation value creation and close because I think it's even hard to compare equities to these assets. But I think you'll see the Canton network pretty high because they have a good network effect going on. The more you can plug in that network to more and more important players and have people issue and take stake in the network itself. The more I think you have an expandable valuation outside of just what the Canton foundation or whatever they call themselves is doing.

[B]

Yeah, I think that, that, that gets you to the crux. I lost track. Is it Tony next? I, I, I can't, I see three hands.

[C]

Yeah, I can go next.

[A]

I see none.

[C]

So go for it just to piggyback on what Mickle said, and I think he hit all the points I was going to follow up on. But you know, if we have the thesis, guys, of where the puck is heading, if all these markets are going to run on blockchain rails, right? Blockchain becomes that black hole that sucks in stocks, commodities and all that stuff, then these tokens allow you to bet on the network. So I don't think we should look at it as an. From an equity standpoint or how much value necessarily is being accrued to the token. I understand there's a. That there's a part of that. There's. But I think again, going back to the foundational aspect of blockchain and public chains, you can take a bet on the protocol, the network, by holding the token. And yes, some are better than others and some give you more value and utility than others. But still, if we believe, again, where the puck is heading, all of this is going to be a blockchain rails. That's what these companies are betting on to hold a respective token.

[A]

Dave, did you see other hands?

[B]

Yeah, I see Lou and David, but I don't know if they're shadow hands or not.

[F]

I can barely understand half of what you guys are talking about. Like, when I look at investing in. In an industry, I look at fundamental underlying value. Scott made an interesting comment. I may just show you how stupid I am. He said, hey, look, you know when, when Circle converts that to usdc, like, it's all going to get converted to dollars at the end of the day. We can call all these little tokens stable coins, whatever we want to call them. But aren't they all tied to the US Dollar?

[B]

Yes, of course. I mean, of course. My point, Gary, and the reason I picked.

[F]

We're just, we're just put. We're just diluting Kool Aid here. Like I, I'm trying to understand, hey, where. What does Circle do? Is it financial engineering or are they providing a service?

[B]

Well, they're providing a service, really. I mean, the question here is there's a network, right? If the network itself is processing transactions. Well.

[F]

Well, the problem. The problem is there's too many networks. There's a million different tokens, right? There's Visa, MasterCard. Like, those guys don't compete with each other. Y' all are beating each other into the zero levels.

[B]

Well, well, let's not personalize it because I don't know.

[F]

You know what I'm saying? I mean, the token world, it's like one. What do they Do.

[B]

Here's the thing, Gary. So think of it this way. And Mickle was sort of getting at this and I think it was. It's a good mental model is if the entire world is going to use tokenized.

[F]

Well, that's a mat. That's a. Now that's a mat. That's a different discussion. That's kind of why I said, hey, I don't really know what you guys are talking about. I must be stupid

[B]

if the whole world is going to use this technology and this technology, what is that?

[F]

Are they like, I don't need a blockchain for my assets.

[B]

Well, we could have that convers. Those are separate con.

[F]

But, but it is a fundamental. But it's a fundamental. See, my only question was, hey, what do these companies do? And now you're going to like, you know, I, I just.

[B]

There's a deep dive that needs to happen here, which is why Tokenize rails. But the simple question. And where I, where I fail. Where. When Tony starts saying what he's saying. And I'm not trying to make fun of you, Tony, I'm just saying that people tend to make this logical leap and it feels like it's happening, which is if the entire world is moving, if, let's say a trillion dollars is going to flow through a network, that network people say, well, the network has value. Well, no, the network only has value if it takes a fee, even a small one for that trillion dollars going through. So let's say they make $100,000 from a trillion dollars going through. Okay, well that's cool. So it does that. And if it does that every single day, that's real money. And it starts to. And then you start putting a multiple on that. But if there is no fee, right? You know, if, if, if, if the, if the fee is being paid in something else. If the, if the token itself doesn't have anything to do with the fees, my brain doesn't understand how it could be valuable unless the fees earned. Burned tokens. But then in that case, what's the need for it? I mean, I BNB token is worth something because if you don't own it, you get. You pay more in. In fees for using, you know, for using Binance. Right. Hyper Liquid, same thing. You have to stake a certain amount of tokens in order to get those. Those things. And as they get burned, it gets more valuable. I understand that mechanism. If you can't explain that mechanism for ark, then I don't understand why it's anything more than just, you know, As I said, a pet rock. Right. If it's not part of it, that's really the question. Does that make sense, Tony?

[C]

Yeah, no, I absolutely agree with you Dave. I think like I said earlier, some of these things are TBD and I don't think BlackRock are idiots. Just saying, oh, we're going to grab this token for no reason at all. I think maybe they're betting on the innovation that may come and these incentives and these fees or whatever you want to call it, revenue generating aspects of the token will follow. You know it's kind of like Peter Thiel investing in Facebook before they even ran an ad. And Facebook was valued at millions of dollars just because people were on there sharing but there was no revenue being generated.

[B]

Right, exactly. And so the point like Chainlink just let's pick on link because Mickle brought them up. Chainlink has this successful Oracle process if the token itself allowed for not just some nebulous. Well, we're going to kind of set up this fund that might very well be. But we're not going to tell you how much because if we we're going to get in trouble with regulators. But let's just say they go through work with the regulators and they can have a very clear method for how use of the network translates to token holders. Well then people would know how to value it. Now of course the cynical person would say if they did that then the token would be considered overvalued.

[D]

But well then the token would be considered a security. If they're just passing back revenue that the company or the network is making and they're just passing it through. What's the difference between just having a stock and a dividend? Like it completely defeats the purpose of why these tokens need to exist in the first place.

[B]

No, no, no, no. Wrong. That's the first thing you said that's wrong. There is a difference in the capital structure. Equity confers ownership of a thing, of a business, of a business with liabilities. There's all is a huge legal structure, a network that is autonomous, that runs on a decentralized basis, that has a defined capital flow to it would not be the same thing as an equity. It would be a claim on revenue be more like the closest thing is would be a non discretionary, perpetual preferred but non discretionary which by the way I don't know that that exists. Right. Because this would be in a smart contract.

[D]

So you're getting revenues without any ownership essentially.

[B]

Correct. And it would be contractual. They programmed in the smart contract unless the you know, and that's where governance is tough. See, governance is sort of ownership, if in fact it allows any impact to revenue. But of course, governance tokens are structured so as only to be able to do things that have to do with the operation, but not the economics. The problem is, is we've invented. Crypto has invented an entire new asset class that's never been fully defined and they're now trying to define it. That's, that's the key point here.

[D]

I think the obvious problem, networks like Bitcoin and Ethereum came along and the XRP ledger with clear utility and a need for a token. And then a bunch of other projects didn't have a need for a token, but realized if they sold the token they could make a whole bunch of money. So then they sold the token to try to make a whole bunch of money. And then people started asking them, hey, what's the token for? And no one could answer what the token was for, because the token was for making money without giving away equity.

[B]

Oh, and I think we have 100% agreement. Is there anybody who disagrees with that sentence, Lou?

[D]

Yeah, I think that's like the thing that no one in crypto wants to admit. That's the truth of it. Like a lot of these things were created simply to raise money without giving away equity. If you have a layer one chain that's being used and that layer one chain has an underlying token, that's a clear need for that token to exist if the network couldn't exist without it. But other than that, I don't know.

[G]

Yeah, look, so I, I think we can all agree that, that there's a lot of tokens out there that are worthless. And I don't think we need to spend our time talking about it. Well, but get back to circles.

[B]

Understand what will be worth. What will be worth worth. Full. I can't. That's not the right word. I don't know what the right word is. But what will have value? I think that that's what, that's what I was trying to steer it for. But you're right. I mean, we could make fun of crap all the time, that's easy. But understanding where value is going to be created is what, what people really do care about. And frankly, none of us really know. You know, not, not correct.

[G]

But just to get back to circle for a moment because, you know, people are, are wondering what's going on. I have personally believed for a long time, and this is just in, in my view, just another signpost that I'M right that Circle is going to be the US central bank digital currency and that's what people are investing in here.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

Why would the United States want a private company to control that like the United States will just issue their own.

[G]

It's not going to be private. It's not going to be private. It's not going to be private. I didn't say it will get. The US government will subsume and take over, you know at least some aspects of it and it will be the central bank digital currency. That's why the US government has given them so much regulatory coverage.

[D]

But Circle's a private company or a public company now. But like why the United States government they could just work with Circle to issue the an actual digital currency. Like why would they assume what USDC already is? Like they would just create their own like Circle might technology provider for those

[G]

Time, time, time, time time will tell how it gets played out. But yeah, I don't think the government is our friend. I don't think this is helpful to individuals but this seems to to me to be the path that we've been on for a long time.

[A]

I, I can't see the hands Dave. I see nothing. So I don't know if people are still waiting.

[D]

Dave, the one, the one thing I'm curious on your aspect which goes to what I think people might care about which is like how these things rather than picking on the losers, what ones do when. The one thing I guess I disagree with what you said was that the networks that produce the most fees are the most valuable. Like in my opinion the way to value these networks are very similar to very early social media networks. The ones that have the most connections, the one that creates the deepest network effects, the ones that get the most intertwined with all aspects of finance down the road there is going to be a lot of the underlying tokens on those networks that get chewed up from native capabilities, whether it's staking liquidity pools, all those kinds of things. And then there will be a huge amount of investors who see the success of that network and want to invest behind it. And the perception of investing behind that network is going to be purchasing the token. So I see it as more of a race to network effect. And I honestly think the chains that have the best fee structure for people to want to use the chains which is typically lower fees are going to be the ones that are successful.

[B]

I think that's true to an extent. I mean I think it is very, I think it's very, very clear that there's, there's elements of truth there. But I do think that that's one of the reasons the market cap of crypto is, is north of a trillion dollars when there's not even. You can't possibly come to any sort of valuation based on you take bitcoin out of the occasion, take stable coins out and look at the rest of crypto from a revenue price to revenue point of view. It looks very expensive. It's all on the come. The most important network right now on the planet in terms of processing is dtcc and dtcc. I forgot what their valuation is, but it's a hell of a lot smaller than crypto or than the aggregate of all non bitcoin layer ones. It's a lot, lot smaller and it processes quadrillions in transactions. So it depends on the amount of monetization possible. With a social media network you have those eyeballs. With a blockchain you don't have eyeballs. I mean you're going to have agentic finance out there looking for the cheapest means to transact and that doesn't mean these things can't be worth more than they are today. I'm not saying that at all. But I am saying that people who look at and think that the network itself could be more valuable than the economic activity that that's processing on it. I think that's delusional. But it depends. Right? You know, it's all. You're right. What, what's the extra value you can gain from being on that network? And, and it's in the case of Facebook, that was a really clear one. It's like, okay, well you have people's attention and they're going to buy things. Well, you don't have anyone's attention on a blockchain. That doesn't mean there isn't a way to monetize. I'd be really curious what, what people think. Think about that.

[D]

Well, I don't think you have eyeballs, but you have the value, right? So rather than having the eyeballs, you hold the value. That's how I see it.

[C]

Yeah, Dave, I mean, I don't know. I. You think you're wrong there because look, look at what's happening with meme coins. That is simply attention based. Yes, people are putting their money behind it, but I hate meme coins. But look at what's happening, Dave. The dynamic has changed. The president has a meme coin and then you can take it to NFTs, the artwork aspect. I believe in NFTs, the September technology but the artwork stuff I'm not a big fan of. But what is that? It's culture on the blockchain.

[G]

It's, it's community. It's community. All the value is created in community and the network effects around community. Meme coins are just one tiny subset that most people on this call deride, but they're not going away.

[B]

So let me ask you a question, because what's the difference between owning one, one ape coin, or one whatever meme coin and owning, you know, a billion? I mean, you could be part of the community with one. So, you know, what's the, the, the, the, the, the value? I understand the notion of economic.

[A]

Well, that makes sense for the NFT and not the token specifically, I think. Dave.

[B]

No, I understand that. Look, we, we go through this all the time in terms of valuation. I mean, I'm obviously not a fan of pure meme coins because meme coins are not scarce, right? And there's no version. I mean, if you own a board ape, I absolutely understand that value. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, I'm saying I understand it. You own a unique thing that nobody else can own, that people can look at you own.

[G]

Are you a fan of community?

[B]

I absolutely understand the ability to monetize a community. But unless that monetization can pass back to the owners of that community in proportion to the value, then I don't understand it.

[G]

Does dogecom. So do you like Doge? Hate Doge? Think Doge isn't a thing? Think Doge is going away?

[B]

I think that people continue to value Doge on the basis of Elon potentially incorporating it into X money. I don't think that Doge would be anything close to where it is today if that wasn't a possibility. But I could be wrong, right? You know, I, I, as I said, if you could create, monetize a community and create pass throughs back to the owners in proportion to what they own, that's a very different and very coherent way of value. That's all I'm saying. You see the difference between owning one token versus, you know, a million dollars worth of a token. You don't need to own a million dollars worth to be in the same community unless there's value there. Now, that's not to say that the people won't create that, but I don't see it right now. It's the same thing with regard to this circles thing. I mean, we're trying to get at what is value, and that's the Most important thing for most investors, it's like, where is it going to go? And this is a really interesting story because like it or not, when you get big investors like this, piling money into these sorts of valuations, betting on the come, that's a good thing. And altcoins should be doing very well today. Mean, I don't think they are. I don't think they're doing anything bad. But you know, it doesn't seem to be mattering, that's all. But community is, is monetizable. Facebook was clearly, I mean, I call it boomer book now and given how much time my wife spends on it. But you know, it, it is it, it that matters. So yeah, no, I'm not against that by any stretch. Did we lose, Lou? Sorry, I think we did anyway. But no, I'm not that much of a skeptic. I just. It's this, the notion of being able to get to value. And what Mickle was saying is absolutely right, in my opinion, which is to say that if you are, there's a need for something, it makes sense and it's generating value and it. And it becomes more valuable the more people use it. That's that. That's what network effect is, right? Am I articulating that view right or wrong? Mickle?

[D]

No, I absolutely think that's correct. I think the place that we might disagree, I don't know, is I see like immense value in the fact that these assets that exist today simply in what they are, are decentralized, neutral pieces of liquidity that anyone can contribute to or draw upon without any centralized organization able to take control or change the rules of the given asset itself. So I think inherently, and you can argue about this, just the XRP token, just the Bitcoin token, just the Doge token being what it is, is valuable in itself. And then the amount of people interacting on that network increases, the likelihood increases, the mindshare increases, the amount of participants that are ultimately going to engage with, purchase and have economic activity adjacent or directly with that underlying token. So I see the next 10 to 15 years that we're going through right now as a land grab for all these layer ones, and all of them are going to spiderweb and create as many networks and tentacles all throughout the traditional financial system. And when it's all said and done very similar to the very Internet protocols, there's going to be specific protocols, protocols that really win out on activity. And that's just going to be because they were designed in a way that made a Lot of sense to adopt the financial system we interoperate with today. And I think the tokens that sit adjacent to those networks that are actually there for a purpose and are perceived as valuable will ultimately appreciate greatly into the future. And I think if I was to lay out my entire thesis, that's how I look at it and investing into this industry over the next 10 to 15 years.

[B]

It's interesting from a narrative perspective, I find myself agreeing. Anyway Jamie, I see your hand up.

[E]

Well Nicole, you know, said the correct word. I mean the perception of value, that's what we're trying to figure out. I mean this is kind of new. So we're, we're kind of, you know, speculating a little bit more than what, you know, what will come from this. I mean, but what we do know is that likely that the Clarity Act's gonna, you know, likely severely impact, you know, Circle's current revenue model. Right. Stablecoins infrastructure is likely to be a significant growing business moving forward. You know, so this kind of creates maybe a hybrid corporate plus protocol economy to position for the next stage. Like, like this kind of establishes the first type of valuation model for tokens and blockchain value. So that's, that part's significant. You know, there's going to be some fees that's going to be generated from USDC somehow it's going to be converted to arc. Portion is going to be distributed to stakers and validators and, and, and, and then there's going to be a portion that's going to be permanently burned. Right. To, to keep things deflationary. So I mean like, you know, overall, I mean that's what this is that the other. But the significance part is that this is the first one and how we kind of maybe derive value going forward for something similar. The other thing about Lou, what he mentioned with the memes, I think it used to be community. I think that was the utility of it. I would question now if that is the current use case. I mean like 95 to 98% or something. I don't even know what the number is. But are not community driven. They're just pump and dumps and they're just extracting value. So that would be the only thing I would kind of push back on the idea for what mean valuation can be because what they were and what they are now are completely different in my opinion. I'm curious what you guys think.

[B]

Well, I think there's pump fun sort of created that. Right. You know, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of individuals trying to tap into, you know, what, what is, you know, some immediate sense of, of what might be valuable and everyone trying to become the next Shiba Inu, you know, is, is just an incredible thing that happened. And, you know, honestly, I don't even know if it's still happening. It might very well be. I don't know. I'm just so disconnected. I mean, I do have my smoking chicken fish bag somewhere in some wallet somewhere, but, you know, it's not very big. I'm not sure it could buy a

[A]

lot smaller than it was.

[B]

Regardless, I doubt it could buy a cup of coffee anymore. I think Starbucks coffee's gotten. Gotten to the point where I can, can't do that. But, you know, maybe a tea bag,

[A]

if you do buy a cup of Starbucks coffee with it, you'll have a taxable sale of your smoking chicken fish and you'll have to report.

[B]

So that's okay. So, you know, I can. But no, the, the point is that there's a lot of crap, right? But real community is, is, is a real community achieved via asset ownership Earth? Is it achieved by, you know, being part of the same community? I mean, whether it's on, on Reddit or on X or on any other social media, you know, there, there's a community value, right? You know, and people can monetize. The best way to monetize community values, you know, like Wall street bets found, is to be able to get into the same trade, and then, except for the last few people into that trade, everybody makes money as long as they get out. But is that really, you know, and I don't know, it's just, it's hard for me to understand community based on ownership as opposed to participation, engagement. I totally understand as a community value, but I think that, But Mickel's point is, listen, you know, if you're, if you are incentivized to participate more, to own more, to buy more, to transact more by being part of it, well, then that's going to create value, right? I think that's the distinction. I mean, I, I don't, Yeah, I

[A]

mean, I just don't want my, like, you know, if I join a country club, I don't want my membership to go up or down in value by, you know, 7,000% on any given day. I, I, you know, I can see owning a membership and paying for it. I just don't understand why the ass that the actual membership card has to be so volatile and can go to zero.

[D]

Well, unless you, unless you want to sell that membership Right. If you want out of the membership,

[A]

of course, I understand the memberships go up.

[D]

No, I think scarce, just one piece of clarification. So Dave, I think you can make my argument applicable to meme coins as well. I think at the end of the day, the world we're moving into has a lot to do with social consensus. Like if you take a look at like why people perceive that dogecoin has value, people have perceived all kinds of weird things that value over time. Whether it's Mickey Mouse collectibles, whether it's Pokemon cards, like all these crazy things. Like humans in general, they create these networks where they perceive certain things to have value and they just. We've always as human society had this weird desire to collect and attribute value to these different things. And I think just specific coins, it could be random, it could just be how they're built up through society, what people gravitate towards. I mean, that's kind of how Bitcoin started out at the end of the day. I mean in the very, very early days, I mean think most of the world probably looked at Bitcoin as an ie meme coin in a way. And it passes a societal construct where so many people see value in it, financial institutions start stepping in. It creates a network effect all on its own. There's a transition stage where something goes from being a joke and something goes from being a very niche sort of thing that a specific community likes to getting enough buy in where it becomes a real economic tool and a real network effect and a real position of value. So I think certain coins might have the capacity to do that, but I think betting on something else to do what Bitcoin has done is, is probably unrealistic. I think there's other avenues and I think one of those other avenues that can be drawn on is a network that is not simply doing it off of social consensus, but is providing real value to the world. So as we move into a world where things actually get tokenized, it if there is a network that can, let's say, handle 10% of all digital swaps or 10% of all cross margining or 10% of DeFi, right. I think those tokens can reinvent a new narrative in some kind of utility. But I don't think many other things are going to be able to usurp what Bitcoin has done in terms of that digital sort of collectible and that embodiment of investing in crypto.

[B]

Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. Anyway, I see Gary, we're so, we're

[F]

assuming and I think some of these points are really interesting. But just remember when you do that, all the people with distribution right now, the metas, the visas, the MasterCards, they're going to destroy people trying to build communities. They already have the community, man. They have the trust, they have the kyc, they have the aml. I think you're going to see these. Some of these tokens we haven't talked about it, are going to come under undo competition, the type of competition they haven't even seen yet. These are not token guys. These are people that have millions and millions of users for years and years. To me, that will come first. If you have the distribution, the token will follow. Y' all are suggesting the token's going to invite people into a big party. And I just question that.

[A]

Very interesting take, actually. That's interesting. Then watching, I think there was announcement MasterCard, just what are they called for the stablecoin issuer? Rain. Is that the platform? And I think that they became did an official some sort of partnership with MasterCard which is going to bring, you know, these stablecoin credit cards to a few hundred billion people, 210 countries or something. MasterCard principal member. That's what it's called. And we saw that Visa stablecoin cards have massively exploded as well. So I wonder if Visa goes this route. Eventually, Gary, like Circle, you know, kind of launches their own thing or if they're just going to keep adopting existing stable coins and networks.

[F]

I mean, we, we. They're buying things right now. You just watch these two companies. They're going to buy anything, they're allowed everything and they'll overpay and then they'll shelve it. They'll get rid of the teams. They've done this every time. I've watched them by three dozen companies. I tried to sell one to them

[A]

and

[F]

once they decided they won in the game and I guarantee you they're all over this space. The head of fraud seven years ago, he knew what I was doing around bitcoin. He called me into his office. I said, hey, what do you think of this? He said, dude, this is a monster. He's one of the smartest guys that I value at MasterCard, but I think there's an awful lot of clubs already built. Look like, you know, what is the problem with bitcoin distribution? Man, that is the big. It's the holy grail. It's getting to the last mile. You're trying to beat bank of America, who's been here 50 years

[A]

yeah, I

[F]

think it's going to be a challenge, dude. You know, Black American Express card member, right. For 30 years or something. Look, they can send me a gift, dude. They can send me a nice gift and I become a part of their little tote. Like, I'm going to trust the black American Express token quicker than I am anything other than bitcoin. And that is what the black American Express card is. And your platinum card and the silver card and the black. You know. Right. It's a token, dude.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

By the same, I mean, if it's about community and membership.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

That's the greatest example that there is. Yeah. All right, guys. Hey, we hit 11:15, so. I know. I gotta run. Dave.

[B]

Yeah, I think we. I think we should call it, but. Yeah. Yeah.

[A]

I mean, we actually stayed on like a single. Pretty much a single topic that was very. In the news for an entire show.

[D]

It's incredible.

[B]

Yeah. Well, I think we're just. Just so people know, Scott and I have been talking. We think we really should focus more on. On these sorts of issues inside of crypto than just the latest macro news.

[A]

And who's bombing Smelting town hall.

[B]

Smelting town hall. Yeah. Now the crypto's moving again.

[A]

It makes sense. Yeah.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Well, I mean, there's a lot going on, and we'll.

[B]

We'll try to unpack topics like this, you know, on Wednesday and on Friday,

[F]

but bring back fart coin.

[A]

There it is. Wednesday's topic, the future of fartcoin. All right, everybody. Thank you. See you.

[B]

I think we've reached the perfect conclusion.

[A]

We have by. Go get them, Scott.