Loading summary
Transcript137 lines
- [00:00]
A
Like, just makes me mad to see this just like bullshit narrative that everyone's like, oh, there's this really close competition and everyone's bidding for this thing. If all the validators are kind of like, eh, we all know who's, you know, we're all going to vote for our man. And look again, if this were just framed that way, I like, great, that's totally fine. There are a lot of good reasons why you should give it to a native team. But when it's just kind of when it's theater and no one's willing to call out that it's theater, that's what pisses me off.
- [00:28]
B
Not a dividend.
- [00:29]
C
It's a tale of two point now.
- [00:31]
A
Your losses, someone else's balance sheet.
- [00:33]
D
Generally speaking, airdrops are kind of pointless anyways.
- [00:36]
A
I named trading firms who were very involved. Is the ultimate defi.
- [00:41]
B
Protocols are the antidote to this problem.
- [00:45]
A
Hello everyone. Welcome to the chopping block. Every couple weeks the four of us get together and give the industry insiders perspective on the crypto topics of the day. So quick intros. First we've got Tom the Defi maven and master of memes.
- [00:55]
D
Hello everyone.
- [00:57]
A
Next we've got Robert the crypto connoisseur and czar of Superstate.
- [01:00]
B
Good morning.
- [01:02]
A
Then we've got Tarun the Gigabrain and Grand Poobah at Gauntlet. Hi, I'm Tarun. I'm late. Aloha, aloha. I'm late. And then joining us today we have special guest guy, Emperor at Athena.
- [01:16]
E
Hello everyone.
- [01:17]
A
And I am Aseev, the head hype man at Dragonfly. We are early stage investors in crypto. But I want to caveat that nothing we say here is investment advice, legal advice or even life advice. Please see Chopping Block XYZ for more disclosures. So it has been a drama filled week in Cryptoland and at the cent of this drama. So I thought there was already a lot of drama at the beginning of the week. But now we are here in late portion of the week and the drama has hit kind of almost like 20, 21 levels of drama. So let's talk about some of that drama. And it centers once again around the decentralized exchange. Hyperliquid. So hyperliquid, for those of you who don't know, it's the number one trading venue on Chain Period. One of the largest exchanges in the world at this point. It's top 10 by total trading volume. It makes over a billion dollars a year and hyperliquid decided that they were launch a Hyper liquid native stablecoin. And this Hyper Liquid native stablecoin is going to have a ticker called usdh. Now the way that it was announced is the foundation decided that they were going to create a request for proposals so that anybody could decide that they wanted to take control of the hyperliquid native stablecoin ticker usdh. Now getting the ticker doesn't actually give you any specific rights within hyperliquid. So there's no special trading fees. You don't automatically get all the USDC and the bridge of which there's, there's $5 billion of USDC on the bridge. It doesn't automatically convert into USDH. Ostensibly it's just a ticker among many other tickers. And normally tickers are just auctioned on hyperliquid. There's daily auctions where you can just auction and decide to get a ticker and then be the next thing listed on hyperliquid. But they decided there was going to be a special process for this and it was all going to take place through governance. So the idea would be that all the validators would each signal who they were going to vote for among all the proposers. And after basically yesterday, as of when they were recording this, those validators signaled who they were going to vote for. Those who get locked in and then the voters themselves, which are the stakers, they would have the ability to move their stake. If the validator they were currently staking to was voting for someone they didn't like, they could move it over to somebody else based on who they wanted to win the USCH ticker. Okay, so that's the setup for this whole Bake off, basically the USDH ticker Bake off. So initially it started with the single proposal for this thing being this group called Native Markets. Now Native Markets is led by this guy Max. Max is an early Hyper Liquid, longtime defi player, early Hyper Liquid community member, somebody very well loved and respected in the Hyper Liquid community. And he was working on a startup called Native Markets. And they basically came out within a few hours of the proposal. Coming out with a proposal that we're going to be, we're Native Markets. We're going to do this USDH proposal. And this USDH proposal came out, I believe on Friday. It was last Friday that this USDH proposal was announced by the foundation. Within hours of that they came out with the very first proposal. Then later Paxos was the second player to come in and before you knew it, everybody of any significant size as a stablecoin player, came in with their own proposals.
- [04:24]
B
Except for Circle.
- [04:26]
A
Except for circle. Well, circle kind of had their own little thing.
- [04:29]
B
No, they came out and said, we're not doing this, you know, no, sorry.
- [04:34]
A
They said, we are longtime hyper liquid supporters. We love hyper liquid. And they posted a link to an old blog post.
- [04:41]
B
They said, don't believe the hype. And they said that they were not submitting a proposal.
- [04:45]
A
Right? Yes. But it was a very basically hectic weekend where almost every major stablecoin player in the industry came out with some kind of proposal to become usdh. So that included Athena, of course. You guys are here. We're investors in Athena caveat. So Athena sky, formerly MakerDAO, Agora, Paxos, of course, Paxos ended up teaming up with PayPal. There was bridge was working with native markets. Who else was in the running? There was a bunch of bastion groups. Yeah, that's right, Bastion, Frax and then Agora in which were also investors. And yeah, okay, I think that was all the seven major proposals that were made. And then, you know, people had other people coming in and backing their own proposals and blah, blah, blah. So it was proper bake off. Things got really crazy. And then by Tuesday, Tuesday, Wednesday, it became very clear that native markets was basically winning. And native markets became increasingly clear that native markets was the hyper liquid homegrown hero. And most of the validators that started signaling who they were going to align with signaled they were going to align with native markets. And today we are now pretty far into the signaling. I think almost all the stake has now signaled and native markets is far and away the winner. There's only a few votes respectively for Paxos and for Athena, and Athena has now since withdrawn their proposal for usdh, basically meaning that Paxos is the only other player of any meaningful size. So in proper crypto fashion, it's not just that there was a bake off, There was also a lot of drama about the bake off. So pretty quickly there were a lot of rumors that started to circulate about, hey, did native markets have advanced notice of this whole proposal? Because of course, their proposal came in within hours of the foundation announcing the USDH bake off. Not only that, but their wallet, which they used to say, hey, we're actually ready to deploy on hyperliquid immediately if we win this ticker. Their wallet was funded a few hours before the proposal dropped. Kind of seeming like they sort of put everything into place in order to make this proposal ready. To go on time. And there were rumors that had circulated that I think many people have seen some of those rumors circulating that the USDH ticker was all but promised to native markets or that maybe in some way this RFP was kind of created for them, given that they had deep relationships with the hyper liquid community and that this was sort of expected to be kind of a process that native markets was supposed to win. And then when all these new players came in, these, these proposals started getting better and better and better. So just to give you a sense of it, Paxos, which was the first major proposal that came in after them, Paxos basically promised that they were going to give 90% of the revenue that they made from USDH back to hyper liquid buybacks. And other people started coming in and offering 95%, even 100% of all the revenue. Now, to be clear, part of the reason why this is such a big deal is that there's billions of dollars currently sitting in the bridge of the hyperliquid bridge and all the collateral in hyper liquid is USDC of which right now, ostensibly hyper liquid makes nothing. And so if another stablecoin were to go and claim all the assets that are sitting in the bridge, which to be clear, USCH has not claimed that that would happen, but if that were to happen at some point, that would be hundreds of millions of dollars in yield that is currently going to circle. And so all these proposers came in thinking that that was basically the prize they were competing over billions of dollars in potential circulating supply that they could potentially win by getting the USDH ticker. So fast forward, because I know this is a long winded story, there's now been increasing calls that maybe this was all a little bit of a farce and that actually the expectation from the beginning was that native markets are supposed to win. And things got kind of out of hand when every single major stablecoin player came in with better and better and better proposals. Then I kind of got wrapped into this a little bit in that on Wednesday I sure did. Yes, I sure did. So on Wednesday I had heard from multiple players. First of all, when this all started, I was just kind of watching just like everybody else. But when this stuff got really big and crazy, I started hearing from a bunch of the proposal from the bidders that the validators that they were talking to, because of course the validators ultimately are the ones who signal who they're going to vote for. And then the stakers kind of shift around their money. What I'd heard from the bidders is that the validators were basically kind of locked into the decisions they'd already made and they were all going to go with native markets and that they were not even really seriously considering any of these proposals and that didn't matter how big the coalitions got. So Paxos in the 11th hour brought in Venmo and PayPal into their proposal and that, you know, USDH was going to be integrated into Venmo off ramps. And still the vast majority validators kind of shrugged as, oh well, $20 million.
- [09:46]
D
In incentives to think they're getting paid to get, to get listed.
- [09:50]
A
That's right. That's right. And basically what I was hearing from the bidders, that this is kind of a, this is kind of, this doesn't feel like a serious process. It feels like the validators had a deal or they are just decided or maybe it's because they're friends, right? Or maybe genuinely, truly they believe that the native markets team, despite the fact they're a brand new startup that announced five days ago, obviously they have a stack team, right? So it's not just Max, but also Anish, formerly a paradigm and then MC who was a COO at Uniswap. All fantastic people, very, very capable team. But they have nothing right now. They have no stablecoin, they have no TVL compared to some of the biggest issuers in the industry. And so I noticed this and everybody I spoke to was not willing to talk about it publicly because their perspective was like, look, what's the point? I'm just going to get shredded to bits. And I was like, that seems kind of bullshit. We should at least be able to talk about it if that's what's going on. And so I posted something, I basically said, look, I've been speaking to these bidders. They're basically telling me that they're getting stonewalled by the validators and that this doesn't feel like it's actually a legitimate bidding process. And after I posted that, even more bidders came to me dming me. Of course nobody said anything publicly. Even more bidders DM me and saying, yeah, yes. And we had heard, I think Friday that we'd heard from a validator on Friday when all this stuff started, basically that there was an understanding that this was supposed to go to native markets before any of the other bidders came in, that this was, this was like four native markets. And we'd heard that native markets was pitching, I don't know, months ago, that that's what they were building that they were building the canonical stablecoin on Hyper Liquid. Now all this being said, my posting this has caused the entire hyperliquid community to just fucking crucify me. So they absolutely hate my guts and they basically think I'm a, I don't know, turncoat something. They think I'm a terrible person.
- [11:46]
B
They just think you're a VC shilling your VC bags. Haseeb.
- [11:50]
A
Yes, yes, exactly, exactly. So we are to be clear, investors in Athena, Agora, Frax, we own some Frax, we own some MakerDAO. So absolutely 100% I'm an investor in most of these. Basically today the only remaining player is Paxos. Right? And Paxos overwhelming what I have seen in terms of if just read Twitter comments, not looking at the actual stake weighted votes. If you just read Twitter comments, overwhelmingly people are like, clearly Paxos is the stronger player. Now you can dispute whether or not it makes sense to have the Hyper Liquid native guys. Maybe there's value to that and I think that's a legitimate argument. But what's interesting that just happened today, final innings of the signaling votes. Coming in is cl, who is affiliated with Hyper, I think which is the largest validator. He basically came out and said that look, Paxos good proposal, but I have it on good authority that Paxos is trying to bribe validators. This came in basically 11th hour that there was a claim that Paxos is trying to bribe validators to support the proposal. Hyperliquid. I'm sorry, Paxos immediately said, the CEO of Paxos Labs said absolutely untrue. No evidence of this. If you have receipts, bring them on. No evidence brought. And NCL clarified and said look, I've spoken to people who have confirmed this, but I cannot present evidence because I don't want to de anonymize the people who I've spoken to. But take me at my word, last minute there are claims that Paxos may have bribed validators. There's no evidence of this. Paxos denies it. Nobody's willing to adduce evidence of this. All of this just leaves a sour taste in many, many people's mouths. I will stop there because that's a gigantic brain dump. Guy. Given that you are one of the bidders and you guys recently withdrew your bid as of I believe 10 hours ago. What's been your take on this whole USDH drama?
- [13:45]
E
Yeah, I think hard to start after 14. Well, I think the first thing to say is I think it was a pretty Genius move from Hyperliquid, I think. Has there ever been a better marketing play that's ever existed where you've got basically every single large issuer entity in the space to publicly get up on stage and basically shill you and sort of write about why they think this is an incredible opportunity and all of the sort of growth that they sort of see ahead? So I thought that, that, yeah, I thought that was just incredibly smart, I think, and I hope it came across in the message that I put out today on my tweet. But I think. I think I felt slightly less offended than other bidders who are in the process. I think I understand the fact that there are qualities to the Native markets team that just others didn't bring to the table, which is, we were not here when those guys were in the room in hyperliquid in the very early days and sort of helping them out from the beginning. And I think that that is actually very core to the ethos of what makes hyperliquid very different to centralized exchanges, other projects in the space. And I think the honest feedback that we got was basically, it's evident that you're bringing more to the table, you have more experience, better track record. And I think the upside of what we could bring when it comes to the Athena balance sheet and everything that can be built on HIP3 going forward, I think that that obviously looked quite different, but we were not a native team. And this is actually understandable. If you went to Coinbase or Binance and said, open this up, and any stablecoin can basically just come in and be integrated within your exchange. There are sensitivities to these kind of things because it's very crucial to the functioning of the entire exchange. And so I think we understand the position that you might want a team that is just 100% focused on delivering this one product. They don't have ulterior motives, they don't have other agendas, they don't have other product lines that they might want to push. And you just want a team that you can have a bit more control and I think certainty that they're just going to do that one job. So I think we just accepted that position and just understood that that wasn't the position that we're sitting in. And I think we have ambitions that are much higher than just producing one stablecoin for one exchange. And I would never sign up to doing that with anyone. And so, yeah, I think we just sort of acknowledge that the fit didn't make sense there. But still kind of want to go and do all the things that we described within our proposal.
- [15:58]
A
Well, let's get reactions from the guys. What do you guys think about this whole situation?
- [16:05]
B
So I think it was a Vibes based beauty contest, personally. And I think Native markets had the closest vibes to Hyper Liquid. And I think, Guy, you touched on a bunch of pieces of this, given that they've been operating there for a while. But hyperliquid is kind of like an insurgent blockchain in a lot of ways. Right. Native was the only team that's not venture backed.
- [16:25]
E
So.
- [16:25]
A
Because I've heard conflicting things. I've heard conflicting things, but okay, that's fine.
- [16:30]
B
I could be misled or whatever, but I believe based on speaking to members of the team that they are not venture backed. So I think in this Vibes beauty contest, it's like people on Twitter said it best. It's like, do you want hyper liquid stablecoin brought to you by PayPal, you know, or do you want, you know, an insurgent, very hypernative, specific thing that grew up there and is only there? Right. And so I think I don't know the validators. You know, I'm sure there's like hard economic logic that they're using, but I also think there's a lot of Vibes logic. You know, almost every post ended with the standard tweet ending like Hyper Liquid, period. And so I saw it from afar as a beauty contest, and I think people liked it. Something that fit closer to their image of what hyperliquid was, which is like, it's small insurgent, it's not venture backed. It's like more akin to how Hyper Liquid started in the first place. And that's what we want to.
- [17:26]
A
What's your take?
- [17:28]
C
I mean, I think kind of the. The analogy that maybe will resonate for the Paxos PayPal side is like open contests for build versus buy versus partner work very differently than closed. And I think the tactics are obviously very different. And yeah, I. I feel like the winner was already chosen before. It doesn't make sense. It was. But I do think from a marketing.
- [17:55]
A
Standpoint, you think it was not a. You think it was kind of a.
- [17:57]
C
Well, not, you know, okay. Chosen before the wrong. It was. Yeah, Keynesian beauty contest type of thing. Except the beauty. There was only really one person whose beauty was considered high enough. Whose virtue was considered high enough. You know, like the virtue was already. The virtue is the most important part.
- [18:13]
A
And.
- [18:14]
C
But I think it was like kind of the most Genius. Low, low resource, highest marketing value thing you could ever do. I mean literally, Fortune wrote an article calling it like Crypto's Bachelor. Like I. How like you can't pay for marketing like that. Like that, that is like. You know what I mean? Like it's incredible. And all you were doing is offering a ticker. I could literally just go, you know, back when they were. Especially when they're in, in the beginning Dutch auctioning, whatever tickers you wanted. And then like around the TG post tg, you could have easily gotten most of these tickers at that time. Actually that was like. The other thing that's funny is like they now got reserved later, right?
- [18:56]
B
And just to interject Tarun, I don't know if it's even been clear the ticker is giving them any special rights to like do a hyper liquid stablecoin.
- [19:04]
A
I think they've explicitly said it's not. They've explicitly said this ticker has no special whatsoever.
- [19:09]
B
That's the thing. Everyone's going gaga over a ticker that maybe we're all just like overestimating what it's even for. Again, somebody made hyper liquid creating this beauty contest in the first place over a ticker, right?
- [19:23]
A
Yeah, somebody made the point that like look on, on. On NYSE tickers can go for hundreds of millions of dollars. Tickers. Tickers can't be very valuable. So it's not true that it's just a ticker quote unquote in the sense that, oh well, tickers obviously are meaningless. I don't think that's necessarily true. At the same time, I'm also very skeptical of this story that oh, it's just a ticker because of all this process, right? Like if it's, if it's truly just a ticker and there is this like, oh, we were, you know, jk, you know, there's nothing special about this. Then why this special process, right? Why the foundation announcing this doing this weird governance thing where it's not an auction. You cannot pay up and show that you have the highest willingness to pay for the sticker. There's a special process that has never been done before for anything on Hyperlip. Look at Unit, right? Unit runs the spot market markets for Hyper Liquid. There was no rfp. There was no. There wasn't even an auction. It was just. They decided we're going to give it to Shoku.
- [20:18]
B
But couldn't they have done that if, like if there was something that was pre chosen, wouldn't they have just done that? Like why?
- [20:23]
A
So then so then. But the point is that, like, this is clearly not just a ticker, right?
- [20:27]
B
It's a marketing.
- [20:28]
A
So that story of it's just a ticker. So I don't know what it is. That's the, that's the problem is that it's. There's a deep dissonance here because they have said very explicitly, we're not pushing the money in the bridge into usdh, we're not giving you special fees, we're not doing anything. It's just a ticker. It's sort of like what they're saying and what they're doing are sending two very different messages. Otherwise why are people offering such big incentives and tripping over themselves? It's almost as though there's something unspoken here that, yeah, it's just a ticker. It's just a ticker, but we all know it's not just a ticker. But what does that mean?
- [21:03]
D
Yeah, I think certainly there's a path with this. Just like the beachhead, right? It's like it's just a ticker today and then tomorrow you get discounted fees and down the road this gets sort of coalesced down and kind of like frankly, BUSD started the same way, where it's like, oh, it's busd. And then it's like, oh, actually this is going to be really discounted and oh, actually if you want to withdraw, you're going to swap into busd. And it's like you can kind of close in the walls a little bit. But obviously this is the most palatable thing to start. It's just a ticker. But yeah, I mean, I agree the fact pattern is silly, right? Which is clearly. This was kind of known in advance again, which is fine. I think that's kind of the weird thing is there's a distance between hyperliquid is decentralized and it's this open sort of process or no, it's not. And frankly, even the Paxos validator thing, bribing, even if it's not true, or even if it were true, which maybe it isn't, if you can't build a governance process that can withstand extra protocol bribes, you did a bad job. It's bad governance. This is kind of what the entire industry has been working on for the past two decades, is how to build good governance and consensus and you're like, oh, if someone offered a few million dollars to a validator, the whole system doesn't work. I'm like, well, that's a shitty system. You should have Fixed that from the beginning. So I think that's the whole point is it's like it's not really that decentralized. There's kind of this bigger administrative force on it which is okay, it's still an early stage startup. You don't want sort of product design and product decisions made by consensus. So that's kind of the thing that I think has left like a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths. Like the kind of two facedness.
- [22:29]
C
We have someone here who bid in this auction, so they must have had a private valuation that was greater than or equal to the value of the ticker.
- [22:38]
A
So Guy, what do you think the ticker was worth?
- [22:43]
E
I'll need an Excel sheet to give you like a proper answer to that.
- [22:46]
A
But I think give me a Vibes based valuation.
- [22:49]
E
I think the way to think about framing it is basically you know that the relationship between Circle and hyperliquid is not where hyperliquid want it to be, I. E. They would want more of that income that's sitting there and they would likely want more control over the bridge and USDC sitting there for like a tail risk event, right? If there's a hack within the multisig, you don't want to be relying on Circle to be able to freeze, reissue all those different pieces. So I think there's actually a huge amount of sensitivity of the USDC that's sitting there from like lost income, but then also tail risk that sits within the whole of hyperliquid because of that. So even if you did believe that USDH was just a ticker, there is some probability that they would be wanting to use this as leverage against Circle to negotiate something that's better, better on the other side. And in the event that they don't, there is a scenario in which they could actually just pick up the usdc, throw it all into USDH and redenominate the entire exchange. If you did get into that scenario where you're redenominating the entire exchange, that's incredibly valuable because it's sitting at five and a half now. I think most people within the space think that number's going 10, 15, 20 billion as this thing continues to grow through the years. And that's an incredibly valuable income stream that sort of sits within there. So I think the reason that you saw the force of proposals that came through as strongly as they did is that it was almost costless to put a bid in the EV of what I've just described to you. There is actually extremely positive. Even if you think that the probability of them just jamming all of the USDC into that is low. But also the cost of putting a proposal forward was just a weekend's work, basically pulling together a discord post. So there wasn't really an upfront cost to do it. But the tail EV of that stream of income, I think, is actually pretty valuable.
- [24:30]
A
Yeah, no, that makes sense. And it's a very good point about control being another element of why having a native stablecoin is attractive beyond just the economics. And look, at the end of the day, I very much agree with Tom is that this feels like something that Hyperlicate should have just done it, should have just did it the way they did with Shoku, because, yeah, it's a startup, it's an exchange. Why would an exchange be run by committee? People on hyperlook would talk all the time about how Jeff is this benevolent dictator. He's obviously a great entrepreneur, he knows how to build an amazing exchange. And like most of the product side of Hyperliquid is Jeff and the team. Right. That's why it's so good. That's why it's been so successful. So them just picking somebody, like, I would be fully supportive of that, of them just like picking. And yeah, we're going to work with these guys and they're going to build our native stablecoin.
- [25:13]
E
Yeah, I think that's fine. But I guess the question is how much, like, negotiating leverage do you have with USDC if you've like handpicked a team that he doesn't know, no one sort of heard of until now?
- [25:22]
A
That's a very good point, actually, because.
- [25:25]
E
When you put in the entire space, then you go to Jeremy and you're like, well, you can read it for yourself in the forum and you've got everyone else who's competing with you there. So I think it just makes his negotiating leverage with Circle fundamentally completely different in that scenario.
- [25:40]
A
That's an excellent point. If you think that what's going on? Is he sitting down with Jeremy Allaire while all this is going on? And he's like, look, motherfucker, I've got the entire industry on all fours begging for my stablecoin, you better cut me a deal. There's no way I'm getting zero. All these other guys are getting 50, 50 or even a majority of the yield and hyperliquid is getting zero. No way. I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future we see that basically the USDC and the bridge, a big part of the Float starts going to hype buybacks or something like this. Because obviously, in a way that is kind of just an ideal outcome, is that no one has to do anything and you don't have to push the users, you don't have to get liquidity on a new asset. All that stuff is costly and difficult. And so if you assume that that was the master plan, is just like, let's get this big bake off as a way of showing leverage to circle. That makes perfect sense. Here's the thing that really bothered me about this whole process is that the way that it was framed is an rfp. It was not a request for teams, it was a request for proposals. And a request for proposals is basically saying, look, service providers, assemble. Bring me your best proposal and I will evaluate it. If the call was, hey, startups, we only want hyper liquid native teams. If you're a hyper liquid native team, assemble a startup and come bid and we'll decide who to give it to. Right now, native markets is the best that we've seen. But if there's a better one, show your face. I think it's implausible that there could be a better team in the span of five days. Obviously this is a very short rfp. You have five days. Nobody's going to come up with a startup that's better than Max and MC and they've partnered with Bridge and blah blah, blah. Obviously they had everything in place. There's no way they're going to lose that. But if that's what they wanted, they should have asked for that. If what they wanted was I want service providers to come and bid, that's the way that it was framed. But then every single service provider is basically told, you're not hyper liquid native enough. Well, obviously they're service providers. What service provider is going to be hyper liquid native from day one? That's a set of zero. You know, all the service providers, you know, none of them are hyper liquid native from day one. So it's sort of like, look, if you built a criteria that excluded everybody, you're asking for, it just kind of feels like, okay, I mean, this was the thing everyone was talking about, right? And to me, it just makes me mad to see this just like bullshit narrative that everyone's like, oh, there's this really close competition and everyone's bidding for this thing. If all the validators are kind of like, we all know we're all going to vote for our man. And look, again, if this were just framed that way, great, that's totally Fine. There are a lot of good reasons why you should give it to a Native team. But when it's just kind of when it's. When it's theater and no one's willing to call out that it's theater, that's what pisses me off.
- [28:22]
C
I don't know. Don't we learn this lesson every cycle? Like, I feel like we do the same multiple times. Like what? Like, of course, at this point, who cares? It's just that this one was. This one reached mainstream news outlets. To me, that was big. It's really big. Delta.
- [28:39]
A
Exactly, exactly, exactly. And look, I just have, like, a constitutional distaste for this kind of thing happening in front of everybody, because almost everybody I know who's deeply connected has heard this shit. Nobody knows. It's not in your telegram chats and in your. Whatever that's heard, like, oh, yeah, Native Market is going to win. Everybody kind of knows, right? And people can see it played out on Polymarket. So I posted the Polymarket in my tweet that the moment that ever since the beginning, Native Markets has been at the top. Even before anybody started signaling Native Markets is at the top, people were talking about, oh, Paxos is so strong. Athena's proposal. Proposal is amazing. These guys are doing, you know, they're giving back more of the money. They're bigger issuers. They have more distribution, they have other advantages. But for the entire time, Native Markets has been on top. And why.
- [29:26]
E
Yeah, I was just going to correct, like, when Athena put out our proposal. We did. I think we're, like, twice the odds.
- [29:31]
A
I pointed that out for, like, about an hour. The moment that you guys launched a proposal, Athena was number one, 70% to win, and within an hour, it cratered. Okay, now, within an hour, nobody signaled within an hour how many people even read that.
- [29:45]
B
Also, the market on polymarket was, like $12,000 or something. Like, the slippage was, like, absurd.
- [29:50]
A
No, no, no. It was hundreds of thousands of dollars. Oh, sorry. The total volume. Total volume is in the hundreds of thousands. Yeah. The liquidity was not that big.
- [29:56]
B
Someone moving, like, a $500 trade would move the price, like, 30%. I mean, it was nothing.
- [30:01]
A
Sure, fine. Now there's a lot more liquidity on that market. But, yes, but long story short, the point. I mean, yeah, that's fine, but it is the only indicative measure we have of what people who actually know shit think is going to happen. And the answer is that very quickly, people realize, yeah, Athena's not going to win. Paxos, not going to Win. Even when Paxos came out saying we have just partnered with PayPal, Paxos still never got above 50% which means that people kind of knew that they were going to lose. That native market is going to win. Now look, I could be over reading into this, but it's just one of these things. Like so many people I've spoken to are like, yeah, this is what. Yes, you're right, we can't talk about this publicly. But yes, you're right.
- [30:41]
C
This is like the first episode that we've had in a while where I have like zero epsilon emotion. I have like zero emotion to the situation. Usually you get infinite emotion.
- [30:52]
A
It's like, well, I was in the crosshairs.
- [30:54]
C
Like a tale of two. Tale of two.
- [30:56]
B
Yeah. Haseeb's dealing with the fallout from Twitter on this one.
- [31:02]
A
Look, I, I'm, I. Here's what I was thinking as well, is like, look, what's the point of having a platform if you don't use it to do the shit that no one else is willing to do? Which is just like, call a spade is paid. That's like, it sucks to have everybody dunking on you and being like, oh, you piece of shit. How could you like spread these rumors, blah blah blah. But it's just like, yeah, you VC asshole, blah blah blah. And it's like, okay, yeah, fine, if you don't like me because I'm a vc, cool. But to my mind, the reason why you have a platform is to say unpopular things at least once in a while. So anyway, now I feel like I'm a little bit vindicated, but the hyper liquid people all still hate me. But after seeing all the stuff in the 11th hour with Paxos, which, look, I don't want to reiterate this very clearly. I think that hyperliquid probably did the right thing and that this thing probably just exploded way bigger than it was supposed to be. I don't think they expected this bake off to get this big. I think that's why they so short.
- [31:57]
B
I think it's 4D chess.
- [32:00]
A
If you did five day. No, no, no. If you do five day RFP on a Friday that ends on a Wednesday, you are not doing it to maximize the number of proposals, period. You cannot convince me that that's not true. That's ridiculous. Obviously, like every other RFP I've ever seen, that was really seriously trying to get a lot of proposals. It's like a fucking. It's like weeks, right? I know, but why would you launch an RFP on a Friday, but it also and end on a Wednesday.
- [32:23]
B
To Guy's credit, to Agora's credit, to Frax's credit. Okay. People put together remarkable proposals in like 24 hours. Okay. Like, I can't even imagine the hard work going on behind the scenes, okay. Because like people jumped off the couch to do incredibly well thought out, well crafted proposals.
- [32:43]
A
Okay, Totally.
- [32:44]
B
And like the five day thing, it could have been 30 days and I think we would have gotten probably the same teams, give or take. Like, how many other high quality teams are there that like could have competed for this? Not that many. Right. We got the teams that would have been.
- [32:59]
A
You really don't think they could have gotten more resources?
- [33:03]
B
You would have seen like a Bank of America proposal.
- [33:05]
C
How many other people are you expecting a bid here? Like, that's literally.
- [33:10]
A
Paxos and PayPal just partnered up yesterday. So the difference between three days and four days and five days is clearly significant. If in the last day one of the proposals brought in a public company.
- [33:21]
B
I know, but I had the same vibes based reaction that people on Twitter did, which was like, ew, PayPal chain hyper liquid is the exact opposite.
- [33:29]
A
To be clear, every vote that I saw on Twitter was like, Paxos is now in the lead right now look, if you look at the validators the way the validator. Because they all drew little matrices of like, oh, this many points for this, this many points for that, and every single one of them, there's some crazy gymnastics they do of like alignment. 37.5 points for alignment. And like, oh, native markets wins, by the way.
- [33:53]
B
By the way, I'm saying this though. I don't own any hype. I own ena. I own Fresh.
- [33:58]
A
We own hype. We own hype. We're. We're bullish hype. We think Hyper Liquid is great.
- [34:04]
B
Yeah.
- [34:05]
A
Yeah. Okay.
- [34:06]
B
I think it's genius. I think they made the entire thing.
- [34:09]
C
About this entire episode is Haseeb is more emotional than the person who put together a bid.
- [34:18]
A
I think guys is probably more exhausted than I am. I think that's what that is, right? Exactly. He was up. He was up all weekend working on the fucking proposal.
- [34:24]
C
But I think he wrote out a like, long, thoughtful post about remnants of being a governance operator instead of being a stock operator. And then he said it was over, where he was ready to litigate this. As if there's like, look, somebody's gotta.
- [34:41]
A
Somebody got to be the voice of the people on this one. And yeah, sometimes that's just how the Cards play.
- [34:48]
C
So anyway, so you're saying you want combat with who? Like, are you volunteering yourself?
- [34:58]
A
The Native Markets team is very, very good. They also stayed above the fray in a very respectable way. And to be clear, I think the way this all started was basically innocuous. I've seen it a kajillion times. I mean, all of us are VCs. We've all seen portfolio companies run something through govern and it just goes through because, like, nobody fucking. Yeah, because like, nobody cares. It's just, you know, project doing governance. So this kind of expecting a rubber stamp through governance is very normal. There's nothing malicious or weird about that. Right. What made it weird was all of the biggest companies in the space, like, bringing out the big guns and not being able to pull the brakes and say, oh shit, we were planning to just be a cakewalk for Native Markets. And now maybe we need to reconsider that because these proposals are really economically serious and I think it happened on some level. There were about four validators, all of them relatively small, that did vote for non native markets. But Native Markets already is above 50%. They're going to win. There's no question they're going to win. They're like 97% or something on polymarket at this point. So congratulations to Native Market. Wish them all the best. But I think the level of drama around this could have been avoided with a better process. I think you could have gotten all the pageantry without the drama. I think that was very possible.
- [36:17]
B
But I actually think the process, if you're looking at it from the perspective of hype, was maybe the perfect process. Again, like, hype is up. The community is so happy. This has driven so much attention. It's brought everyone out of the woodwork. It's put the world's biggest spotlight on the fact that they're going to do a stablecoin at the guy's point. Maybe it helps them negotiate more aggressively or whatever against Circle. Like, it's given them so much of a tailwind for like hyper liquid stablecoin stuff that this wasn't a conversation a week ago and now it's the conversation. Like, so just kudos to them. Like, it.
- [36:57]
D
I think it was a success.
- [36:58]
A
Look, and if, if in fact there's a negotiation with Circle, then this whole thing was a masterstroke regardless of.
- [37:04]
B
I say 4D chess.
- [37:05]
C
Okay, look, as, as, as a Hype token holder, I'm ecstatic to see the price go up. What am I supposed to say beyond that?
- [37:14]
A
Yeah, I mean, look, I will also say this out of like again, having seen a kajillion projects do a kajillion governance, big gigantic things. It's never 40 chess. Like it's, it's just never 40 chess. It's always like we had a good idea, some crazy shit happened and we made the best of it. That's, that's always the answer in. That's how I play chess.
- [37:33]
B
It's like one day. Yeah.
- [37:38]
A
Yeah, you're literally just moving a pawn down the thing. That's literally 1D chess. Sick. Very good. Well, so this also connects to one of the other stories meta narratives going on which is I think HyperLiquid and the USDH Auction Bake off has galvanized this idea of hey, maybe there should be more ecosystems doing something like this. So guy, Athena recently announced this partnership with Mega Eth, which is also a Dragonfly portfolio company, that they're doing their own native stablecoin USDM that's going to be backed by Athena and then recently Mert, who's very deep in the Solana world. Mert and I was like hey, looking at what's going on with Solana, why doesn't, why doesn't. Looking at what's happening with Hyper Liquid, why doesn't Solana have its own native stablecoin? You know right now USDC is dominant on Solana. We're not getting anything for that. There's billions of dollars on Solana. Why don't we have you know, USD Manlet, he called it. Manlet is the term for Solana Bros. You know, people love Solana. Why don't we have like Manlet coin and Manlet Coin is enshrined or maybe not enshri to just burn Sol and we get it into all the protocols and why don't we do the same thing that they're doing? So it seems like there's all of a sudden a vibe shift that this strategy that hyperliquid's doing. Why just Hyper Liquid? Why not more people? Curious to get your guys thoughts on if this is just a new shift in the meta, that just means that issuers are not going to be able to get a free lunch of keeping assets on chain passively.
- [39:01]
B
Well, I think over time what this does is if you have more Hyper Liquid bake offs like this, like the outcome for Hyper Liquid is all of the upside of this goes to Hyper Liquid. And this is such a flip from the way stablecoins work today, which is 100% of the benefits go to Circle and 0% of the benefits go to hyper liquid. They literally flip this from like 0100 to 100 0.
- [39:21]
A
Okay, hold on. To be clear, this is pretty normal for exchanges, right? So like USDC has deals with exchanges, totally.
- [39:28]
B
Like Binance USD was literally this, right? It was like moving the. The benefit of it to Binance the exchange by like trading the stablecoin out for Binance USD, which impact. Totally agree with you. But from a chain perspective, from a bridge perspective, like, I agree. I think this is going to be the norm, which is by having a competitive process, you know, it commodifies everyone competing in it, right? It turns them into a commodity. And that's great for the one who benefits from this. It's actually bad for the ones participating in the RFP if it becomes too competitive. People are willing to do it for zero economics. And I think if this does become the norm, then I think it's going to lead to just a different equilibrium state. And I'm actually curious to see what the world looks like because it's not necessarily sustainable if everyone's offering to do all the things for these chains for free because it's like, oh my God, it's a huge logo that's not necessarily super sustainable. And so I'm curious to see what this looks like in two years when the first one of these, they have to switch out the service provider or whoever's powering it or how it works because it no longer works. The economics that the chain has grown to.
- [40:39]
A
Well, only the smallest guys were doing it for free. Everybody else had some economics.
- [40:43]
B
I mean, they were razor thin though, anywhere I think even.
- [40:47]
A
Yeah, that's true. They were 10% or 5% or something like this.
- [40:52]
C
The only thing I'd add is all this is doing is hastening what would have happened at 0% interest rates, effectively. So it's like we're just like. It's like we're just speeding up time to like rate cuts. That's like, that's how I view, right? Like in some ways that this would eventually have been the thing issuers would have to grapple with.
- [41:10]
A
Hey, Bullish. Athena.
- [41:12]
E
Yeah, well, I do think there's actually like a downstream impact of this or like second question that pulls out, which is clearly what's happening here, right, Is someone who thinks that they own distribution is just trying to capture more of that distribution, like value to themselves essentially. Like whether it's an exchange, whether it's an app, whether it's a wallet or a chain. They're all basically saying we Think we own the user and you're going to have to pay us to basically get access to them. I do think there's an interesting question though, which is like, if we think of those different layers of, you know, you mentioned Solana, does a pump fund want to do that? So every time that they're putting a dollar into an LP pool that could be money that's actually coming to pump fund, instead of having it locked up with Sol, you could lock up one and a half billion dollars, you know, in the lifetime that pump has been out in dollars, where they're actually just getting an income stream off of that. And then there's a question of like, what about Phantom? Because MetaMask has just done that on ETH. Obviously the end state of what we just described here is an extremely suboptimal user experience, which is like every single fucking layer of everything thinks that they need to have a different sort of token representation of that which breaks liquidity and all those different pieces. So I do think this is direction where things are going and I think actually this week was a perfect confluence of three different pieces all coming together, where the entire space is now taking a step back and going like, is this fundamentally a different direction that we're all going in? And I do think that there are actually very serious questions to ask, like what does this actually look like for the sort of go forward economics of normal fiat backed stablecoin issuers going forward? Because in a sense all of them have just displayed, and this includes the USDTB piece that we put forward, that this is going to be an extremely, extremely difficult business to actually extract a margin going forward. And I think people sort of paint stablecoins in the. I think they've over indexed on Tether essentially as being like the most incredible business that's ever existed. And I think every other fiat stablecoin that's ever come after Tether is definitely not like the best business that's ever existed. And I think we're going to start to slightly see this because how does anyone who's just gone to hyperliquid and sort of put the economics out in the open, how do you ever have that conversation with someone else who you view to be sort of like inferior to hyperliquid and say, well actually I think I should go to like 80 here instead of 95. How do you even have that initial conversation with them when you're pitching them to say, I don't think you're as important as the person who I've just displayed I'm willing to give away all of the economics too. So I don't know. I think normal fearback stablecoin issuance is not going to be as good of a business as people think it is at the moment in a few years time. And I think it sort of just basically converges to an asset management type business where you're taking 10, 15 basis points of AUM and you need to be doing that at $100 billion size for that to be a venture scale outcome.
- [43:50]
A
That is a very deep point that I had not considered that the negotiating power. I mean, one of the reasons why these RFPs, if you think about the Reddit RFP back when they were trying to do their own chain and all this stuff, one of the reasons why these RFPs are generally private and why people prefer them to be private, especially the people bidding in the rfp, is that people don't see their pricing. They don't see like, hey, here's how much I'm willing to give you versus give me. Because this was in the open, it has really impacted the negotiating ability for a lot of these actors when they're doing these private bids. And it's going to make it a lot harder for them to say like, hey, we should go 50, 50 or we should go 30, 70. I get 70, you get 30. Becomes a lot harder once you're like, oh yeah, I'll do 95 to Hyperliquid and keep the 5. Now you can say like, well, Hyperliquid's got 5 billion and da, da, da, da. But that is a very, very good point. And it is also very true that in a way we were talking about this a little bit with the idea that, okay, maybe the hyperliquid is negotiating with circle on the back end. The Kosian kind of optimal outcome is that there's not a different stablecoin on every chain. The optimal outcome is just that you threaten to launch a stablecoin on your chain and you use that threat as leverage against the one stablecoin to get most of the yield, right? So maybe it's circle or tether or whatever. And you say, look, if you don't give me 80% of the yield, I will go this guy and get 90% of the yield. And maybe that hurts me a little bit, but it hurts you a lot more if I go with this unproven player. And once that becomes the norm, maybe that does just totally eat into issuer economics. But for tether, which is actually just used kind of organically as opposed to through these distribution agreements the way that USDC and many of these other stablecoins are.
- [45:32]
B
But even in that state, Right, like looking at it from Circle's perspective, fine. Even if Hyper Liquid negotiates aggressively against Circle, even if every platform does, Right. Those platforms are the marketing for why to have like USDC in the first place. And it's the network effect of like USDC and all of these things. If they're making 20% on the platforms and 100% on the retail or everyone's wallet balances or everything, that's like sitting inside a defi protocol, Right. That can't negotiate against Circle, then it's still in their interest and it's still a good business to give 80% of the platforms that can.
- [46:08]
A
I mean, if the alternative is nothing, then obviously it's in their interest to do it. Like they should sign every deal instead.
- [46:13]
B
Of even if they get zero, it's still possibly in their interest for building a like impenetrable network effect. Honestly, like I can see a model which Circle literally does go to zero or whatever, basically zero cost to run it for everyone. They have to to build out this impenetrable distribution.
- [46:31]
A
Well, the difference, of course, is that Tether is not willing to do that. Right. Tether has famously been unwilling to cut these deals. It's the best business ever made. But part of the reason why they're there is the game theory of Tether doesn't cut deals or Tether doesn't cut deals below some certain level, let's say. And for Circle, there is a cost to them saying, you know what? We'll take zero. That cost is not in that direct deal but in the game theory of the next time that they're in negotiation.it.
- [46:59]
B
Also shows up in their 10Qs and people can analyze exactly what their revenue looks like across everything. And Tether is private, so we don't even know what Tether's doing. Maybe Tether is cutting deals and they've just built a brand that they don't.
- [47:14]
A
We don't know. Tom, what's your take on the end game here?
- [47:17]
D
Yeah, I mean, I think there's actually probably some equilibrium in between. I mean, I guess I think of it a little bit, honestly, like I think of brick and mortar stores in the US that have their own kind of app. Some of them, you have to pre deposit and prepay because they don't want to be paying interchange fees on every transaction. And some of them don't. Some of them are just going to eat that because that's what it takes. And I think for apps to guys point for apps that actually end up having material user distribution and I think also most importantly are not solely used for transfer and payments, but are basically used as like a sync and sort of like as a banking product. They will have a lot of leverage for everyone else that basically doesn't have that. Or stablecoins only enter their sphere for transit purposes and therefore they do need to have be sort of on the same standard, use the same asset as everyone else. They won't have that point of leverage. I think the actually interesting thing that's happened is just the overtone window has opened so much on what an acceptable stablecoin is. I mean, if you remember there was TrueUSD and there was all the FUD around them and there was the DeepG and people have tried to do this in the past and it was either okay, you can't stand up a new stablecoin company or consumers will reject it, or there's a lot of reasons why people see off brand stablecoins and they go eugh. And they don't want to touch it. Now I think people are much, much more open. These things are much more transparent, robust. You don't have this sort of sketchy offshore Deltec bank shit that you had with people thought Tether was going to collapse five years ago and now they're in D.C. so I just think the industry is so much more acceptable to consumers now than it was even a few years ago. And that's why you also see again also to your point, commodification of the different components that go into a stablecoin.
- [48:55]
A
So I guess maybe the end state is that if you're big enough to sort of collectively bargain, or maybe not even collectively, but you think about Solana, right? Solana. What MERT is proposing is a kind of collective bargain, which is that all of Solana kind of comes together. The whole Solana cabal, let's say the big protocols and whatever, all the big guys, they come together and they say if you create soleUSD, which is going to burn SOL using majority of the yield, then we'll incorporate you and we'll just kind of subsidize you or just bake you into the fast lane in our protocols. And if you're big enough, you can use that as a threat to go negotiate with usdc. If you're not big enough or you just have too little flow going through your protocol, then it's like they're not even going to bother talking to you and you get nothing.
- [49:41]
E
Yeah, I think that's right. There's always going to be a clash at some point, even between the whole app chain thesis, or when apps start to outgrow the infrastructure that they're sitting on. Even in the example that you gave there, between Solana and Pump, who do you think should capture the economics there? Let's say you're splitting. How would you actually apportion the economics if the issuer took zero? How would you think about that between Pump and Solana?
- [50:03]
A
You're saying a Solana token ideally would include Pump, but Pump is so big themselves that they're like, hey, why don't we have our own deal? Why should our deposits be used to burn Sol?
- [50:15]
E
Yeah, correct. I don't know. There's whatever five bill of this dollar sitting on Solana, three of it sitting in Pump, and then Solana's saying, this is the stablecoin that we've told you you should use, but we're keeping 100% on five bills. How does that actually work between the apps and the different layers that sort of sit beneath them? And there's always going to be this conflict of who actually owns a user and who perceives themselves to be in a stronger position versus the other.
- [50:41]
A
No, that's also a very good point, which is that there's a principal agent problem all the way down. Is that nominally we talk about, oh, are you hyper liquid aligned? Are you Solana aligned? Are you Ethereum aligned? But the reality is that each individual player is not fully invested in that asset. So if you're on hyperliquid but you have your own token, you have your own project. Yeah, you're hyperliquid aligned, but you're also your own project aligned. And same thing on Solana. All these people own Sol, but they also own their own token. And they're kind of like, well, look, I like Solana, but I'm not running a charity. If you're Drift, let's say you're kind of like, well, it's nice to have Sol USD, but I really want Drift USD because that's going to accrue directly to me. Why should I make this propitiation to Solana? I'm already here, what more do you want from me? So that sounds right, is that hyperliquid as an exchange is a singular entity and can bargain purely for hyper liquid deposits. But that's not really true for a chain. It's maybe true for a chain at the very, very beginning, when the ecosystem is nascent. And all the liquidity is getting seeded in the very, very early days, but Solana is kind of too far gone. I don't know. I don't really see how you could get all those players get adrift and Jupiter and Pomp and all of those people to all say, yes, we all agree that the value accrues to Sol.
- [52:02]
E
Not to us or even to Switch. Right? Because someone can stand up and say that that's what you want, but it's ultimately the users who are holding USDC and USDT in their wallet who actually have to pick that up and then go and change it to something else. So I agree with you. I think the hyperliquid one was a pretty unique case where kind of like all of the value, the app and the chain was all sitting together in one place and actually all the stables were controlled by basically one entity. And so I think your ability to exert the amount that they were able to sort of extract from the stablecoin, I think was like, out of market, basically.
- [52:33]
A
Yeah. I mean, it's analogous to any other exchange.
- [52:36]
C
Yeah. One thing I will say is if I look at a lot of the exchange stablecoins, there's a ton of exchanges whose stablecoins have been quite crappy and haven't grown. Right. They've made them, they've launched them, whatever, but they weren't able to get distribution with them beyond their exchange. So, like, no one who didn't use their exchange held it and then they were just like, kind of trapped in the island. I'm not saying that that will or won't happen here. I'm just saying it's not a riskless endeavor to do this thing. Also, like, you are taking. You are taking a bunch of risk on your users and like, whether they will vote with their feet to go to another exchange. Because it's like annoying to use an onchain app in Solana. Right? Like, like the UX you mentioned, the Cosian thing, the Cos theorem thing of transaction costs have to be included. But bad UX for your users is sort of like a transaction cost you bear on their behalf and if you make it too high, they're not going to stay. Right. And I think you've seen this.
- [53:33]
A
That's why the optimal outcome is just striking a deal with circle. Everyone strikes a deal with circle as the optimal outcome from a cosium perspective is that there's just one firm and one token that everyone uses as a stablecoin.
- [53:47]
E
I was just going to add, I think on the exchanges as well. It felt like one piece of market microstructure which people didn't pick up on as much, which I think is important here is basically you make liquidity impaired going forward when you try to force your own stablecoin in. Because every market maker basically has to arbitrage between your usdh, now that's sitting on chain, and the USDT denominated pair on Binance, OkX and all these different places. And that's actually a very big reason for why even like FDUSD for example, and Binance sitting at like a bill, like clearly subscale relative to the size of their business. It's because people, you know, HFTs, market makers, all the largest funds, don't want to have to hold something on one exchange, swap it to something else, and then move it to another venue. It's just completely inefficient to have to do that. And the ability to actually quote tight is actually impaired when you have to sort of account for the difference between two different stables on different venues. So I think it does actually like impact liquidity by trying to force us in. And I think ultimately this is actually tether's moat on Binance or why can they extract 5%? It's because the BTC USDT pair on Binance prints them literally billions of dollars at one pair a year. And if you're going to try to rip that up and then build liquidity on a new pair, you run the risk that that's not as liquid as it was before, that liquidity moves over to OKX or Bybit or whatever it is. And then you might have killed the golden goose of your entire business by trying to squeeze 4% out of a stablecoin on the other side. And so I think the rational response is actually saying, fine, you can take your 4% rent because I'm not willing to risk the liquidity of my entire business, which sits on that pair that we built up through the years. So I think that is a bit of a risk when you're trying to force these sort of native stablecoins into exchanges.
- [55:23]
A
Yeah, they're very true. Okay, so we wanted to cover Tempo, which is Stripe and Paradigm's new payments blockchain. But we're kind of out of time. The one thing we.
- [55:33]
C
One thing I'll just say about Tempo before, which is related to his point.
- [55:37]
B
We got to save it for next week.
- [55:38]
C
But yeah, a lot of the L1 stablecoin blockchains have made their value prop, as far as I can tell, in some ways like oh we have very good FX market making. It's like easier to do RFQs for whatever currency in your stable. And I would argue they will have the same network effect problem. But we can talk about that next episode. That I don't think that's enough to bootstrap a stablecoin llan one. I don't know Guy.
- [56:05]
A
Probably we're going to try to get somebody from Tempo to come on so we can chat about it. But we'll, we'll cover Tempo fully in the next show assuming nothing else crazy comes up in the interim. But thank you Guy for coming on, sharing your perspective. Always great to have you. And to all the Hyper Liquid bros who plan to tear me up in the comments. Salute. Love you guys.
- [56:24]
C
Honestly, honestly, it's been fun to watch. As someone who has negative stake. Like I'm just like, oh great. Hype is hype. Weapon.
- [56:31]
D
You're short. You have negative stakes.
- [56:32]
C
No, no, no, no. As I have negative stake in the.
- [56:35]
A
Song nursing for Hyper Liquid bros to tear up now tear up to Rune.
- [56:39]
C
No thanks everybody.
- [56:41]
A
See you all next week.
- [56:42]
E
Thank you everyone.