Dr. Michael Kollo is joined by David Duong, head of institutional research at Coinbase, to discuss crypto, emerging markets and macroeconomics.
Hi everybody. This is Michael Kollo here for Crypto Cappuccino, and I'm here with David Duong. Joining me. Hi, David.
Hey, Mike, how's it going?
Good. How are you?
Doing pretty well. It's a very warm New York day.
Yeah, right. Well, we are having the opposite problem here in Sydney. It's you know, nine degrees Celsius.
I don't know what that is in Fahrenheit and rainy and miserable, but. It's okay. You gotta have these days as well to appreciate the good stuff. So be before we begin, David love to hear a little bit about your background and what you brought you to this moment in time, because I think you've got a very interesting and very kind of familiar type of background, at least for me and other institutional investors.
Oh, thank you. And thanks for inviting me onto the show. I'm very happy to be here. So a little bit about myself. I've actually spent about 17 years in the TradFi space. Mainly I've been doing research, primarily emerging markets research, and that's pretty relevant because that's really what brought me into the Crypto space.
I really, you know, got to see, for example, as I was head of LatAM FX strategy at HSBC, a lot of these countries dealing with hyperinflation issues of being shut out of capital markets, for example, and really seeing the value of cryptocurrencies in terms of it's diversification principles, permission disabilities.
The fact that it can actually democratize the way people actually do finance and give them access to tools that they don't otherwise have. So for me, that was really like the, pull of cryptocurrencies. And I do think that, you know, being in a position, being in finance, a lot of people are able to at least identify some of the value.
Things like DeFi for example, and how that's trying to transform the fractional reserve banking system that has been around forever. So you know, these are, the things I think were really meaningful as I kind of explored the space.
Yeah, absolutely. And I think it's, very interesting that you go straight into the emerging markets, right?
Because that's the place where macroeconomic policy and macro economics, especially has been playing out in the most volatile way in either direction. I, suppose it kind of, brings me into this kind of question around, do you think that's where some of the biggest applications of this technology could be AKA in systems where,
the central bank or the central institutions are perhaps not that savvy in managing the macro ties and flows. I, say that at the moment, very shy because we just had yesterday a 9% print of inflation in the US. So, you know, in terms of currently pointing fingers, we, probably can't do that too easily, but I, I think more historically, you've certainly seen, you know, macro mismanagement, I suppose, and from back, I don't know, incompetence or fraud or, or just difficulty.
And then from the back of that social unrest and, other kind of social impacts. So do you see kind of blockchain, perhaps being the technology that has the most impact in that space?
Yeah, no, it's funny because I think one of the more common criticisms that people have of cryptocurrencies is that there's no central authority.
I mean, From people who are involved in cryptocurrencies, that's a feature, not a bug. I mean, we, we want decentralization. We want the bad fact that no one can control the space and that if you actually have Bitcoin, you can claim that Bitcoin or if Ether or whatever that, that token may be. But, you know, from the critics perspective, They say, well, what if you need a bailout there's no central bank or no central authority.
That's going to come in and rescue if there's a problem or there's no one who's managing your currency when weekends. and very much we in the cryptocurrency world kind of look at it in the reverse. And we are looking at what's happening with the Euro, for example, what the ECB is doing. And we say, well, you're dealing with the fragmentation of fiscal policy in, in your region.
Which is actually making it really difficult to manage your monetary policy. And it's precisely why, you know or at least one of the reasons why you see actually the Euro weakening at the moment. Now there's other factors, of course, because there's the threat of recession and they're much closer in proximity to some of the geopolitical concerns that are impacting them.
They're deeply embedded in certain, in terms of the inflation risks there All it takes is Russia cutting off Germany from gas supplies and it tips it over into a really damaging recessionary environment. If we're not already there. So I think the fear around that from, you know, a person in my seat is that, well, actually you would like to actually start raising rates, but you can't get rid.
of, you know, the monetization of the debt, because otherwise you're gonna allow spreads in certain countries in terms of the, debt spreads to widen way too far, way too fast. And it starts hurting countries. And you know, you do have to deal. You have to deal with that kind of situation. Now, maybe in the US we're a little bit farther away from there.
You know, we are obviously in a quantity of tightening scenario, we're removing liquidity, but I don't think where you've seen the end of that kind of monetary policy and, you know, the macro credential measures that have opened the door to these kinds of things haven't gone away. So I think that's precisely in an environment that cryptocurrencies actually are quite attractive.
And, I think, that's interesting, cuz cryptos are, many things in one. I always find them interesting. There were some really good presentations at the conference that we met at, which was a Consensus in Texas and some of them more around just simply the transaction ability of digital money.
Right? So the ability to move quicker and more efficiently, From between people and that's really the kind of core value proposition. And then I think there's this other elements about fixing the supply and essentially removing one of the levers of fiscal control or government, or kind of economic control from central banks and institutions.
And I, find that quite interesting, cuz on the one hand you've got central banks around the world now exploring digital currencies who really about the transact ability of these from a, from that perspective that they clearly don't wanna lose control. So it's a their, intention I think, is not to be able to lose control of monetary supply and be able to kind of you know, be constricted with that.
So I'd love to get your thoughts because it feels to me. When people talk about this space, they, they kind of bundle all these things together and, they talk about, well, we need to remove money from governments, trying to control money as a way of controlling our economy, AK you know, printing more money in quantitative supply and so on on, because they're gonna mess it up.
They're gonna mess it up from an inflation perspective. They're gonna mess it up from some other perspective, but obviously they're still having in interest rates under their control, even if they don't have supply on their control, which gives them some amount of, responsibility. But do you, see that this is a kind of a movement, almost like a reaction?
It's not a, not an accident that Bitcoin came into existence in 2009 or the first white paper came to see the light of day in 2009. Technology was there already that this is a kind of a pushback to the centralization government management type model that we've been living in for, you know, whatever, like 13 years now.
Yeah. And, you know, that's absolutely what I was trying to get at, you know, like we saw that the developments that started in 2000. Directly led to the sovereign debt crisis that came only a couple years later. And I think we're very much in the kind, same kind of place right now. Now. Obviously we've had the experience of that situation of global financial crisis.
And, you know, we are, you know, we, as a global economy are, learning to how to, deal with that situation. But certainly the fear of someone coming in, shutting you out. Like kind of keeping you away from markets that has become even more apparent in the last couple of months. And so you're absolutely right.
Like, I think that now, like from a very, you know, thematic kind of standpoint, we look at cryptocurrencies as a solution to those kinds of concerns. I, don't know who the, winner and all this is going to be. I don't know if it's going to be an existing cryptocurrency or existing digital asset, or if it's gonna be a central bank digital currency.
Like, I think it's really hard to say, but it's very clear that the blockchain technology itself. Probably isn't gonna go away over the next couple years. I, think it's here to stay.
Yeah, absolutely. I think there's many different applications of it. It, almost feels to me like if blockchain was a startup, then it kind of started with the stickiest hardest problem, which was kind of money and, currencies.
And I think we were kind of discussing this on earlier podcast that, you know, normally when you're a startup, they tell you to start with the smallest problem. I did kind of the smallest, easiest, most transactive, and then, move up. But I feel like we kind of started straight into the sticky heart of macroeconomics, but there's a whole other side of cryptos.
Right. Which is around more utility based approaches. Right. So kind of, I suppose, a little bit more of the Metaverse and Ft flavor, or indeed some of the other types of flavors where you've got coins that represents value to investors or, they kind of represent value chains. Ultimately, I think there probably will represent economic value as well.
And so the, question I suppose has becomes do, you see that I almost see that the two paths running in parallel will see like a kind of a currency transaction type technology. And I see another one, which just says, okay, maybe we can tokenize and we can move value to be, traded much more readily.
I mean, is that, an area that, that you also think might have legs or, how do you see that relative to the other area?
Yeah. I think that a lot of people have this misconception, that cryptocurrencies were, are still in the area of trying to solve the payments issue. And we've definitely moved way beyond that.
You know, I think that probably at its inception, you know, payments were of course the, big focus, trying to create some sort of digital currency. But, I don't really think that we're there anymore. I, think that what we've seen in terms of DeFi in terms of decentralized social models, until in terms of trying to create NFTs, not just for, you know, profile pictures, but also for music and other assets.
I think all these things are showing that there are now new use cases. That are being developed and, you know, web 3.0 is definitely the, you know, umbrella term that we use for people to actually have access to control over like their, own content. And I think that's hugely substantial going forward because we right now, like give all of that value to big companies like Google and Facebook and other, our Meta and, other places instead of actually being able to retain that for ourselves.
I think these things came from a place of need inside the crypto ecosystem, for example, like borrowing and lending, you know, like you couldn't go to a bank and borrow against your digital assets, if you were hodling your digital assets, if you had faith in those things. So you had to create those tools for yourself.
While lo and behold, we created a new system that actually still works to this day. It's it's a highly transparent. it allows people to borrow from each other. It actually creates markets for themselves. And now we've even seen that people can create liquidity pools and actually be their own market makers.
So I think these things are gonna be very transformative and actually supplant some of the traditional financial system. As we know it.
And then, and so just on that as well, you've obviously seen a lot of, we've obviously seen a lot of collapses and, challenges to that system at the moment, which I think as a community, we've kind of talked about as, a kind of crypto winter, or we've talked about it as, as lessons learned and, lessons improved and so on.
But in terms of that building, I've always found that interesting also coming from a traditional finance background, that when you have these systems built by engineers, there's certain kind of naivity so that are built into the system. Such as, you know, we can make you 20% rate of return just because we can, right.
And. This idea that I think Terra challenge, you know, with, its own kind of version of how they could achieve that didn't quite work. And then you've got a bunch of others, like Celsius and others who have just recently backed by hedge fund kind of risk faking. What do you think are some of the, lessons that we can take away?
Cause I agree. I think the technology is compelling. I, think the way that it's been set up and maybe some of the promises behind it, you talk about transparency, but I don't know where my 20% rate of return is coming from. I mean, how, do you see, I suppose some of these lessons learned and how do you see that new iteration kind of changing.
Yeah. I think that each of these things probably represented its own sort of risk. I mean, Terra, I think was very specific in so far as. It was trying to solve for a problem, mainly with stablecoins, as we know it like Fiat back stablecoin, which, you know, have perhaps some limitations in terms of their ability to grow and supply, because you need to be backed by cash or short term treasuries.
And there's only a finite supply of those things that could actually be used in reserve to actually back them. So that kind of limits its growth. Well Terra's answer to that was U S T, which was an algorithmic back stablecoin, which you could mint ad infinitum except that it didn't have a monetary policy behind it.
Like the, benefit of having a Fiat back stablecoin is you're borrowing the monetary policy from central authority, whether that be the fed or, in that, in the case of U S D C or U S D T for example. But I think that the challenge was that if you don't have any monetary policy in, the case of UST, like you're left wanting and you know, you solve the problem of scalability, but you don't solve the problem of actually having a foundation.
So. I think that was kind of a separate issue in terms of its offering then of like 20% yields that were basically financed by L of G and, other you know, entities like that. For example. Whereas I think what we've seen very recently with Celsius and three hours capital and some of these other entities, I mean, this was a clear case of credit risks, not necessarily crypto risk.
So these are things that we've seen before in the traditional finance space. Like we saw it in the global financial crisis. Like this was an issue of matching short term liabilities with long duration. E-liquid assets and we know what happens. It's very hard to unwind those things, particularly when you know, the, crypto flavor of, allowing them to actually recursively borrow and increase their position size.
Well, that's what really kind of breaks the system. I mean, the one thing that I do see that is, you know, probably universal to both situations is that if these things were done in smaller scale, if they weren't, you know, 200% of the marking cap of Luna, for example, like if it was only 20. 30%. It probably could have been much more sustainable than what we saw.
And I think very similarly, like Celsius you know, in other centralized crypto lenders were just over leveraged. I, think that if they had reasonable, you know, capital ratios you know, market models that actually track the risk properly, we probably wouldn't have been in the position. We were in.
Yeah, it is funny as you were talking, you just kinda reminded me a little bit of the taking it all the way back to things like Glass-Steagall Act, right?
Where you had banking in the US in 1933 being restricted to taking more risky investment banking type trading positions. And a lot of that wisdom came from the fact that banks accepted deposits. But then they had prop trading desks, propriety trading desks, they were running their own risk. And so, you know, the idea was that there was very heavy.
It had to be very heavy risk constraints on those desks. So at no point in time, can the bank say, for example, attract depositor's money. By saying, I'll give you seven, 8% return on your money and then take that money and give it to prop desk to go, can you please make me now 12% outta this money from trading things and then kind of, you know, offer it back as, deposit returns to its customers, because that was seen as, a gross, gross misalignment of risk.
Right? So people were expecting to put in riskless essentially, you know, for their banks to be completely riskless and especially with federal insurance, that, was definitely the reason it was put there. Whereas on the other side, the banks were running incredibly high levels of risk internally.
And, using those risks to, make money, to hopefully pay back both shareholders and their depositors. And I'm guessing that this is kind of what happened in these little institutions that they go and promised. Quite a lot of returns to, people who were staking or kind of making deposits, essentially their digital assets, and then using that money to give it to others who then were taking great risks with that money to generate those returns, leverage returns so that they could meet those obligations.
And so that misalignment, I think, was. I mean, I'm, sure had they just communicated to their clients. Listen, if you deposit your money with us that, you know, we're gonna put into high risk strategy, but if you, win, you get 20%. So that's pretty good. Then I think it would be a very different outcome as well than what probably people thought was that staking or somehow.
You know, basically relatively riskless activity of, putting your digital assets in and, then magically, I don't know some validators or whoever paid you some money or some minus paid you some money for, for having that.
Absolutely. And like, when we're talking about that, there's clearly the liquidity issue that we need to consider.
And It really wasn't thought about like at the time. And I mean, precisely to your point I think a lot of these places, we, people aren't thinking about why we saw the volatility. We saw Post's point. I mean, we, we, we got kind of the first wave of it, which we're like, oh, it's cuz of liquidation and such.
Well true, but also these counterparties that were lending and then like actually be like, you know, taking their money or, or taking those deposits and lending it off to someone else. I mean, these, they were re-hypothecating their, these assets. One of the places they gave money to was ODC desks and they gave to them under collateralized.
Because they either base it on, on chain or off chain data that allowed them to kind of determine their credit profile. But the point of it was that even though it's more capital efficient and you can do it in traditional finance and we do see it in traditional markets, the problem is that in the crypto space, you don't have those cycles like you do inside of Tradify where they say, okay, this is your repayment cycle.
This is when you need to meet your margin calls. Like, instead, they had to actually widen spreads out. They had to actually reduce trade sizes. And so if you're trying to exit your position because things are really volatile and you're kind of dealing with a, massive portfolio, well, that becomes a problem for you.
And that's precisely would add to the volatility we saw over the last couple of weeks.
Yeah. Do you see, that again, back to traditional finance, you certainly see that crises make, you know, change the flavor of executives and leadership and that kind of stuff. Right? So you have 2000 5, 6, 7.
Probably leading up to eight, you've got people in positions of power, CEOs of financial institutions with marketing distribution, sales backgrounds, post 2008, you've got CFOs and head of risks, kind of running the show. And it really kind of changes the risk taking not just the regulation, but the actual culture of people in the industry.
I think changes the level of risk taking. That happens as well. I mean, given, I think with which we, I think through the last boom cycle, probably leading up to November, we kind of reached a, kind of a new high for this, industry. And I also get the sense that we reached a new high in terms of sophistication of people coming into the industry from traditional finance in other areas.
Do you see that this is going to materially change the way their risk is taken in the industry, purely not from regulation, but purely the people working in the industry are gonna be a lot more kind of aware of not just what happened, but also because they're coming from more traditional finance, they've also got the boom and bus cycles that they've been through in their career as well.
Yeah, I think that there's definitely a benefit to having sharing knowledge between a lot of the people in the space who are more tech based or more tech friendly and bringing in the experience of people who. You know, have seen this in finance and understand what the leverage risks were in this situation.
Because again, like I said, like this didn't have anything to do with crypto. I mean, it was, there was a crypto flavor to it, but really the solutions to these things are credit based. So that experience, I think will be invaluable, especially as we, you know, take the, learn the right lessons from this and actually move forward and actually say, you know what?
This is where, you know, the capital ratio should be in this space. This is where the risk modeling needs to be improved. So that I think is going to be really helped by more of the traditional finance people who are coming into the space.
Yeah, completely. And, well, one of the interesting things that I found in, some of those panels and again, in the consensus conference in Austin was some of the institutional investors that came out and said, look, recent volatility and downfalls haven't deterred or appetite for this space.
We remain committed to either investing through B, C PE funds. Into blockchain and blockchain startups and, or we remain committed in actually investing in direct strategies that, are investing in, the assets of this space. Is that what you are, do you still see that, is that what you're seeing or, you know, is that something different?
Yeah, I think we are still seeing that, you know, The second quarter definitely saw some reduction, I think in terms of capital raised by the VC side. So we saw around like 10 billion raised in Q4 2021, 12 billion in Q1, 2022. But then that county came down to around 8 billion in the second quarter.
And in large part, it was because of the volatility that we've been experiencing also because they haven't even deployed the cash from those two rounds yet. I think that a lot of you know, VC firms still are looking to find the right environment to actually deploy that cash. So I think probably in the second half of the year, There is going to be a search for some stability, both in macro markets, as well as in cryptocurrency prices.
And if it starts looking attractive again, and I think we probably have seen some of the worst in the cryptocurrency market already. Probably that's gonna be an opportune time for a lot of these firms to deploy more capital.
I think one of the things that we are seeing certainly is the questions are changing from, tell me about your technology and the potential of the technology to, tell me how to commercialize and monetize the technology.
And so that, I think happens in all risk markets. Maybe the, thing that's a bit different people have also pointed out is that if interest rates stay higher than they were, let's say six, 12 months ago. And even maybe climb a little bit higher than a lot of that cheap money that, VCs and PEs have been enjoying will start to decline as well.
But certainly I, think the nature of it has moved to a different level of let's say maturity where I think the money, at least the stuff that we've seen, the money seeking projects is now looking for businesses is looking for actual businesses that are giving things to demand that exist today, rather than kind of talking about recreating the economy and you know, kind of, I suppose, painting pictures that are going to be around 5, 7, 10 years from now.
Yeah, I think you're right. A lot of these investors are a lot more sophisticated than where they were previously. You know, we've even seen that on our platform where you know, in 2021, for example, a lot of the hedge funds, traditional macro players, like, you know, like the macro real mind guys coming in, started out with just maybe Bitcoin Ether.
And, you know, those were the ones they were comfortable with because they had the market cap because they had the volume, but like more and more, they were willing to go further out the risk curve in the crypto space, if you will. Because they were seeing. You know the value of those projects.
Obviously they're trying to capture more alpha as they kind of go out further along the risk curve, but also because these projects have real value to them in terms of what they're doing. And I think you're right. You know, like some of these things have to do with okay. Like I, understand that you're trying to rebuild a social network using a blockchain.
But, you know, how are you gonna, capture the value? Like what's the revenue stream? I mean, we still are asking questions like that. And they're pertinent. I, think we need to, but certainly the valuation models that we have in the traditional asset space probably don't lend themselves quite as well here.
But I think for the time being, it's, a lot about growth and actually the expansion of, the network itself.
Yeah. And I, agree with that. I think a lot of the, blockchain layer, one type protocols and networks, they're still busy attracting people to them and using them to build stuff.
But I also get the sense. They're very soon going to be, if not already, obviously trying to go into traditional industries and companies and saying, look, use up blockchain internally for your problems, for example. So again, trying to commercialize what they have. Cause so far my, visual around this has been that you've got almost like a imagine, like a big metropolis city, like a cyberpunk type cool city with like things flying around and whatever.
And then you've got this hippie commune outside. Which is going, we're gonna rebuild you better and we're gonna democratize, and we're going to do all these wonderful things because you guys stuffed it all up. And so they're kind of building stuff and there's people, you know, giving them money in oil and whatever to do so, and then at some point, there's this question of, okay, so what, is that bridge back to that other economy going to look like, you know, are you really gonna be able to kind of recreate everything? Are you gonna have to go and, knock on the doors of, of those big buildings and, go and sell your west to them a little bit.
How FinTech happened maybe about 10 years ago, 12 years ago, where they were first coming out and saying, we're gonna take on the banks and we're gonna create new banks and we're gonna reinvent banks. And to some extent, they were able to do some of that in terms of FX and a few other type of operations.
But the banks that were around, you know, 10, 15 years ago are here today. If anything that's happened is they've kind of integrated these technologies into their system. So I think, there's still a version of this world where blockchain becomes integrated. But, I, maybe, my, one of my final, I suppose, points and, just topic areas for you is we were looking at some data from 1992.
So people often say this, this is like 1993. Blockchain is like, Being in 1992 with the internet. And it turns out that if you invested in the NASDAQ in 1992, you would've made money over any period, like after the NASDAQ crash or was before the NASDAQ crash you know, to 99, to 2002 to whatever, because there was such a exponential kind of curve that,
put that buffer into you from 1992 to 19 97, 19 98. That essentially after that, the volatility that came around all of that was fine. Whereas if you came on board in 1998, where it was dead over here, that internet is here and people were kind of really fascinated and the hype cycle was in full swing.
You would've kind of had to wait after the crash of. Of 2000, you would've had to wait maybe four, five years to, really be on par again. So when, you're talking to people and saying, they're asking you, I suppose, asking the community, is this the right time to go back into this asset class or to go back into, you know, investing cause a lot of money.
Would've a lot of people would've you know, invested in cryptos when back end of last year or even the middle of 2000, which, which will still be in the red. I suppose when you say things are gonna stabilize and kind of rise, I'm not, I don't think anybody can time the market very well, but what's your sense, like, because what is your message to them?
Is this a three to five, even 10 year type of holding period type of investment? Or is there something else?
I definitely look at cryptocurrencies as a long duration speculative asset, and you really need to hold it for a long period of time in order to kinda get the value out of. But, you know, to your analogy about the NASDAQ and, you know, I've seen people use like the price of Amazon or the price of Microsoft, and it also assumes that you had perfect knowledge, right?
Like, it, wouldn't say that like, Hey, if I bought Amazon stock at $5 and I held onto it for just two years, I would've been at 60. Well, yeah. But then you, would've also gotten to 2001. where it went back down to six or $7. And would you have been willing to hold onto that position over that entire period of time, knowing that if you just held it up until today, it would be above 2000 or like, you know, getting have, have insane multiple to it.
I mean, it's tough. Like we're human beings. We are capable of actually managing our emotions perfectly or having perfect knowledge about how this, kind of stuff is. But if you're an investor, I would say, if you believe in the technology, if you believe in words, going to go in terms of what the blockchain technology itself represents or what is going to be built on here.
And I look really towards like web 3.0, like to some extent the Metaverse like even tokenization that NFTs are actually proof concept of, for example, if you believe in those things, then find projects that you're interested in. Like, you know, have the faith that you're going to keep your money there. And.
Your investment thesis, change changes, excuse me. Then you can change your investment thereafter, but if it doesn't, then I would say, hold it onto it. And you know, like that should be the way you should be investing in these things. Like you should be trying to trade in and out of the, of it, like this is a long term process.
No, I, completely agree with you. And I think it's, fascinating when you look at any long term asset class in the same way, and you think about, for example, equities and you go, equity risk premium is a long term concept. Nobody tells you to go and buy into things in and out, but when you buy into equities, you buy into the long term economic prosperity of a given country.
For example, hopefully, you know, into the earnings flow. Ironically today, you're probably also buying into the competence of the central bank to manage that economic prosperity on the side as well. And I think if you really look beyond that and you say, what am I really buying into when I'm buying into shares?
Well, you're buying into, let's say a sort of a stable of dividends or kind of, I suppose, a recurring cash flow. And then you're buying into some amount of growth above that. And, what's the source of that growth or the source of that growth typically is innovation and technology. The ability to kind of, you know, adapt and, grow to new industries and, new outcomes, which I think blockchain out of AI, quantum you know, and, a bunch of other technologies in, both agritech or healthcare or whatever, are, all part of that, those drivers of, where their growth is going to come from.
So I think, you know, most people would say that are in this space, that blockchain is in the top three, if not top five, certainly of that. So I think having a thematic almost like growth exposure or growth allocation, is exactly as you described it, you, put it there, you park it, you diversify, cuz you don't know who's gonna be the winner or, for example, like in the early two thousands, you didn't know who was gonna be the next Ford, but you knew it wasn't gonna be a horse
And so that's the only thing you kind of had. So you diversified amongst others and then you leave it in there as, a thematic allocation. So I think that, makes a lot of sense. Well, listen, David, it is been an absolute pleasure having you on and having a chat about this whole area. Look, it is a fascinating area.
I, love the fact that people can like, us in the midst of, you know, tremendous challenges to this space, both in terms of price direction, in terms of some of the failures and whatever that two people like us with traditional finance backgrounds can still sit here and talk about the value of the technology and, what we see as the long term.
Prospect for it to change industries, to reshape, you know, financial systems to, add value in so many different things. And that gives me a great deal of, I suppose, not just hope, but, conviction, it reinforces my conviction that, this, is definitely an interesting space for long term.
Absolutely. And it's been a pleasure being on here. It's been great. Thank you.
Thank you, David.