Aave Governance, Polymarket, and LayerZero’s Zero Chain | Livestream

What's up, guys? Just wanted to let you know about the Block Works Digital Asset Summit, which is back in New York March 24th through 26. We'll have top speakers from leading asset managers, financial institutions, DeFi protocols, crypto companies, and policy makers all under one roof. Think of Black Rockck, Coinbase, Robin Hood, and more. Follow the link in today's show notes to buy tickets, and make sure to use code 0x200 for $200 off at checkout. See you there.

Nothing said on Zerox research is a recommendation to buy or sell securities or tokens. This podcast is for informational purposes only and any views expressed by anyone on the show are solely our opinions, not financial advice. Pokio Ryan and our guests may hold positions in the company's funds or projects discussed.

What's up, guys? Welcome back to another episode of Zerx Research. Today is a very exciting day because I think this is the first time we've had anybody from advisory on with the rest of the analyst folks. Everybody say a warm welcome to Sylvia. Sylvia, how you doing?

I'm doing well, man. Thanks for having me. First time. I'm very excited. Thank you for coming on such short notice. The debacle happened earlier today. So, I wanted to get some I guess prepared opinions as opposed to what I would say I typically do, which is very much like, oh, X party is wrong. Let's just go ahead with it. So, I'm happy you could make the time to come on.

Yeah, for sure. And regarding the other stuff, it's not super prepared, but as I talking older, I'm really happy about this. There are some details that need to be better understood like this is a big investments and it's more than 30% of the treasury so it has a big impact on the runway and what I think it makes sense to do is to stop doing buybacks and cover with the savings these investments in growth.

Yeah. So you get like stable solid runway and you grow as a fintech company. I don't think that revolute Trump and others they do they do buybacks right and a did 35 millions of buybacks something like this in 25 now that the proposal like aligns better all the parties I think buybacks are less than necessary and if revenues from fintech started to come it will be like an example of like an entity that has protocol revenues frontend revenues everything flows into the treasury treasury is controlled by the token.

So I think we are very close to something that even traditional people can invest into and so yeah I'm happy about that and the only thing would be to to take decisions to to manage the treasury so that this is like actually sustainable but overall I think that's great and I don't really understand most of the controversies that every time we get this proposal follow. I think that makes sense.

So I have maybe like before we really really get into it, I'll give a short rundown of what I think the general like process has been. ACI is very very involved like MarkXer is very involved with a DAO. ACI or A Chon initiative was the one that decided or I guess voted for buybacks. They were behind this buyback movement and so far $20 million of a token has been bought back.

One historical criticism not just for a but I guess for like all let's say D5 1.0 protocols has been that there's been and all D5 protocols really is that there's been a significant difference between the lab side and the DAO side in which sometimes the labs benefits more than the DAO side. I think most of the time that's the case. And this is maybe like the third proposal from the big boys I would say like unis swap is a big boy morpho is a big one a is also a big one that's been like we very much want to combine dao and labs to align them and then right everything until here is completely accurate I'm not misrepresenting anything yeah yeah yeah 100%.

The opposite side of what you said which is like combining the two is I guess ACI's criticism of the labs is that not everything that the labs does is constantly public. So they're a bit and the spend is it's it's $50 million. Is that for one year or is that for like five years?

Yeah. So this is a point from already the proposal is this is an annual budget which we're going to try to renew every year and this bring up brings up like another point which is I think a general like lack of it's not a lack it's something I wish to see more a general longer term view.

So like two three years give us the revenue targets the cost target the break even point. So even like without disclosing every costline item just like having an idea of what token holders could expect by starting this process because the worst case scenario is that we we do this and next year there is whatever downturn and the proposal doesn't pass and so you just like throw through money you're just born money without any uh good good outcome. So that would be my my critique to this.

The only thing I would say I think that makes sense and this idea of like because you said we don't want to see costs line by line but a general idea would make sense. I imagine eventually these guys will have to do line by like I think the most common feedback that I've seen and what the the a lab's response has always been like oh like this is just a temperature check we're not posting the full proposal yet has been that well there needs to be like it's a lot of money to ask for and I guess people don't really know what it's going to go towards right like they should be doing some form of I guess more line by line analysis I'm not sure like it's it's generally this is something that I think it's only in crypto because if you do like whatever fund raise and I don't think 25 millions or like the 50 millions is like a big amount for what they want to achieve.

You don't need to do like line by line cost in a time fit. There may be you know the way it works there may be some like expenses that you you need specific approval for but it's in the best interest of everyone that the execution stays like lean and coming up with like cost item for everything I would think will be like an extra super overhead so I don't I don't know if like I'm just a centralization maxi but I believe that you know very like lean execution and I believe to to be able to vote me with my wallet.

So in my case usually you know I like the proposal I buy I don't like it I sell and if the team is doesn't align it's not align with the token there is no reason for me to to buy generally so and here the economics alignment the the holdings the treasury looks like there is an incentive and so I don't as a token holder this is my personal opinion I don't need and want to see line by line I wouldn't look at it uh and detail.

So maybe Sylvia just to dig into the detail here on your viewpoint. It seems like prior conversations around obvious specifically have been this push and pull between obviously token holders the DAO and then the labs team and there's been a difference in terms of okay fund the labs team but then maybe the labs team also captures the revenue streams from some of the products they create. And that's kind of caused attention in the sense that it doesn't make make sense to fund them if then also they get to keep all the money for all the things that they build anyway. It's like they're sort of kind of running away with it versus it seems like this proposal there's an intention to say, okay, fund us, but all the money that a products make then go to the Dow and then the DAO continues to sort of decide how to fund its operations going forward, whether that's paying labs uh or someone else, but probably labs for foreseeable future.

From your POV like that's that's the correct direction forward like you like seeing this general change from labs was kind of doing its thing and where it could was maybe keeping some of the revenue some of the revenue would go to the DAO you think this kind of aligns things more just more generally like streamlines things under one kind of roof yeah yeah no that's true the this is very good and actually I think uh the previous problems were sorry I got some noises some dogs in the background sorry angry dogs give me give me one sec should be better and yeah I was saying yeah this is very very positive and uh it's actually maybe more important than the the founding piece and uh I actually agree with the previous controversy about like the w piece that that would that was like fishy and I didn't like that.

But it's great to see that in a in a few short in a short amount of time the the lab kind of like rebounded and they turned around and they they came up with this new new framework. And I guess it's really hard to do this to to do like every party has this different incentives. So you cannot there is only you can get only to a point like to a point where it's not perfect but you are aligned to the best of your possibilities in 2026 with the regulation we have.

So I think yeah I'm super super supportive of that and I have not seen like any any other voice on this point. So this is like general consensus that this is the first part of the proposal is very good and people are discussing on the numbers basically of like how much you're do we want where do we want to invest like disclosures and the the length of the proposal and so like procedural stuff but the substance is is very good. Yeah I think that makes sense.

And in the proposal, they kind of outlined this new direction for A. So it's a kit, the card. And then there's a few other things. To me, it seems like a really started to focus on their end a bit more. I think like the past two years have been kind of dominated by Moro in terms of mind share. I know like V4 is supposed to come up and it's very exciting.

Yeah. Do you have any like thoughts on that? Do you think A's direction is correct? I know Horizon we lauded it as probably the correct way to approach it internally. I'm not sure if you guys have a different opinion on the advisory side. And just like generally curious if you think these steps that they've outlined that they would take with the 50 million make sense or if there's something else that you would want to want to see them focus on.

Yeah, interesting question. I think the the way I think about it is a is a growing cryptoc protocol and a nent fintech platform and the fintech platform side you have a retail product the lab the app and card and institutional products including RWAS. So they have a lending protocol business which benefits from all of these and they they have they are like starting to get into the the distribution side.

I think this makes a lot of sense because the margins of of lending protocols and lending platforms are generally like low and distribution still tend to be king and capture a lot of fees. Even though lending protocols are like good businesses still with the the tiny markets we have on chain now it's $100 million business so it's very very relevant. I think the the the strategy totally totally makes sense and there is like a wide space.

I'm not sure that this is like more for other players. There is like a strong super strong competitive dynamics. I think it's it's more around the the market is so wide the time is so large and crypto can offer so much more than fintech and we are realizing this. So it's not going to be like an easy go to market or like immediate with immediate success but I generally think this is the right direction.

So I think neo banks will be distribution channel for lending protocols and will like increase the financial freedom of people like around the world. So if they can open the part of the stack it's it's great and I'm supportive of that. I'm Yeah, I agree. I'm curious like what you think about I was so there's this like very popular Gore tweet, right, which is like it seems like you guys just built a lot of open source software so that like Robin Hood and stuff can just take it and use it.

And then I'm curious what you think about like we mentioned Revolute a few times. a Morpho's model right now fits a lot better with a Revolute as opposed to a I think the way that they would want to approach it potentially just because to me morpho feels more customizable and b if they want to do some consumerf facing thing I don't know how well they can compete against I don't know revolute for example or whatever like a Robin Hood cash or something like that and I know I don't know if this you guys spend a lot of time on this on advisories.

So I'm also happy to like Yakob, Shondaanda or Danny if you guys have any thoughts on this as well. But like curious how you think as we've realized that we're not displacing FinTech but Fintex are just going to use us as their back end how much consumer growth we can see in these products like a and morpho and stuff.

Yeah, I think the the thing is a the crypto platform can never think the this up from first principles and so and they can be like months and even years like anticipating like the moves of rail revolut and others. So now like if you think about the the consumer experience of a lending platform as a like supply capital type of experience I think yes this is like very in line with what others can do but I think we are seeing another trend this week uh like borrowing against stocks and borrowing against stocks is impossible for it users around the world even if you are like us and it's accessible only to ways at like institutional uh Bank A cannot see stocks you have in bank B.

If you want a loan, you can use that on your brokerage account. And so this kind of net new consumer experience can can can be like the the playground from for the crypto apps and can be the the wedge to it market share. I don't think the the like the having like a saving product to to make 3 4% with the euro or USDC is very appealing uh tremendously appealing but it's really only a starting point.

So uh that that's my that's my view but uh on the other end I see that the revolutions of this war will there will be like fierce competition like in this segment. Yeah I I think that makes sense. I will say that like that's the first time cuz I think historically composability has been like oh you can take like whatever your Olympus bonds and deposit them into like invectus and then make it work but I think this is the first instance of like I would say composability that I think makes a lot of sense and it's the first time I've seen that feels like we used to talk a lot more about democratization of finance and we don't really talk a lot about it now but what you mentioned I think yeah like you can do I think institutions can do that and also I think in private RIT banking you can borrow on your because you have a very close relationship with your banker but I mean in regular life you just can't borrow on your stocks it's not a very easy experience so I'm very excited about that as well.

I think Danny I don't have any other questions on a unless you have a magical diet tribe that you want to jump into. I don't have a magical diet tribe, but maybe Sylvio if we could talk to so like there is some push back and I heard you mention earlier on that maybe a bunch of it you don't align with maybe some of it you do. Obviously the I think we talked a little bit about the amount of funding like for the year and the difficulties of raising a proposal every single year. There's uncertainty in that but uh Mark Zeller raised he raised four main points that he called out. one was that this is like a bunch of big issues kind of all tied into one proposal and he thought that that doesn't necessarily make sense. Like maybe you should break them up.

I don't know whether that makes sense or doesn't since it's sort of like one broad big strategy. I can kind of see the reasoning there. And then another one he had was full wallet disclosure as well as independent revenue verification. So some about kind of breaking things down and like maybe like I'm curious your takes on a couple of these. So like does would it make more sense to break out each of the pieces here like what the strategy is kind of like how much the funding amount is you know then how the revenue and and the app kind of rollouts roll into that procedure afterwards as well as like do you think there's more transparency required kind of across the board in terms of who owns what?

You know who's voting with which tokens and how how the labs and the DAO are sort of integrated in that way. Yeah. Know these are these are very delicate questions and and there are each of these like has its own like merit and point. I don't know if like I'm not like expert enough on the governance process to know if it makes sense. So like the I think that the path that makes more sense is like to prove this and then like enforce a bit later like some more transparency and some more measures.

These days with platforms like accountable like ZK ZTLS solutions shouldn't be hard to verify revenues of change. So it's all everything is feasible but yeah my worry is that it risks to you know slow down the process. So what I would like to see more is like whether like more trust between these parties so that they can like speed up the process. And yes like apply these transparent measures but it's hard to you know digest everything all at once and it's even maybe it's harder to you know split these big in decisions in many sub decisions.

So I I see again like I see I see the points. I'm not sure about the the disclosure of the wallets uh to be honest. Something that I haven't thought about enough. But I think all this point makes sense, but I don't think these are points that would make me like vote no to to the proposal as is. Right. It's not perfect. But I really would like for this to proceed and to to know that revenues will go to the to the to the to the treasury to the DAO.

And then okay you know I I cannot trust Labs that in the first months in the first year they will will not I don't they will not like hide or consider revenues or do shady things. That's what I want to to think that's my my approach on this. Then over time the accounting procedures the the IR everything will improve and maybe we'll also play a role on that and and things will start to be more transparent so it's like more continuous process. Yeah, I think that go ahead.

Yeah, one one last maybe to round it out on the A discussion is like what what do you think is the ideal end state for a as like an organization? I feel like in this conversation, the way that you're saying like labs and dowo, they don't trust each other. It's almost like you're it'd be like if you're running a company and you had an employee working for you and you're like, I can't trust this employee. He might be committing fraud right now and stealing money from me. So, I need to like safeguard him from doing that, but also let him ship everything for our product.

And I'm curious like it does I mean is the structure just at odds with the success of the protocol? Do you think that they need to like do something more drastic to fully align things or or is there a way out? Yeah, this is um this is a great point and uh I was thinking this morning this is like almost almost like watching something like co-founder like a reality show for co-founder conflict or some like hard situations in companies and so it's just not pleasant as a token holder or like participant in to to see that but it's healthy, right? in some ways it's healthy and I I do not have the answer to to the question. I I don't yeah to be honest I I don't know.

But I think the what what I really would like to to see as a token holder is you know token being front and center regardless of of of the structure and having like full alignment for for whoever is the decision maker and like I also have a as I said like a personal preference for lean governance and like execution focused governance particularly when you want to go like into the more traditional segments. So yeah but I also understand like how important it is to to have a protocol decentralized protocol immutability these kind of principles that make us makes made us grow in the first place.

I think the ideally the end state is to have something that combines all these this protocol these products protocols under the same hut and the tokens benefit from it because all the other scenarios there would be like other tokens or or like more bigger role of the equity and I don't want to see that I think it would like apply a huge huge discount to the token and the equity as well. Great.

So your last question on governance. If you were designing a governance system right now for crypto, a crypto protocol, would you design a general governance principle with a DAO and decentralization or would you not do that like no decentralization or just full decentralization?

Yeah, depending on the product I would go but I would go for no decentralization. and try to you know do something similar to you know the the metad format or something where yeah there are very important powers to token holders there is alignment but the the the execution is like totally centralized and I say this as like someone who previously like founded run startups it's already very hard already So like I I hate to I would hate to have this over to think about.

So I would definitely lean into a more centralized kind of system but with tokens to that represent equity. So uh in some ways but yeah this is my pre preference. I think that makes sense and I think that is where go ahead Sean that you have a take.

Yeah. So do you guys mind if I share my maybe hot take controversial opinion because I feel like this whole thing is like pretty simil like it's pretty simple in what's actually happening. I think if you go back and you understand the relationships that labs and DAO had labs work pretty similar to a service provider in that they basically handle all the development and they needed to come to the DAO for funding. And we saw even earlier back with the proposals like a v4 a 2030 that the budget that the labs outlined was higher than what the DAO was willing to give and in that sense a as a DA was like really strict.

So if you compare it to unis swap foundation that got 150 million for incentives to pay themselves like inflated salaries and there was basically no due diligence done there. compared that to Avi Lab's proposal to like create AV before that the DAO basically said the costs are way too high. And AI labs I think they ended up revising their proposal to a lower amount and working with that. But in my mind they always thought that they have more of an incentive to earn than just this revenue stream from the DAO.

And the first kind of way this played out was with a horizon where they were even considering I think uh launching their own token and airdropping some of that to the DAO. And then the second way this planned out was with them taking some of the front-end fees, right? I think essentially it's a conflict where the labs thinks that the work they do is very valuable. They think that they can get paid more than the than the DAO is willing to give them. And the DAO kind of saw this that labs is trying to pay themselves in addition to the revenue stream that they're getting and they were not okay with this and now it's kind of consolidating and the solution is okay all the revenue is going to go to the token holders but you need to pay us more you need to pay us what they're worth.

So I think in that sense it's like a pretty simple solution to a pretty straightforward problem that labs wanted more than the DA was willing to give them. Well, there isn't a very straightforward solution unless the DAO decides to give them the money though. So, it is still I I think you're right though and I think there is some rightful questioning of like where the money is going. And I think that's just partially because the lab side probably doesn't want to make everything super public, which is fair from them, but also I think the Dow side should have some more. I mean, the ideal scenario here is like a third party auditor probably who just like confirms with each other, but they don't make it public.

I don't know, Sylvia, you probably have a more thought up thought on this, but yeah. Yeah. So what I see in the market is there are a lot of platforms or WA platform for pro that for proofs of reserves or rather like disclosure that there are several solutions. So I don't see a problem there. And by the way I really like the the framing of Shondaanda on the like this view. It's it's really accurate. Very good. Very good.

We're gonna take one more framing from Shondaanda as well and that is specifically on Poly Market. You wrote you Shondaanda, you've been writing about the more interesting stuff within crypto. Not to say that a governance isn't interesting. But Shauna, do you want to kind of talk about your your thesis that you wrote on the newsletter today and then I can grill you on why it's wrong or why it's right?

Yeah, I'd be more than happy to share my poly market newsletter and also why it relates to hyperlquid. And that actually prompted my like research into prediction markets is hyperlquids HIPP4 outcome markets that allows essentially these prediction markets to be listed on Hyperlquid as well. And it started as me just doing napkin maths looking at okay if Hyperliquid were to capture 100% of Poly Market's volumes how much revenue would that actually be? Would it be a significant amount? And the answer was it would be very insignificant. It would be only around a 5% increase. So like 7.5 mil uh a quarter.

And that's pretty surprising, right? When you think about Poly Market and you think that Poly Market is valued around uh nine billion dollars. So my initial kind of the way that I saw it was either Poly Market is overvalued or hyperlid is undervalued. But as I begin to like dig into it, I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. And I think the discussion starts when we consider what is an exchange like what is an exchange monetize? in exchange monetizers buyers and selling buyers and sellers meeting.

It like the takers the retail are paying for instant liquidity and the makers that provide liquidity what they're paying for because they pay fees even though they provide liquidity. They're actually paying for access to flow, right? And the reason you as a market maker want to pay for flow is because that flow can often have inefficiencies in that in it that you can exploit, right? Like let's take the example that somebody is executing on Coinbase and they're buying at a value that's way above the fair market value. You can then sell to that user and hedge your position somewhere else.

So because of that you want to pay for it. But the problem is that hyperlquid in general the flow on hyperlquid is very institutional. It's very fees sensitive and there's not a lot of inefficiencies. PTC as an instrument is one of the most liquid instruments and there's not a lot of edge in being the opposite side to that flow, right? It could be informed flow from arbitrage bots from sophisticated funds. You're not necessarily trading against retail.

So what makes prediction markets so interesting is that they're capturing this fee insensitive retail demand and that is so valuable for market makers that they're willing to pay a huge premium for it. And the example that I wrote about was let's compare Hyperlquid's BTC market and you compare how much edge can you actually get from that versus Poly Market's new instrument which is basically just repackaging options as a gambling instrument like up down uh is is Bitcoin going to go up or down in the next five minutes and anyone sitting on their phone can tap that not understanding that they're buying an option with a fair value and that fair value might be 5 cents and they're paying50 15 cents for it, right?

So, the edge there for market makers is huge. That's why it's way more monetizable and that's why these prediction markets have such high premiums compared to per that have less um that are just more efficient. And in general, the framing is the flow that prediction markets are selling is retail. It's for stuff like sports. It's for stuff like political events that's not fairly priced and if you sell that to market makers, you can charge a much higher premium.

I think I I have two questions. One is at what point does this go away? Because I see that they're onboarding more and more market makers now. So I imagine eventually this is just not as attractive as it probably used to be already. I'm not sure how attractive it is now. The second one is how much does sizing matter in this case? Because from what I've heard some of these pools just impossible to get in and out of. So if you've looked into that, I'd love to hear some of your thoughts, John.

Yeah. So I guess in in terms of how how long is this efficient inefficiency going to last, it depends a lot on who your user is that's trading. If it's an institutional user, it's not going to last long because they're going to wait. They're going to switch to a more sophisticated, more liquid alternative as soon as they can. But for a retail who's trading and thinks that he's paying zero fees, right, because his execution is being harvested, he doesn't understand that he's getting sub-optimal execution.

So, as long as you can take that, charge a premium that market makers are going to pay, the market makers will become more competitive, but they're going to earn as much as they can and still pay the fee, right? So, as long as they can pay the fee and still profit, they're going to they're going to make markets and the exchange is going to profit and the market makers are going to profit and the retail user who's trading is going to lose and and they're not going to understand why.

I have one last thing for you. You said hyperlquid is institutional flow. I think that's not true. Maybe even for BTC or ETH I like compared to what is institutional flow in that case or I guess like what what does institutional flow mean in this? So I'm I'm trying to understand how you define institutional flow because to me like yeah just general let's start with that and then we'll go on.

Yeah. So I guess the way I would define flow is there's as a market maker there two types of flows. There's good flow which is like normally retail driven. It's uninformed and you can profit off of that by exploiting it. And then on the other hand, there's informed flow that's toxic and that those traders probably know something you don't and you do not want to be on the other side of it. I think just in general any platform that has low fees is going to attract institutions.

Like compare that to Coinbase where you pay like 50 basis points. Retail is trading on Coinbase. retail is not trading on hyperlquid to the same extent and also the way you frame your marketing right I think hyperlquid attracted a lot of volume but did they attract a lot of retail users that are going to trade and provide value for market makers to take the other side I think there's a lot less of those on hyperlid than they are on other chains that are like paying for marketing and they're really focusing on the user acquisition I really need to look into this more. My initial gut reaction is that you're wrong, but I also don't want to bring you on the podcast, tell you to explain something, and then say, "Oh, dude, you're [ __ ] wrong." So, I need to look into this and come back to you.

But, um, if anybody has any comments about anything else, I'm more than happy to discuss after the time being, Danny. So, I mean, may maybe I can like defend myself, which is I I could definitely be wrong, and that's one thing. like I'm in the process of writing this report, right? So this this is a bit early. This is just based on my logical understanding of the platforms of Hyperlid of of Coinbase or Robin Hood and who their users are. And my assumption is that the average person executing on Robin Hood and Coinbase with those high fees is much less of an institutional trader than someone trading on Hyperlid.

I I maybe have a push back here. I'll just jump in because I think it's quick. The point that it's less I I guess I don't think the argument follows from the points you make around the fees are X, therefore the traders are Y. I don't think it works. Like if you look at Coinbase's revenue breakdown by retail versus institutional, you'll see they make quite a bit more from the retail consumer, but of course they they can also charge them a higher, you know, spread on a Bitcoin trade. and they know that their institutional, you know, if it's ETFs or other purchasers who are, you know, have to buy at BTC in size, like they know they can't charge them 2% spread on a BTC purchase at 10 billion size.

Like I think that's more just downstream of the fact of the way that sizing and like and like those trades kind of work. So I guess I wouldn't use that as evidence that like Hype or Coinbase are different in this way. Um, I think like the retail activity on Coinbase is probably more reflective of the fact that like they're a big company who's like done Super Bowl ads for five years in a row. Uh, and they have a mobile app that caters to retail users. Which it doesn't mean that Hype, you know, could or could not have retail or institutional traders in in the same breakdown.

Um, I don't No, I I think the probably the bigger problem is that you can go to the revenue statement from Coinbase and say, "Wow, they made this much from institutional traders and they made this much from retail." And you can't do that for really any DeFi product that exists. And that's maybe the harder part is that I think you like you could be right, but um it's going to take a lot more work to find out if you are or not. But maybe you could do that.

Yeah. So, so hopefully you guys will allow me to come on the pod again um in a couple of weeks when the report is out and uh back up my stance and I'll be able to take victory laps. We can time stamp this, play it in the background. Um it'll be a good time. Yeah, I'd be super curious to know like what how much money would they make with this with this business model, right, of selling selling flow and how this compared to the hyper liquid model. and traditional like other models. So yeah, I'm going to wait for the triple sha.

I think maybe the other question I'd have is like you take businesses that are KYCed versus those that are non KYCed. And I I like I would I'd probably lean in your direction that like I would actually believe that there is more retail flow on like a non KYC venue just because of you know regulatory questions. But that it might also be incorrect. Like I don't know it just you could I think you could define institutional in different ways. Like if a fund is happen to trade size non KYC on a DeFi platform then like I don't know we we could mislabel them