Hivemind: Will 2026 Be Bullish & Crypto's Token vs Equity Problem

Nothing said on the hive mind is a recommendation to buy or sell securities or tokens. This podcast is strictly for informational purposes only and any views expressed by anyone on the show are solely our own opinions, not financial advice. Hi everyone and welcome to another episode of the Hivemind podcast. The goal of the podcast is to provide an inside look into what we like to call the deli hive mind. Bringing together some of our brightest minds from each of the divisions to share insights, alpha and posts. Today with us we have Cedus for institutional research arm, Jan, managing partner adventures, and Jason who is the head of macro at the at the research arm and a common guest on the on the on the podcast. A lot of stuff to talk about today.

He's an official mainstay now.

Yeah, that's right.

He's official hive minder. All right. I'm sure we'll be bringing Flood back from some for some guest appearances now and then. Um, he he doesn't miss it. he won't miss a chance, especially when we're talking Galaxy or some other one of his bags. Um, cool. So, it's been it's been a good few days. Uh, at the time of recording, we've retraced some of that some of that goodness. So, we're recording at 3:38 um UTC on a on a on a Wednesday and crypto has just started going down uh after after a good few days, which is unfortunate. Um there's a lot of stuff to cover today. There's actually some some real stuff happened since our last episode, but maybe we want to start with with markets. How are people feeling here? There's a lot of bull talk on the timeline yesterday. How are people feeling right now? Maybe maybe Jason, let's start with you. Head of markets.

Yeah. Uh, yeah. Know the start of the year was was kind of nice, right? We we rallied a bit and then the 9:30 New York open seller returned uh again yesterday and and again today to pick up where he left off uh pretty much every day for the last three months, it seems uh heading into the end of the year. So, I mean, I uh I think I think the market kind of maybe got over its skis a little bit when you got like that uh MSCI announcement uh the other day. You saw like a really quick pop. A lot of a lot of people put on some leverage and stuff, you know, the highest point in the last several months. And then like you know, it was a good announcement, but like it's nothing like concrete. It's it's not saying like, you know, strategy is going to be included in the MSEI, which we could talk about more in depth in a bit, I guess, but I I just think like it's more of like a positioning thing. Like, uh, equities still look great for the most part. Um, I just think crypto is still like I I think Q1 will generally be good for crypto. I think you're I think we're going to get a a pretty nice like mean reversion relief rally um at some point in in the first quarter.

I just think there's there's just uh I guess like still a lot of underwater positions that need to be worked through, right? Um I think you're starting to see institutions step back in. Uh ETF flows have been, you know, really, really good the last couple days into the new year, which is something you want to see. You're starting to see trading volumes pick back up on places like lighter and hyperlquid. Open interest is increasing, right? So, um to me, that kind of signals like risk appetite is is starting to make its way back in to to the market. But I still think um I still think, you know, the market is is just obviously relatively weak to to um to Tradfi and and other places where people, you know, want to speculate and stuff.

I'm also looking at, you know, things like Coinbase Premium. like pretty much all of the strong like trends or periods of price action that we've had over the last, you know, 2 years or so have been um on the back of, you know, a a relatively strong Coinbase premium and we still don't really have that. We've we've seen signs of it maybe coming back in the last couple days, but I think we need a little bit, you know, more confirmation. So, like you're starting to see appetite return. I I I'm not sure it's it's fully back enough for like, you know, a long-term rally, but I do think, you know, just oversold mean reversion flows coming back in in the new year um from institutions and, you know, retail risk appetite on on the dexes like we're seeing could lead to like a nice, you know, reversion trade back up towards like 100, maybe a little bit higher and then who knows what happens after that. But like I said, Q1 I'm generally bullish for. I I'm looking to get positioned for a bullish Q1. I took a lot of time off in between Christmas and New Year, so I'm pretty flat on, you know, trades and and positions right now. So, I'm kind of like looking for an opportunity to uh allocate right now.

Yeah. Uh no, I think you had uh if you were to kind of think for a look for a proxy, you'd think of end of 22, right? where you had a rough end of year and so you have your natural tax loss harvesting and a lot of people selling to to to do that and then right afterwards you kind of see those in anticipation of that bidding and so I think you had a repeat of that where you know some of this positioning is long-term some of it is is strictly trade-based um we were chatting earlier it's like you don't love to see equities up and and crypto down because then you you you know it's very uh symptomatic to just crypto itself being weak and and not just a broader market.

Um I think you're you're it probably takes some time where people who are looking to allocate are are waiting to pick their spots and and if certain levels are kind of defended, I think it gives people conviction. So I'm in the same camp where um I think after the rough Q4 things should start to look up in terms of of catalyst as well. you have, you know, uh, JPAL is now on on the clock, right? And so you assume stuff like that gets front run. I think the, um, the Venezuela situation is pretty bullish for that from the perspective of, uh, oil and and input costs and and what that means for inflation. You know, shipping comes down, everything like costs can come down. And I think it's very conducive to a uh, more friendly Fed. um and and the argument gets stronger and and so I think yeah the setup is is pretty bullish for Q1. You assume that you know I think JPAL is is either May or June um ending but but that typically will get front run. So I think the argument is pretty strong for a bullish Q1 and then kind of a reassessment.

Um you still haven't really found a a consistent bidder. I think Sailor's probably going to be out of the market. um you had the MSCI element come through, but I think um you know that was indicative of two things. One, the market isn't that strong because you saw a pump and then a pretty quick retrace on on good news, which you know is typically telling you that the market isn't that strong where you you'd expect for something like that to be more bullish. But then the counter is that it did come with some uh stipulations in terms of what can be purchased and so it wasn't as bullish as it seemed on the surface. So maybe the reaction was actually relatively appropriate and not uh telling you that the market is pretty weak. I think generally, you know, funds receive new capital and deploy beginning of year and then and and just the amount of kind of selling you've seen across the board, uh, I think does set up for a a good bounce, but I'm I'm with Jason where I don't see this being a clear path to all-time highs, but but a clear path to a move higher and then kind of a reassessment.

Yeah. I don't know. I don't know if I have much much to say there. I do think that, you know, in like November and then December of last year, just like the consistent selling we had every day, there was like a lot of um new like long-term conclusions, I guess, people were were coming to with crypto that I was like, I don't know if this is like like with valuations and with like uh you know, how to how to value these things um you know, or like a one token's dead forever stuff like this. I think sometimes like the really strong price moves in one direction can kind of like overshoot some of that stuff in some sense. I do yeah like I do expect Q1 to be good just because of the the mean version and how bad like the end of the year was. You you kind of think that like new year is kind of a clean slate.

Um, and just like even like there I'm sure there was a decent amount of like liquid funds that just shut down or something. Um, so we'll see. Like it was interesting to see the coins that did the best kind of to start the year. It was there's like a lot of stuff that was clear that like nobody wanted to have on their balance sheet to like end the year and then as soon as the new calendar moved over it's like you don't want Farcoin on your on your LP statement at the end of of it's like you can trade you can trade the meme coins between like quarters and stuff right like if you ever want to show it. So it was interesting. You had like a lot of things that got hammered to end the year and do pretty well to start the year. Whereas you had like Zcash actually was kind of weak to start the year, right? It's something that did really well to end the year. And so maybe it was the ver reverse like people waiting until the new year on Zcash take profit and stuff like that. Um but yeah, we'll see.

Today's the first day all year to me that feels like 2025 Q4 again, right? like the first few days did genuinely felt like a little different and like you're you're really skeptical of it, right? But it's like every day you keep getting it. Crypto is such a trending asset class that like the more days in a row you get when it's different, the more likely it's going to like keep continuing, right? So, we'll see like if this day here is just kind of like a one-off thing or if we really do kind of like kill this trend here. But, I don't know. So the overall I guess it's like yeah I just always have the thing is I always just have like a bullish bias in general also because I'm not like a trader right and so I'm not really in the game of like predicting what this quarter does to be straight up and it's like it just feels like there's so many good tailwinds for markets in general. And the only thing that really concerns me is yeah, days like today where equities are all-time highs again and we're back to being bad again, right? And you kind of you kind of hope that most of that was flushed out. That was kind of what I was thinking, right? Like most of that was going to get flushed out by the end of the year and then New Year's kind of like a clean slate, which you saw for the first few days. Um, so yeah, we'll see. I feel like I said a lot without really saying anything there.

How do you feel about everything, Jose, since you've been pretty like bare pill going back to like September, Octoberish or whatever? How are you feeling now that you've had some time to reflect without getting too hammered in the market?

Yeah. Um I I still feel uh yeah like the same thing I felt then, right? I felt like there was a risk of me getting behold, whatever whenever a retreat was. I still kind of feel that. Um you know, at the at the bottom there's always like a reason why it's never going to it's never going to be the same again. Um, and for me the I it's not that I'm like bearish all of crypto, but I don't like for for the first sort of I don't know for since 2017 when I when I entered crypto, I was always just similar to you said I was just like bullish long term and I didn't really care about the short term. I was just going to hold this stuff long term. I didn't really care about FOMC. It was it just seemed up only to me. Um, and for me that I I don't see it that way anymore. Um, like I don't see it as obvious. I think there's certain things in crypto that have clear product market fit and will continue to exist. I think those are all gen generally like pretty well priced. Um, like they're they're I think they'll do well, but they're not like other than something like pump, I guess, which has its own, you know, risks that things are are priced pretty well. And then for the rest, I I just think that the really exciting opportunities that you just like want to hold on to um and watch the growth are are are mostly outside of crypto for me now, which is kind of sucks, but uh cuz cuz crypto's obviously like I love crypto and it's just a lot more interesting than than than the other stuff and a lot more open, but that's kind of how I how I still feel about it.

Yeah. I mean, I I agree with you on a lot of that. Like, you can't just be blindly bullish on crypto. Um, like taking an index type approach doesn't really work still and is actually getting worse if you want to do that. Um, so you really can't be like super passive. You can I guess you could just hold like Bitcoin if you wanted to and then like go about your life. And that's what a lot of people I think do, right? Um, but there's still I don't know. I still think there's like when you're talking about liquid markets with like the big opportunity. Crypto is still that for me. We are going to get some things that do really well. Again, you've had some good liquid stuff recently. Zcash went up like 10x. Betad's went up 10x. Um I don't know what else has um like there there is there are going to be pockets. Um but I do think that um it is I it's just tough like a lot of new stuff still hasn't even had unlocks and it's trading below private valuations. Right.

Yeah. And so on the one hand you can say that the unlocks are going to be less impactful because valuations have already come down so much. Um I don't know somebody had a poll in the in the deli chat and it was like what do you think's going to outperform this year? Bitcoin cryptox Bitcoin uh NASDAQ or other? And I picked crypto X Bitcoin which I guess is a bit uh you picked cryptox Bitcoin. Yeah. How do you define that though? But that's the thing that that's exactly my point. It's like very hard to define because like like I don't know if I I'm like so much of that is ETH, right? And I don't know if he's going to outperform. So you're just saying just like literally market cap of crypto minus BTC. You think? I mean that's what the poll had, but I don't really like that answer per se because like I don't believe that we're ever going back to you know one of those type of markets. But I do just think that like there are going to be some like pretty massive winners this year. The question is like is it going to be like last year where it was really just hyperlquid, right? Like cuz what else really won last year and actually Hyperlquid ended up finishing flat I think year year over I think it's cuz it was all like November December.

The snapshot is all is a big part. Yeah. I mean so what it ted at the end of November 2024, right? But it was like the last big winner, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. last like sustainable winner. Yeah. So, it's like are we going to have more of those this year? Like part of me does think was 2025 just some crazy anomaly in like a bad way or is it that that's like the question I think everyone's trying to answer because it's actually impressive how bad both Bitcoin and crypto did last year considering everything else. And some of that with like you know Bitcoin specifically is that Bitcoin just frontr run a ton of gains after the election to an extent that like other assets didn't and then it kind of spent like the year distributing out. That's the thing is yeah usually these snapshots are really what drive the the comparisons because you like you said you had that big rally end of year 24. But no I guess like the way I would answer that question is like what's the large cap alt that I'm most bullish on? It's still Salana. Do I think at the end of the year Salana will have outperformed Bitcoin? I'll say yes. That's like kind of how I'm viewing the market right now. Um, but we'll see.

Like if it doesn't, then I have a hard time to believe that it would be like Salana, like a specific Salana reason why it didn't. Um, and so it could just be real apathy towards like L1 tokens and just more speculation in general. There's a world where where revenue continues to be what's and like I think it's the likely path where that becomes the overarching thing that people focus more and more on which hurts the L1's helps the apps and so it does create a situation where you have like you know what you're describing but there can still be some solid opportunities. It's just going to be harder to find them. Yeah. Um cuz you don't have the rising tide. You just have the I can beat the hot ball of money. Yeah. And I mean L1 is doing badly hurts a lot of the other stuff too. I do think it could be like I do think we could be entering like a golden age of application investing in crypto. And I don't know if we want to segue this into like the ownership coin stuff, token versus equity models, things of that nature.

Um, yeah, I think though that last year too, by the way, right, we we we kind of thought there was going to be an application golden age, I think. Did we? Yeah. Yeah. Well, the thing is the tokens are still at least. Yeah. I think that like the big change now is this is the first time that we're actually seeing people really fight back against the way tokens are designed. And basically, you know, since tokens don't have any real rights on any of the revenues of the protocol, the only way you could really trust that a token was valuable is if they did buybacks, right? And that's why like Hyperliquid did so well. Hyperlink was just like, "Hey, we're going to con we're going to commit to doing buybacks." And so yes, there was like a lot of structural buying which helped that too, but it was also like a really big signal to the market that like this token is valuable and like we're going to acrew value to it. And I just think that there's there was tokens doing this already, right? Like Hyperlid wasn't the first to do this. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. They weren't the first to do it. A lot of times though, buybacks too, they're like discretionary. They're like a small amount. Um but yeah, I don't know.

We've seen so many just token kind of like rugs over the past few years that it seems pretty clear now that um like lighter is a good example of this where they launched their token out of like their USC Corp and they're doing everything to like acrew value to the token, right? And I think that if you launch a token in in today, it's like you do need a pretty clear strategy for like why your token is not [ __ ] Um, and I think this dual equity token model, like personally, if there's a dual equity token, it's really hard to get behind the token unless it's like super clear that the token's going to be a priority.

Yeah, that's the thing is like you it can exist, but it depends on the way that they coexist. If you have value occurring to both um I think the sum of the parts is is less than if you were to just send it to one of them but less so the equity if if there's no real exit opportunity. I think it's more so the token. So basically if you have value flowing to both no one's really going to want to buy the equity if they have this weird token obligation. Maybe they do and then there's a uh you know some issue with kind of the community after that. So I think it's just a messy situation where you're sending value to an entity that you you can't really get any kind of value from. So I think the the ideal scenario is is sending to token.

I think so like zooming out you need a couple of elements for this to work which you know one there has to be some degree of trust um with the team and you know the tricky part is trust can be lost. So you can go into it with it being there and then you know nefarious things can happen but I I think part of it is that needs to be there which I think you could probably say might be an issue with the design if if if you rely on trust rather than some form of legal or regulatory certainty that you so you don't have to necessarily think about that. Um but in a world where you have this uh the value flowing to the token but the equity basically operating in a way to just encourage value to the token. So it it it's, you know, a cost center. You can I think a popular thing now is is these foundation models, right? Where you basically have a foundation that owns tokens and it can sell those to help with with funding operations.

Um, I do think the whole idea of 50% of the supply going to the community isn't is is going to fall by the wayside a bit more. Um I I I don't think it's necessary and it typically ends or it'll happen but you but you have to pay for it. It's it doesn't just get distributed, right? It'll be like an ICO or something. Yeah, at that point they're investors, right? It's like in rather than incentives because I think in most cases those incentives get gamed and there's always a dual there's always a dual thing structure. There's always like equity and and token, right? It's just how much value gets siphoned both. There's always we used to do SAS, right? But there was just like no legal protection, so people stopped doing them, but there's still like an entity that's paying out salaries and like holding any IP and like there's always a legal entity. It's just like whether that thing will acrue any of the value and like yeah historically and we've been talking about this since 2018 I think when we started talking about this but like historically you always prefer if all the value goes to the token and so the equity entity either like makes money by holding tokens and we kind of saw some of this in back in the day where like Axi raised a bunch into the equity company and the main monetization was like holding tokens plus they like own the IP and there was you know some idea that you could potentially monetize that someday.

Uh, and you've seen a few other situations like that. Um, sometimes you see like the equity company has like different business lines than the token. I think that gets really murky. I think whenever there's any value that basically is split between both like Yan was saying, it gets super murky because shareholders just have like real rights and token holders don't. And and like the often the founders have different ownership in both, right? like sometimes they own more of the equity in the token and so it just misalign things quite a lot. Um and obviously you saw like a bunch of cases back in the day where like equity would capture all the value and the token would uh be used to subsidize that value uh in the expectation of future value capture that never came right like the fantex of the world. um where you know the airdrop subsidized a bunch of trading volume that all went to the equity and then the token was just totally rugged. Um and there's many many such cases.

Um so there's like a few solutions to this. I think people have gotten really creative to Yeah, the SA is obviously one that that that came along to to to fix this. Um but like initially how we thought things would work is that these things would run fully on chain, right? And so there would be no need for an equity like the the the like how we thought about this back in the day was that the equity vehicle will just be one of many organizations that works for this DAO, right? And the DAO will be governed by token holders and all the value flows will go to token holders and everything will be on chain and therefore it's a parameter that the DAO votes on, right? Like the fee switch and stuff like this. But I think when this changes is when you start first of all these things start looking more like startups and more like applications right with websites that that are valuable versus onchain things um and and they have like BD arms and and and all and and like strategic decisions they have to make. I think Dows are like really badly suited to that and have kind of proven to be. And so now you need like a new model, right? A model that gives you more flexibility um that lets you capture value that's not necessarily on chain. um that lets you decide whether you want to distribute it or whether you want to invest in growth. And so I think that's like the context in which like metadal comes into the comes into the fray with this ownership coin and then with the the the coliseum stamp. I don't know. Jason, do you want you want to say anything or maybe Cedus you can introduce the ownership coin stuff?

Yeah, I think the ownership coin stuff is just like metad's new narrative. um you know they still care about decision markets and futur but their main thing right now is is this ICO platform where when you invest in a protocol that's launching on it you the coin is essentially like equity in a sense where it owns the IP it owns the revenue um and so it's very clean and like very aligned from that uh perspective and then Coliseum who's like this Salana incubator VC fund that only does Salana stuff um they released this new legal structure called a stamp and it's a it's like a token agreement for it's it's essentially like a SAF but it's through Metadow. So how does that work exactly? So you invest into this stamp um and then sorry I'm on the site u basically you raise capital you sell the stamp and then instead of being like this safe plus token warrant which is the way it works today there's no equity portion and so when the when the protocol so this way so like a big critique of metadow is that like oh when you go if you ICO on metadow and you're ICOing from day one you have like this liquid token day one and your protocol and it's like do you really want that? Do you want to be a founder who like when you start your protocol you have a liquid token. What the stamp does is it says like hey we're going to be doing a metadow launch in the future but we're going to raise money now and kind of like stay private, right? And so you invest in this stamp and then when the token goes live on metadow it converts to pure token. There's no equity portion. And it's like a very clean this is kind of how you go, right? Um and so right now actually there's the first one. I don't know if they're actually using the stamp, but like Ranger Finance is they're like a per aggregator on Salana along with some other stuff. They're doing their metadow ICO. the first metadow ICO that has previous investors and they're doing the metadata raise and so it'll be a good test to see like if this does a product market fit because like all the metadata raises so far they didn't have prior investors right they just came in and they did the public raise and then they went about their ways but the thing is you still want to raise from VCs right there's like for a lot of teams right like if I was if I was creating my own look if any of us were creating our own product protocol right Would we go directly to retail day one with the liquid token? Would we do that? Like I wouldn't, right? I would probably raise from VCs that could help me out.

Like think about Metadow. Like Metadow itself, they have been fully liquid from day one. Okay. And so anybody could buy Metadow from day one on the public market. Um, which is great. Like I love when everybody has access to something like if totally public if it becomes like totally public unicorn. I think that's like those are those are the outcomes that crypto is like meant for, right? Like totally public. People can do it. But Metadow still has a lot of VCs involved, right? Because like after their token was liquid, they sold OTC to Paradigm. They sold OTC to Coliseum. They've sold to Thea, which is like a liquid fund, right? And think about all the work that like Coliseum's done for Metadata, right? And like Paradigm has done stuff for them, right? like people still want VCs because they can help them in certain ways that they can't necessarily do themselves, but you also want, you know, retail to also get in at like fair prices and everything. You kind of need to like balance all that. Um, so yeah, I don't know. I think that there's just a big there's there's a there's just tons of demand. Like I said before, Lighter token too, right? like lighter is not doing a stamp or an ownership coin or whatever, but they are making it so that they're trying to acrew as much value to the token as they can, right? I think like anything that I think that, you know, we we we always talk about like tokens aren't equities because we don't want them to fall under securities laws, but that doesn't mean that we want tokens to be like [ __ ] and valueless, right? Like what we really want is we want tokens to be equity. We just want them to be like compliant. You want to be able to comply with it, right?

I think that the one thing is that um you have kind of unfortunate uh cash use dynamics for these early startups as a as a product of how the environment thinks about value acrruel where because there is no there there's not a lot of certainty around the fact that value will acrue with to the token for a lot of these projects. These projects are forced to distribute value to the token immediately as a show of yes, we are actually going to do it. When in reality for a lot of these early stage ones, they the logical approach is not to send value back to the token. It's to use proceeds for something more useful to grow the business, right? And and you're kind of forced to to to buy back or yield or whatever it might be because that's the only way you can actually demonstrate certainty around that value acrruel. And and so that's kind of why I was going back to the you know the foundation model as well where you know in an ideal world you uh acrew revenue to a wallet right that that is basically like retained earnings for the company.

The company funds operations initially through the private sales can be VC, it can be on Legion, it can be like you know a mix and uses that to to to grow the business and then over time you have this foundation that's also sitting on a bunch of tokens and they would use the proceeds from that to fund future operations. And so and then at that point after that you you have uh basically this the system where you know the the the company requests you know annual distributions from this wallet uh to fund operations and it's a proposal and and realistically you know from from a governance perspective you're not going to say you know some people will say no but I think the majority of time right the risk is oh we're going to request the community will say no and the and the companies starve realistically sure some people will say no because they'll think it's too high but generally you're you're not going to starve the business of cash and continue to hold the token. You're usually just going to be like, "This is too much. I don't like it. I'm out." And so, you have this reallocation of holders who actually believe in in the way this is happening. But what that means is this value is governed by the token, but it doesn't necessarily need to be returned to the token. You could also implement some kind of mechanisms uh to to actually directly send value to the token, buyback, dividend, whatever it is, and and set thresholds where it can't be paged by the token holders and then then it goes away. There's you can parameterize all of that, but I think that is the is the most effective way to ensure that the the you're not forcing day one distros to the token, but you are basically benefiting to the same degree from a value cruel perspective.

Yeah. Like the from my perspective, the the reason buybacks got so big was to like for your point prove that the token is not valueless. And so if you do have these like ownership coins, you have these uh tokens that are essentially equity that it really negates a big portion of the need for buybacks or distributing dividends or anything. And yeah, because it's the trust thing, right? It's like hyper 99% buyback. So you know all the cash is going to be used for that, right? And and the less you have trust in that, the more discounted these cash flows trade, which is why you have this bizarre phenomenon where like crypto has both the most overvalued assets in the world and like some of the most some of the cheapest on a multiples basis, right? Because people just don't believe the business is durable. They don't believe the cash flows, but like you know, they're like Robbit or or like even Pump or like like insanely cheap for how much money they're they're they're how much cash they're spitting off, right? Um, and so yeah, that's kind of an interesting uh and and and like that's the foundation thing is interesting too because like the the reason that was cool was because it can basically be a transparent vehicle to the token, right? Because foundations can have beneficiaries that aren't necessarily like people or entities. You can have a a beneficiary that is the DAO and all its constituents or the token holders or something like this. So you can have like a legally enforcable uh mandate for the foundation to act in in in in benefit of token holders, which is which is nice, right? Because with a company [ __ ] can can like it's almost like uh the the the law working as intended actually screws you as a as a token holder in many scenarios because the the company's meant to optimize for has fiduciary duties to its shareholders. So that was nice. But then foundations have all sorts of issues, right? They're like extremely bureaucratic and and there's a bunch of 2017 ICO foundations that that are that are like literally family offices, you know, for these people at this point. They have like nine figures in ETH and they've never shipped anything and they're just going to the money is going to be stuck there forever, right? And and like, you know, the their descendants will live on um in in doing this thing like the the Golem guys or whatever. I I don't know. Not to not to call out particular ones. I have no idea what they've built, but like Yeah. Um and and the so this is the the ownership coins is an interesting concept I think like and we need definitely