How To Fix Crypto's Token Dilemma

This episode is brought to you by Sablier, the leading onchain solution for token distribution. You'll hear more about them later on in today's episode. Nothing said on Lightseed is a recommendation to buy or sell any investments or products. This podcast is for informational purposes only, and the views expressed by anyone on the show are solely their opinions, not financial advice or necessarily the views of Blockworks. Our hosts, guests, and the Blockworks team may hold positions in the companies, funds, or projects discussed.

Host: Hey guys, welcome back to another episode of Lightseed. Today I am once again joined by Dan Smith. He made it back for a backto-back appearance as well as our good friend Carlos from the research team. How we doing today, guys?

Dan: Doing well. Back to back and we'll go back to back to back after this.

Host: Baby, we're so back. Fantastic. Thanks for having us. Amazing. I love when Dan locks in another future episode, makes things so easy for me. Got to hold myself accountable to the people and you. That's good. Then I can hold him accountable or threaten him on Twitter.

Host: I guess we talked, Dan and I, we talked last week quite a bit about propm. He said maybe he would have some extra data for me this week. That turned out to be false. Speaking of being held accountable, we're close. We're at the finish line, but I don't want to show something I know isn't right. Holding him accountable. So maybe the back to back toback episode we'll have some more of that data and we'll talk about propm even more but we still wanted to talk about them again today.

Host: I saw Dan just mentioned to me Course One dropped a piece deep dive into into propm some details there some data there and Carlos I know had some ideas here around kind of the changing landscape and market structure of AMMs and dexes on Salana. So I guess I kind of wanted to dig into that. Maybe Carlos if you can kick it off like what do you see is sort of like the shifting tide here for dexes kind of broadly on Salana.

Carlos: Yeah sure. So like just something we reiterated in the past which is like DEX dominance will increasingly bifurcate based on asset maturity right. So on the one hand uh the short tail of assets will be dominated by prop AMMs and on the other hand like the long tail of assets will be dominated by traditional AMM liquidity. Starting from that I think like the winning strategies for both types of de of dexes will differ dramatically like going forward like if you think about prop amm order flow the majority of the order flow for prop amm comes from aggregators and that means they must compete on execution and that necessitates a different strategy from what traditional AMMs need.

Carlos: So I argue that prop amms will greatly benefit from horizontal integration and you can like think about it from Humidify's perspective if you need an example. So, Humidify is developed by the Temporal team or is like the core team behind it. And Temporal also has other products namely Nosami which is a transaction landing service and harmonic which is a block building system that is aiming to compete with JTO. And for Humidify specifically, they benefit greatly from Nosami, which is the transaction landing service because they need to update their oracles many times a second and the transaction ordering really matters to avoid them being picked off by toxic takers. I think Dan can give a little bit more data to that.

Carlos: So for prop AMMs in summary they benefit from horizontal integration like at the infrastructure level and then for traditional AMMs I think what we will see is that vertical integration is a necessary strategy to avoid being obsolete and we already seeing the starting innings of this trend. For instance, we saw Bomb dominate the launchpad sector and then they launched like their own AMM and when they redirected graduated coins towards their own AMM, we saw that radium lost its largest source of of volume and it hasn't recovered ever since.

Carlos: And so I think like the winning traditional AMMs will not be viewed as AMMs at all, but will rather be viewed as token issuance platforms that can take like two main models which is like the high velocity memecoin launchpad that I just mentioned or it can be the ICO platform model which I don't know metadow can be a great example here where you don't think as metadow as a decentralized exchange but the tokens that are launched through metad are monetized through the future keym so what you will have is basically a token issuance layer and then like vertically integrated AMM that monetizes those launches.

Carlos: And the important thing here is that traditional AMMs that do not have this model or do not control the token issuance layer like risk fading into irrelevance and I can think like of Radium and Orca like not to pick on them but like as the main examples of of of the losers of this shift. I'll leave it at at that and open it up for for discussion if you guys have have any push back.

Dan: No, I mean I think generally your thesis is one really interesting and two directionally correct. Even if you look at radium for example I think they're aware of this and have been trying to innovate around that. So when mecoins are hot they experimented quite heavily there. the launch launch lab obviously had the soret with the bonk let's I think it's called let's bonk on the launch lab product and that did quite well for a time of course me and coins have kind of since been less less in the in the limelight but yeah I think I think asset issuance is a very interesting combination and yeah right before the show we were like okay this is exactly what metadow is doing and even when you try to not talk about metadow they always come back into the conversation.

Dan: So that's probably a testament to the the product that they're building over there. And the other interesting thing is the Futarch AM right now is like very vanilla, let's say, like it's as far as the AMM mechanics and that honestly might be exactly the right thing to be doing. But point being there is the the design space is still quite open. So I think they do have the opportunity to experiment a little bit on that side of things, but sort of the simplicity is a bit of the beauty right now as well. on the Oracle side of or sorry the propm side of things.

Dan: Yeah, the Course One piece was great. I think Rafa wrote that so huge shout out to him. Really cool piece to read through and definitely agree with a lot of the findings that they found is is roughly the same that we're seeing on our side. So I'll go ahead and share screen here a minute. Sweet. Sorry. All right, you can flip it on now. So this is one really interesting chart from that. So if you look this basically what this is the yaxis here is the spread in basis points. So this would be a half bip up to 60 bips of spread. Meaning the gap in between the sale and the buy price or the bid and the ask. And say the x-axis here is the size of the purchase. I believe this is in US dollars. So on the far left we've got $1,000 buy. On the far right we've got a a million dollar buy.

Dan: So what this does is shows you the effective spread across these different size buckets. Now one thing to flag here with the methodology is it basically looks for you need a purchase and a sale to occur within the same block. And that's definitely not perfect. The for two reasons really one this under samples. So you not every block is going to have a trade in both directions. And then two it also assumes that the bid and the asks don't change throughout the block. Right? So if you have like a a a purchase at the top of the block and a sale at the bottom of the block, you're assuming that there was no movement of the bid and the ask between those two transactions, which is generally not going to be the case.

Dan: So for the soul USD pair specifically, Humidify updates its it updates its quotes roughly three times per second. So there will likely be multiple Oracle updates per block. So this methodology is not perfect but we do it as well. It's basically the only way to do it with onchain data. And it probably gets you directionally right. Again just it's important to kind of put that lens on it. There is like one level of inaccuracy or mist over this. But generally I think this this would yield directionally similar results if you were looking at this through the lens of you know taking away that that one layer of inaccuracy but overall it shows that Humidify that they quotes the lowest and I I think the volume story kind of tells you they quote the lowest spread and the consistency at which they're doing it is another thing to pay attention to as well and if we look at the Oracle update summary so here you can see these are their they have five soul full USD pairs and four of them are USDC, one of them is USDT.

Dan: And four of the five they update three times per second. You can see the success rate. I think mostly the like success rate has to do with the pricing function. So there's probably some like it's definitely more complex than this, but like if price has changed like the if the current price is at least, you know, x basis points away from the price that I'm trying to update at, then go ahead and change it. There's probably some conditions in there is really my point around why these would fail. So these are still transactions that successfully got to the chain. But they did not execute for some specific reason. Yeah, it's pretty interesting to see how much they pay in fees as well. So they're definitely the outlier. And this is lifetime fees as well. So this USDT pool is fairly new on a relative basis. about these four USDC pools, you know, they're paying paid over a million dollars of transaction fees in Cheeto tips to execute these oracle updates.

Dan: So like I think the one interesting thing to look at is diving into what is like how much money they're making is is ultimately the question, right? It's very easy to do this for traditional AMMs. You just have a like there's a fee that gets emitted in the logs. But when you don't have the effective spread they're charging, I think there's a couple interesting things you can do and we're experimenting with those, making sure we can get something that just makes directional sense. But looking at a couple of these methodologies, it does appear that they are making money. Just the question is how much? And then when you do see the volume chart the way it looks, it's like, okay, well, what is actually driving this?

Dan: So we're we're absolutely diving into that as well. don't have any strong inklings on like why their volume is so aggressive outside of the fact that they are quoting the lowest and therefore every arbitrage is going to not every arbitrage but many arbitrageages are going to run through them. And it's probably opening up some new ways to experiment with some of that arbitrage as well. But overall no it's it's the the thing that jumps out to me is their Oracle update rate. So this three times per second is not consistent with many other propms. It's much faster. And I don't know how I guess I don't know the trade-off space of like why they're updating so frequently when others are not. That's one thing I'm still trying to experiment with as well.

Host: Interesting, great data. and check out that Course One Piece for those maybe that haven't seen it. A lot of good data. and they I think they they dig into kind of the traditional traditional model of quoting assets in trady markets and then compare that to propm which is is good useful context maybe if as you think about kind of the future how things continue to evolve.

Host: I wanted to go back a little bit to Carlos the idea you were making or the thesis you were making about kind of like verticalization of of these dexes. with a lean towards like issuance and maybe the question I'd pose is like is so like the metad has some of that value today. they can monetize that deck because you from what I understand you cannot trade some of those assets like on other venues like the the token is locked into the to the platform decks that they have just due to the specific token contract. Is is that something that's defensible or like do you expect that inevit like at some point eventually you know the tokens sort of break away and then you just have propm like quoting you know futarchy assets lower spreads and they sort of lose the monetization angle. I'm I'm just wondering like does that does that have a durable mode for them as well or does it get taken away?

Carlos: No, I think No, I think I get your question. I think the answer is that for longtail assets specifically, you need consistent launch volume. So what I'd expect is that if you look at for instance the future key AMM like volume and like the revenue that had that metadata has generated, they usually generate the most revenue or the most volume the day one after the ICO, right? So, for instance, with the Ombra ICO, they generated a ton of revenue and they generated a ton of volume, but after like the ICO hype died down, like you you see less and less volume. You see kind of like the same thing with memecoins sort of like to a lesser extent where like newer meme coins get a lot more volume or like newer memecoin pools get a lot more volume like old like 60-day old or like 90-day old memecoin pools, right?

Carlos: So with uh both launchpads and ICO platforms, you need a consistent source of like token launches that are continuously redirecting that to the like vertically integrated AMM so that you can have like a consistent source of volume because you're right like after like I don't know 30 days like I'm making up the number here but like after a certain period of time like you can have that liquidity move to other dexes or you can like or if the assets mature enough eventually maybe prop AMMs can even pick up that volume. Right. So like what I argue is essentially that traditional AMM don't have a defensible mode like as you mentioned and liquidity is largely commoditized. So you have to win on distribution and you have to win by like owning the token issuance layer and giving that like giving a constant stream of of tokens like to your AMM basically so that you can monetize those launches.

Carlos: For instance like with metadal like it's not just the future keym they also have a like an LP position on meteora and they are also generating a ton of revenue from that. But it's very important like in my opinion that if you cannot compete on execution against prop ammms at least compete on distribution so that you can have like a constant stream of of tokens and volume like that you can monetize.

Dan: Yeah I think go ahead I was going to say how do you feel about something like unis swap right? So like traditional AMM, but they built this like more platform style play with Uni V4. And then they're not also competing directly against propm as they don't yet exist on most chains where unis swap exists. Curious if your viewpoint changes at all there or if this is kind of specific to the evolution of Salana market structure.

Carlos: Yeah, great great question. I I actually thought about this. I think this is specific to Salana. I think like if you think about it like Ethereum did a really bad thing for our minds which is like it like predisposed us to think about things from only one from only one like sector. So for instance in Ethereum like everything produce one winner right like a for lending unis swap for dexes like lighter for LSDs like I think salena the problem with salena is that it is incredibly more competitive so it has been rare to see like a durable player win in one sector for a long period of time like if you you think about like any sector there have been like multiple like leaders like go through time so that's one thing And the other thing is that applications on Salena are basically vertically integrated and competing against other sectors.

Carlos: So you can think about like for instance Jupiter is venturing into landing and competing with Camino. Camino is venturing into meta aggregators and competing with Jupiter. So the lines get a lot more blurred, right? And the other thing is like yeah market structure in Salena is much more advanced like in in Ethereum you don't have like prop ammms like winning the short tail of assets. In Ethereum, yeah, like you just have like I I'm not as as so please correct me if I'm wrong, but like in Ethereum, I think you you just have like the basic things you've seen in the past like three years like unis swap, like fluid, like a drum like just competing over the same pool of volume. You don't really have like more advanced stuff.

Dan: Yeah, on the RFQ last one point there is no prop AMMs yet. I'm hearing some chatter, but I haven't found anything live yet today. I think a lot of L2s can support this, though I don't think Arbitrum really can because of the time boost, how it creates a very specific market structure. That'd be an interesting thing to dive into. Don't want to derail us too hard, but TLDDR, if you have one entity that owns the right to essentially be first, that will lead to picking off every propm. that like you can imagine a role as 10 propm and the value of being able to pick off those 10 versus the value of being able to pro protect yourself as one would always favor the the taker rather than the makers.

Dan: That's my thesis at least. If anyone disagrees I would love to hear more. But yeah, I think you'll probably start trying to see these. There was a really good piece by I can see his PFB but I cannot think of the their name. They did an internship at Flashbots and believe they're a Waterlue grad. Terrible. We'll link it in the show notes. But it had a really good point around like storage slots would be very important for propm and they're expensive in EVM land. So it actually like you the Oracle update process would would be fairly expensive on a relative basis. So it actually make it it was like a it was like a ch design challenge that seemed unsolved at the moment of writing. So I don't know if anyone worked around that in an interesting way though.

Dan: But RFQS I think are are sort of like in that same vein. And a couple of the aggregators do RFQS like unis swap does one and so does 1 in I think Kyber swap as well but not positive.

Host: Yeah, I think I don't I don't think this is push back. I think I'm actually agreeing with Carlos, but maybe pushing back on disagreeing that it doesn't apply for Ethereum. I think it does apply. It's just not as evident because the market structure hasn't advanced because the chain hasn't allowed it to because of kind of its bottlenecked by its performance. But I think you see with unis swap like there's never been and maybe briefly during 2021 there have been but like you know even when memecoins have been popular like they just launch a pool on unis swap because it's it is the liquidity venue and there's never really been much competition there. I mean you you know you had some you had sushi trout of vampire tech uni with token incentives and different things like that but there it been difficult to like you know have a a tech race sort of along the lines of a prop amm style one because there's only so many improvements you can make when you're limited to you know 12 second blocks and the other the other sort of limitations of the EVM relative to the SVM.

Host: So I think if if you saw if if you can if we continue to see like improvements on the Ethereum side, like maybe they do faster blocks, maybe they do more gas, XYZ, this, that, and the other thing, I think you probably will see more of these things that have become prominent on Salana become more prominent on Ethereum. It just they can't happen as quickly today because it doesn't make sense to in the current regime. But I would I would probably agree with you that like the setup today makes sense. Like and you even see Uniswap, they have their what is it CCA? They just did a token launch recently via that. Like I think they understand that that is a sort of like a potential moat like alongside you know you want to be the DEX but then you want to verticalize and do the issuance and the token launches as well. And they they clearly they see that.

Host: So I think it probably stands to reason that it applies for both. It just it might take longer for Ethereum to mature to the same level that the Salana ecosystem is at just because of the you know there's been more focus on speed and high throughput.

Dan: Yeah, that CCA launch looked really cool as well. I think they ended up raising somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 million for Aztec which is a solid launch. Cool. Well, I I guess maybe adjacent to this topic, since we're talking about issuance, something I wanted to dig into more was you know at Breakpoint there was some talk about different offerings in relation to and actually I don't know if Coliseum announced this at breakpoint but maybe right after but I guess Coliseum announced this stamp offering in association with Metadau and I also saw that Legion made an announcement of doing like regulated equity sales on their platform coming in Q1. I don't know what that means. Maybe it's something similar to like a stamp as well.

Host: But maybe I'll Carlos, I guess I'll let you dig into it. But I think the the question I want to ask here is are tokens in their current form something like a stop gap until you can actually just offer tokenized equity? because it it feels like even something like a stamp which seems to be like just a a slightly improved model of okay let's stop doing equity plus token and like let's just do token and if you raise money privately then that money get you know that investment gets converted into tokens when the ICO happens so that you remove that kind of like dual structuring problem it seems like all of that goes away if you can just from the get-go sell equity as a token from day one, but you can't I think you can't necessarily do that today because legally it's not that's a challenge.

Carlos: No, like like I'll answer your your question first, which is I think like investors shouldn't really care if they're trading a token or a tokenized equity as long as they know that that has like a claim on residual cash flows, a claim on the assets, and that has legal recourse, right? Like if what I'm buying has those three, then I really don't care if it's an like a tokenized equity or a token. Like I just want to buy the project that I'm bullish on, right? Without worrying about being wrong or like the team running away with the money or whatever. So So that's the first question. Like the the the answer is I don't know how it will evolve. I just know like that's what investors want. And if that ends up being like we just have tokenized equity then so be it. But I think like the token model that Metadow is launching is like a great solution like today that does not rely on the goodwill of like regulators. So, so he can actually act like as part of a post-leal system where you have like market protected tokens and have like mechanistic a mechanistic design that actually protects token holders from being from being robbed. So, that's what I like about about metadata a lot.

Carlos: Regarding the stamp model if you think about like venture capital in crypto over the past few years it has given rise to the dual token equity structure which as we've seen like in the past few days with the avid dow labs drama or like with multiple other instances like incentives are broken and it's essentially unworkable right like especially for token holders who usually end up losing against like the equity investors. So the preeminent model today for racing in crypto is just like the the safe model. So simple agreement for future equity plus a token warrant and that that's what gives rise to essentially this like dual token equity structure that that ends up causing all these issues.

Carlos: So, Colosseum is proposing a simple token agreement market protected. I think I'm missing an acronym there, but like something like that, right? like the the the TLDDR is that instead of like having like this dual token in equity structure, you essentially allow teams to raise privately and then leading up to the ICO, they can do that through Metadow and all like the IP of the project, all the u legal aspects of the project get transferred to this entity that is governed via future key by Metadow and then so all value acrews to the token in and and the equity is worth like like zero. I think Danny, you can speak a little bit more to that if if that explanation wasn't very clear.

Dan: Yeah, I think that covers it. It seems to be their effort to basically get everyone on the same page. So if you have raised private investment and maybe you maybe you've even done a a safe plus token warrant sort of raise offering the stamp serves as like a notice of okay we're we are converting you at this point from the prior safe and warrant to you know exportion of tokens in what is now just a token only operation if you want to call it that. So so trying to level set everyone and say okay there is no there's no multi-structure thing happening here it's all to tokens from this point on and we'll operate via metadow you know the the token will go live and the and the excess funds will go to the treasury and operate as as per usual for the platform.

Carlos: So one of the issues with metadow today with the current design is that essentially when you conduct an ICO you're basically doing like a seed investment on a team and that's the first time the team has raised but that brings some challenges to the team for instance do you really want to have a token live the first moment like you're racing and you don't even have a live product yet like it can be really challenging to go through the noise of having a live token and Some people like it, right? Like Ram from Aichi like really likes having a live token like that gives him constant feedback on whether or not his product is working or not. But but some people don't want to have like a live token from day one even before the product is live. So what stamp allows is basically for people to raise privately from venture as they usually would and then when they are ready they can conduct like the ICO through metadow and all the structure gets converged into just the one simple token that acrru all value from the project and it also has like some mechanistic things that you cannot like go around that gives some token holder guarantees for instance if you think about token allocations like only 20% % of the total supply can be allocated to the investors.

Carlos: Only up to 40% can be allocated to the team and the team allocation is based on like a certain milestones. so the team won't receive the entire allocation and unless they like basically perform based to the standards right and that that sort of like sort of mechanisms is what keeps like metadow or what allows metadow to enforce token holder rights.

Dan: Yeah, I like that they have created a function that gives founders the ability to hold back the token while in and with in a way that is not valued to creative to a future token because it's an interesting question like should you have a token early right if you think about a startup and you're like oh well we'd love to hire employees and we can incentivize them with upside in the business most people are not I don't know I would say emotionally compat able with the idea of experiencing heavy volatility. I think people in crypto are very desensitized to that because many people have been here for more than one cycle and many people have at least at one point in time had 90% of their net worth or greater in crypto. And if you've been here for that long with that level of allocation, you have almost certainly rode the that entire thing down from a like a life-changing number back down to reality. And that is an experience that you is very hard to replicate outside of crypto.

Dan: Especially with the fact that many of those people have made that money back. So that is like this crazy emotional swing that I think a lot of at least OG industry participants have been desensitized to. And so the idea of like oh yeah of course just like launch the token and to your point like get rapid feedback from the market with new ideas and whatnot. That's great for crypto people, but I hesitate to say that's good for the average person. you I have a lot of non-crypto friends that that would kill. Like people are like, "No, no, no, like what what do you mean? Like I own my index funds and and that's it." Unfortunately, I do think that's like a very cooked mentality going forward. But, broadly, I think that's just how most people think. So, you know, you also got to factor in if you're willing to work at a startup, you do have like already a higher risk threshold than most. But still like I don't know, that's it's a really really interesting discussion. I think there's no right answer and it just comes down to personalities, but I don't know if you guys have thoughts on like should you have the token on day one or not.

Host: Yeah, I think I think this new design makes more sense. I mean, I think I think the reality is like it enables, you know, an earlier investing round like a pre something like akin to a preede or a seed. And the the token doesn't really need to be live at like the 500k like ideiation valuation of this thing. Like maybe they raise that money and then like pivot three times and then, you know, finally think they have a good idea and then and then do the next round at that point or something. I don't know. I go back and forth on this. Like, I'm not I'm not opposed to opening up access to these types of things. If that provides something to a new type of founder who maybe is unable to raise from traditional sources, that could be a good thing. The downside of that might be that you get a lot more failures. like it might be that it now is like 999 out of a thousand are dead in the water.

Host: But I think if the part if participants are willing to play that game of of of shooting kind of like fish in a barrel or like trying to get the needle in the hay stack outcome, which is sort of what you're doing in VC, you know, you you make a lot of spray and prey investments and then hope that the one in 100 pays for the whole fund. yeah, but think from the employee side. I don't as an employee you don't get to take all of those bets. You get to take one bet and that's where I think it's really interesting because it is a compensation tool. So I don't know that's that's the one what's like the the issue on the employee side though just like worrying that it's going up and down.

Dan: Yeah. I don't think people can experience volatility. Think about like a regular startup that's doesn't have a token just has equity. The number is sort of imaginary like you never really know what it is and then like you know every six to 18 months there's just like a new number that appears and then either you get liquidity or it goes to zero. So it's always like this kind of like fictional thing. Whereas with a token it's very much not right you can sell and you also look at the price on a daily basis. And with think about like a large company, I don't know like Apple or whatever they or like Coinbase, right? They still give pretty good equity deals from my understanding. And yeah, Coinbase is actually very volatile, but not in the sense of of like a newly launched token on a startup that's pre-product like that. There's crazy level of volatility. You can get a 10x followed by a loss of 85%. And I think that is like a very real emotional challenge to give to people.

Dan: And again I think we and a lot of the industry is extremely desensitized to that because we have the mental illness of like dealing with these tokens on a daily basis. But I do not think that is normal. And that's that's just a caution. That's that's the flag I w

Host: I think I agree but I'll disagree for one reason is that I think just because the the asset doesn't trade on a public market doesn't mean that those price swings aren't happening. Like you can say, oh, like I don't have an active price quote for my circle equity before it went I before it IPOed, but like objectively it did go plus 30x and then minus 80% and then plus 10x and then minus 80%. They just true they just weren't if you know if they weren't looking at the you know private chart which maybe didn't really move at all because there's not much happening. But objectively it traded like up and then down and some people probably sold or bought some at a big discount and then sold or bought some at at the next raise. Like that still happens. It's just not as visible.

Host: So, I don't think that really changes anything about that. But I think to your point, there is probably some kind of reconciliation that needs to happen in terms of if we're if what we're doing is technically issuing the token at like the preede stage, then you probably do need to do more on the like maybe lockup side or like team and investor alignment side of like, okay, actually if we're going live here and you've invested, then you may need to be locked up for five years or six years and maybe we don't even start vesting until you know a preset like until you do the next raise at this valuation or like do what we think is equivalent to like actually going public at like the kind of like more IPO value and maybe it's nothing is really but it I don't know it it's difficult because the thing is going to trade on on the liquid market the whole time so it just it introduces more problems there but I don't know that that might give upside to other people who you know if you have early investors who say, you know, screw it. I'm done with this founder. I'm dumping this whole thing and sending it back to the preede value. Then that that gives some random guy an opportunity to get in and say, I love this founder.

Dan: Yeah. Okay. I think you're completely right. Like this isn't a new thing to tokens. You're just like shoving the timeline earlier, right? Because they just tend to have liquidity earlier.

Host: Yeah. I also agree with your point around lockup structure should probably change based on where the product is in its life cycle. Maybe this is related to like KPI vesting and whatnot. But yeah, one-year cliff when you're pre-product versus a one-year cliff when you're like at PMF, those are obviously different things. And it's pretty insane to think about that the standard is like, yeah, yeah, yeah, you're pre-product, but cool, we'll give you a one a standard one-year cliff for your vest and have at it. And I also think on the emotional side of things, if you cash out $10 million before PMF, just like you got to be a special type of person to still really really care.