How to Fix Tokenized Securities with Olivia Olivia Vande Woude from Ava Labs

Stable coins work differently and they're fully reserved by design. A dollar in means a dollar held typically in short-term treasuries. There's no lending. There's no multiplication. And so, as trillions in transactional volume value migrate onto stable coin rails, the credit obviously doesn't vanish. It relocates. Some of it's in capital markets, private credit funds, programmable lending protocols that again sit outside the perimeter of the traditional banking system.

What does good tokenization of securities look like at the infrastructure level? How do these deals ultimately come together from the ideating phase to money being deployed on chain?

Welcome back to the rollup. I'm Robbie. I'm Andy. Rob and I met at the University of Florida in 2017 where we first found out about digital assets. We learned a lot along the way and we're bringing you face to face with the leaders of our industry. Sit back, relax, and enjoy today's episode. Here she is, Olivia. Welcome.

So nice to meet you.

I'm thrilled to be here.

Absolutely. We're big fans of tokenization and Avalanche has been flying under the radar for a little while, but it's no surprise that you guys are up there with the biggest names in tokenization. It's incredible. Could you just give us a sense of what you've been up to because it seems as if you've been quite busy here over the last weeks and months?

Yeah, sure thing. Well, first of all, thank you so much for having me on the show. We're really excited to talk about what we're up to on the Avalab side.

First off, just for those who might not know, Avalabs is a software development company supporting the growth and adoption of the Avalanche ecosystem. Avalanche is a network of layer 1 blockchains that are purpose-built for any industry or use case, be it FIFA's L1 related to tokenized collectibles or be it Avalanche L1's that we've run in tandem with big names like JP Morgan, etc. So that's what Avalabs is.

In my role, I'm focused on all things tokenization within financial services. So what that looks like is on the one hand partnering with leading financial institutions to bring institutional grade assets on chain. So think top tier issues like issuers like the Franklin Templetons, the Black Rockcks, the Apollos, the KKRS, the Vanex, SEA, Wellington managements of the world and bringing their tokenized assets to Avalanche.

And then where I'm really laser focused and where our team is really laser focused is on connecting those assets to distribution channels where capital already flows, be it fintex with an appetite for stable coin yield products or tokenized US equities infrastructure or allocators such as family offices liquid funds etc. Prior to joining Avalabs I was actually on the trad side. I was investing in Smithcat Banks at Torric Group, but I was very involved in the digital assets working group there.

Very cool. And one of the reasons that prompted this conversation was you guys have record activity. Saw daily active addresses hit an all-time high of 1.71 million on Avalanche. Total assets exceeding three half billion dollars in stable coins and real world assets. Galaxy Digital launched a $75 million tokenized loan obligation on Avalanche. And then Grove is planning a 250 million RWA deployment on the network.

Give us a sense of what it takes to progress these from just an idea in these institutions that are cryptocurious and they're starting to wet their beak and get in the game. Give us a sense of how these deals are made, right? Like I take it you probably have some institutional networks and relationships and you kind of have some people at the galaxy digitals and the groves of the world. How do these deals ultimately come together from the ideating phase to money being deployed on chain?

I mean, I would say first of all, not all institutions or fintexs as we call them are created equal. And so, you have some of the more progressive players like the forward-thinking asset managers such as the Apollos of the world that have been very active in bringing assets on chain in getting more involved with DeFi. And so, that experience looks very different than some of the more what I call like traditional financial institutions that are just dipping their toes in the space, as of this year. So obviously it depends on where they are in their educational journey.

But what a lot of what our work is focused on is serving as trusted advisors or consultants really that work with these institutions understands what their actual pain points are and then where blockchain technology can in fact solve some issues or maybe not solve issues. And so a lot of our work starts with understanding what the pain points are working with our network of tech enablement partners to effectuate whatever the identified mutually identified solution may be, but I'd say a lot of it is education.

Going into these institutions having educational sessions, Q&A sessions for 45 minutes to an hour fielding their inquiries about what we're doing what institutions we've worked with some of the work we've done with city onchain FX pricing and execution in the past some of the work we've done with MAS's project guardian and so on and so much of its education.

But then once we identify the problem that can actually be solved by blockchain technology and then the tech enablement partners that can help resolve whatever the issue is at hand be it our tokenization platform partners like centrifuge or securitize with whom we've done a lot of work on everything from tokenizing KKR's healthcare growth fund to more recently bringing Janice Henderson's JA JTRSY products into the Avalanche ecosystem through centrifuge.

Some of it's working with Oracle providers. Some of it's working with dev shops that can help these teams crystallize whatever vision they have in mind. So that's where the bulk of the work is is really, putting the puzzle pieces together on the tech enablement side for these institutions who may be again dipping their toes in the space or may have some experience in the space but aren't necessarily sure on how to execute certain visions.

There's definitely an education gap happening and I've seen quite a few of your posts on LinkedIn. And I think that you're doing a great job there as well. I'm just trying to basically educate on stable coins, credit, all the all different types of onchain products. I saw that you were at Davos or you were talking about Davos recently. I'm curious kind of what what insights you took from there as well. What surprised you the most about how institutions are thinking about stable coins, credit creation, these types of things?

I was not there on the ground, but our Avalanche Policy Coalition team was there. But I tuned in to all of the panels was glued to glued to my screen as many of us were last week.

But you know, that's a great question. I went in expecting more familiar territory. You know, much of these discussions in the past have focused on payments efficiency, compliance frameworks, regulatory guard rails. Instead, I was most surprised to hear central bankers, bank CEOs, executives openly wrestling with a far more, in my view, consequential shift, which is the growing realization that credit creation may no longer be anchored exclusively to bank balance sheets.

And so to understand why that that matters, and I wrote about this, and I talked about this on NYC last week, is to consider how traditional banking works. So it it bundles two functions together. You're holding your money, you're lending it out. When you deposit funds, the bank keeps a fraction in reserve and lends the rest. And that's what we call fractional reserve banking, and it's how credit gets created.

Stable coins work differently, and they're fully reserved by design. A dollar in means a dollar held typically in short-term treasuries. There's no lending. There's no multiplication. And so, as trillions in transactional volume value migrate onto stable coin rails, the credit obviously doesn't vanish. It relocates. some of it's in capital markets, private credit funds, programmable lending protocols that again sit outside the perimeter of the traditional banking system.

And so that shift came into sharp focus during the panels in on tokenization, stable coins. And there was one particular panel and Q&A session when the a chief economist from one of Brazil's largest banks asked the question on everyone's mind, what happens to leverage and what happens to monetary policy transmission when stable coins dominate transactional money?

And so Coinbase's Brian Armstrong's answer was pretty blunt. He was talking about under the Genius Act, stable coin reserves must be held in short-term treasuries, 100% reserve, no fractional component. And so if customers want yield beyond that, they choose to lend their money out explicitly. And as he put it, it it flips the banking model on its on its head.

And it was interesting to see the the governor of the bank of France push back not so much on the mechanics, but his concern was more historical. And he was talking about how monetary systems dominated by private money have collapsed before. and he pointed to the US in the 19th century before the Federal Reserve existed when banks panics were routine and confidence was was more fragile.

And so for him the question wasn't so much about whether stable coins function technically. It was more so about whether a monetary system can in fact remain stable without public money as its anchor. And so that disagreement it was what gave the interest debate a lot of intensity. It's like more than a technical question on should stable coins pay yield. It's underneath of it it's really a debate over who controls credit creation going forward and it's an incentive to bring everyone further into this stable coin direction which we're seeing the tension like it would be bringing them out of the banking the traditional banking system and more into the stable coin fully reserved fully backed system.

The question in my mind is like isn't that super deflationary for the currency because right credit creation adds money to the money supply. We end up increasing the money supply. Supply and demand causes inflation. If we take leverage out of the system and all of a sudden, the money multiplier isn't above one, it's actually less than one until we bring all that money supply back to fully what's in reserves. Is that not deflate help us you know how should we be thinking about this is that not very deflationary for the dollar?

Interestingly in another session Jeremy Lair was arguing that as the marginal cost of storing and moving value on blockchain networks drops towards zero future economies might generate similar output but with a far smaller monetary base and then similarly I think the IMF's Dan Katz agreed noting that this kind of velocity increase is more supply driven rather than than demand driven which could mean a smaller monetary base without inflationary pressure.

But I think all that to say you know the the moment that really stayed with me came from standard charters Bill Winters and his he put it his bank doesn't really care which instrument wins. It could be stable coins, it could be tokenized deposits, could be tokenized money market funds. what he said was that he wanted the customers to get the best thing for them. And so they just want to be the entry point and the exit point. And so that's in my view, from the institutional side the real posture now. It's not defending really the old architecture, but positioning to intermediate whatever whatever replaces it.

Link: infinifi.xyz

Link: holiday.xyz

Link: treasure.io

Well, then let's talk about some of those those replacements. Then, I think the the big thing on on folks mind from this past week or two has been the launch of the BitGo IPO and actually how was able to have it be traded on chain from the moment that it was launched. Not sure if it was on Avalanche. I think it was on Ethereum, B&B, Salana, maybe Avalanche. Maybe it is now. And we saw that this was kind of like this first of its kind tokenized equity being traded live with the IPO, right? Meaning anyone with a Phantom wallet, a MetaMask, a Rabby, etc. could trade this tokenized asset on chain.

But you there's kind of some issues with the way that tokenization is is being done on chain right now, specifically around tokenized securities. You've made some pretty strong points around weakening of investor rights when it comes to tokenized securities. What does good tokenization of securities look like at the infrastructure level? And you know, how how do you think about this this investor rights dilemma as it pertains to tokenizing different types of assets?

Because we're also kind of in this context of crypto right now where everyone's trying to figure out what they own, what this token, what what is it? What do I have claims to? What are my rights? But specifically with with securities, it's a bit more black and white over there. However, in the tokenization process, you you seem to think that there's some weakening of rights. How does that occur?

Um, and I would say this is super timely as just yesterday that the SEC issued guidance, clarifying many of these issues. But I would say, you know, first off, many of the tokenized securities products today on the market can give you weaker legal rights than traditional stock ownership in my opinion. And so how you build it matters far more than the underlying blockchain technology. and SEC Commissioner Pur, over the summer had written a really great I guess it was memorandum saying that blockchain doesn't have magical abilities to transform assets. Like the tokenized securities are still securities. And as I mentioned, the SEC just issued guidance this week clarifying exactly this point. The format doesn't change the law, but the structure you choose determines what rights investors actually get.

And in in my opinion, if you tokenize incorrectly, you're rebuilding Wall Street's problems with higher costs. And if you architect correctly, you unlock all the promises we've heard of, instant settlement, lower capital requirements, programmable assets, and so on. And so it comes down to a spectrum, like are you getting a synthetic claim, a backed claim, or an actual share? And so just to to step back and Chuck at the stable coin blueprint has written a lot of great literature on this and I refer everyone here to it.

But you know when you think about stock ownership and how it works today when you buy Apple stock through Robin Hood you don't actually own Apple shares. You own a claim on the shares that sit in a chain of intermediaries. And so how it works is Apple's official shareholder lists one owner. It's seeding company. It's owned by the DTCC. The DTCC tracks clearing brokers like Morgan Stanley who track re retail brokers like Robin Hood who track you. And so each layer handles complexity for the layer below. And you get the economic benefits, dividends, voting rights, price gains, etc. But you're not listed as a shareholder on Apple's books. And so you hold a legal claim against your broker for shares.

And interestingly, the system was actually created in 1973 because Wall Street was drowning in paper certificates. They literally had to close stock exchanges on Wednesdays to catch up on paperwork. And the solution was centralizing shares at the DTCC and settling through e electronic ledger updates. And that was genuinely innovative for its time. Because the DTCC could use netting to compress trillions in trades into billions in actual movements. And so that architecture for 1973's problems obviously now creates new limitations. You can't hold your shares yourself. Trading only happens during business hours. you can't use your shares as collateral in DeFi protocols. And so would solve that paperwork crisis 50 years ago now constrains what's possible with modern technology.

And now flipping to present day with the tokenization models that are being proposed. You know, the SEC just released guidance this week that really maps cleanly to the spectrum of synthetic exposures versus custodial security entitlements versus issuer sponsored tokens. And each gives investors really different legal standing. The first model is synthetic claims through offshore SPV structures. So you own the shares in the SPV, but importantly not the underlying securities. So you're a creditor but not a beneficial owner. And so if the SPV fails, you wait in line with the other creditors. Corporate actions require manual processing. You know, the voting rights company communications disappear entirely. you know, execution happens through RFQ systems or AMM pools with what could potentially be wider spreads than NBBO pricing, which is the best price available across all exchanges and that traditional brokers are required to give to you. And so for institutions, a pension fund can't treat an SPV wrapper the same as actual shares for regulatory, capital and compliance. And the SEC's new guidance makes this pretty explicit that you know third party tokenized securities may not confer any rights as a holder of the underlying security and and holders could face bankruptcy risk that direct shareholders don't.

And then I' I'd point to the second model which is that of back oh sorry I was just going to say like the second model of backed claims through custodian tokenization with proper transfer agent and broker dealer infrastructure. That's like what dinari has built that eliminates the SPV layer entirely. And what's really interesting there is that a regulated broker dealer buys and holds real Apple shares and segregated custody accounts. And like an SEC registered transfer agent issues the blockchain tokens backed onetoone by those shares. So you own a token representing a direct legal claim on actual Apple shares, not a claim on the SPV, but really on the underlying security itself. and you maintain the full shareholder rights, right? And so that's has a practical advantage of speed and scale because institutions can get compliant access to tokenized equities in a matter of of weeks rather than perhaps, you know, waiting years for issuers to to restructure cap tables.

And then the third model I'd point out is where the actual share is, you know, through direct issuer tokenization. And this is really a breakthrough model where the company itself issues shares, you know, directly on the blockchain. Securitize has talked about doing this where your token isn't a claim on something else. It's the actual share. It's recorded directly on the company's cap table. And so, you know, when you transfer your token, the registered shareholder of of record changes on the company's books and like the seed and company DTCC structure that I mentioned earlier disappears completely.

And so all this to say, I think this is where tokenization reaches its full potential where one token equals one registered share. It's transferable peer-to-peer. You can self-custody your shares with no middlemen re hypothecating behind the scenes. Your corporate actions execute automatically through codes. Settlement is instant and intermedias are actually removed rather than than just digitized. And so that's more of like securitizes approach.

But across all these themes like what good tokenization involves, it's direct legal claims on underlying securities, it's preserved shareholder rights, it's quality execution through regulated infrastructure, and it's also, you know, eventually the ability to self-custody and use shares as as programmable collateral. And so, you know, custodian models deliver the first three at institutional scales. You know, today direct issuer tokenization achieves all four by eliminating intermediaries entirely. But, you know, I'd say if you need tokenized Tesla and Apple with full shareholder rights, you know, next month, custodian infrastructure ships out today versus if you're building a platform where equity becomes composable collateral, you know, that's direct issuer tokenization enabling that future and and perhaps on a different time frame.

Got it. And so it it sounds like at a high level this is an evolution where ultimately you know we we start with the most abstracted and then we further tokenize deeper and deeper into the stack until we're providing everyone these native shares on these companies cap tables. But there's sort of this design space because different teams move at different paces that, you know, a a a company may want to tokenize now, but they're not ready to take that full leap of faith all the way to, you know, whether it's a it's a technological limitation or it's a regulatory one. They're not ready to go all the way to that endgame that you mentioned. Sounds like BitGo has kind of gone all the way, you know, and and pushed the bleeding edge as much as possible. But there's, you mentioned securityize in there. there's other players that are sort of finding a a more creative design space in the pros and cons between some of these spaces to try to optimize the frontier of speed and safety and robustness of the product.

Yeah, I mean I think that summarizes it well. I would just say put really simply and I wrote about this, not all tokenized securities are created equal. You have your SPV rappers that make you a creditor to an offshore entity. custodian models with transfer agent and broker dealer infrastructure like dinari preserve direct claims and full shareholder rights today and then you know direct issuer tokenization represents I think the ultimate architecture with shares issued natively on chain that's what securitiz is striving for and where you land on that spectrum determines whether you're an owner or just another creditor.

So basically the the shift that's happening in trust right I think you've said it's from like from balance sheets to infrastructure basically as As an investor, you need to understand what specifically you are buying based on the infrastructure of the of that tokenization provider, whether it's superstate, ono, securitiz, etc., etc., etc., um, with different with different types of of tokenized asset structures. You're basically buying different assets. This is why it's really confusing, Olivia. This is why people don't really understand what's happened with with tokenization.

I guess from just a pure investor outlook framework to summarize what you've said there from the investor's perspective of wanting to own tokenized assets on chain, could you do your best to provide a simple framework for understanding like the the the um just like like the key shift in trust from balance sheets to infrastructure, what that really means and what we need to know if we own tokenized assets on chain, what to look for.

For sure. And I I'd say what this means in practice again token you know tokenization shifting trust from balance sheets to infrastructure is that trust becomes verifiable rather than assumed. So instead of you know again from an investor perspective underwriting a chain of counterparties investors can verify settlement custody and compliance directly on the infrastructure. And so you know when trust moves to infrastructure the protocol enforces rules. So you have settlement finality, asset segregation, compliance gates, all becoming properties of the rail itself that's cryptographically enforced rather than you know the covenants that you're hoping someone someone honors.

And so I'd say this is already happening. Like investors are already moving on this. One example is the digital liquidity gateway built by FIS which obviously has a TRDI you know a TRDFI incumbent and Intane which is on Avalanche and it connects about 2,000 regional and community banks to institutional investors and so the banks originate you know solid small business and CR paper but historically institutional buyers couldn't touch it because the due diligence was too manual now loan level data flows straight from FIS core systems onto onto a chain and so investors can verify the underlying assets directly. That's like a key example of when trust lives, you know, onchain in the rail, investors can transact with smaller originators they previously couldn't underwrite efficiently. And so it opens up asset classes that were just simply too expensive to access while also fundamentally changing how, you know, investors think about counterparty risk.

I appreciate that. I think people are now getting excited about what's happening on Hyperlquid with HIPP3, trading a lot of those assets there. They there there just becomes a stacking of different risks that you need to understand for as you get deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole of of using tokenized assets onchain and then actually putting them into DeFi protocols or trading them on purp etc etc etc.

Let's talk about some of the recent news from Avalanche, right? So Robbie mentioned the work with Grove coming up as well as Galaxy Digital as well as the the ETF VAVX. Talk to us about some of the institutional adoption milestones that you're most excited about that you've been involved in, what this means. Just kind of give us a bit of of the lay of the land of Avalanch's state of affairs and then kind of what you're looking at ahead into Q2 here.

As you mentioned, ETFs like VAVX launched this week. We're very excited about that. And I'd say that ETFs like VAVX are essentially on-ramps that don't require institutions to overhaul their operational stack on day one. And so, you know, most institutional allocators can't just add you native AVAC to their books. They'd need qualified custodians, compliance signoffs, perhaps prime brokerage agreements to be struck. And that's months of internal work. And and ETF eliminates all of that. It trades through existing broker dealers, settles through DTC and is, you know, fits into the standard RAA custody arrangements and it it shows up on client statements like any other equity holding. So very excited that, you know, Vanax Avalanche ETF can now offer that to investors. Launched as a US- listed product providing spot exposure to AVAC. It's also really interesting because the fund tracks, you know, price using a benchmark index, but can also generate additional yield by staking a portion of holdings. So really the strategic function is here is distribution and you're creating a a point of entry for capital that's already allocated to digital assets, but you know constrained by operational or perhaps regulatory limitations on on direct holdings. So very excited about the VIVVX launch.

I'd point to a couple of other teams that we've seen on your NEO finance roadmap which I really appreciate including Open Trade. They've been doing a great job. You know where whereas most tokenization projects are, you know, getting execution quality wrong because they're solving the wrong problem. I'm really excited about Open Trade and how, you know, they are letting FinTech offer yield products backed by Franklin Templeton's money market funds or Wisdom Tree private credit, Black Rockck's high yield corporate bond ETF, and have created a structure where they've been able to secure 25 plus fintech partnerships in just a year and a half or so across Latam, Africa, Europe, and and Asia. And while most RWA platforms are really grinding to get their hundth retail user, Open Trade has done a great job of being very distribution focused and and taking a B2B TTOC approach of plugging into distribution channels with millions of existing customers. And they've done a really great job of getting the B2B TTOC economics down, demonstrating yield transparency to, you know, really accelerate sales velocity and and then also really, you know, starting with securing the right legal infrastructure to um, you know, make it really easy for fintexs and investors to to get comfortable with their RWA back yield.

Link: habachi.xyz

Link: cali.com

Link: yeet.com

Yeah, I think that's like the next frontier, right? Is actually taking these assets and moving them onchain and then getting either either, you know, doing looping, getting additional yield from them. putting them into other other DeFi protocols. I I'm curious kind of where where you think this all ends here or where this is all converging to. Right. So you mentioned the NEO finance map. We we kind of are looking at this as the intersection of legacy finance and DeFi, right? We're seeing this it's not fintech, it's not DeFi, certainly not traditional or or legacy finance. It's almost like this this uh this wrapper around DeFi with a really nice front end, you know, easy easy to use, forgot password buttons, you know, it's it's, you know, non-custodial in some neo banks. It's custodial in some more fintech apps. A lot of these things are kind of converging towards the super apps. And you're also clearly seeing that a lot of the blockchains are really really focused on their institutional approach now. Right. And so I'm just curious like where you think this converges to, right? Because we're also seeing NYC move towards 247 markets. So a lot of like the traditional markets are also moving towards the like the crypto infrastructure. It it just really continues to feel like these two worlds are like rather than crypto and blockchain usurping all of finance, it's like we're like mutually colliding and then we'll kind of see where it goes from there. How do you see this continuing to to play out? what's your kind of multi-year neo finance thesis with regards to this convergence of these two industries?

Absolutely. Well, first of all, I'd say that much of the focus in tokenization has been on the supply side. And what we really need to get right as an industry is the demand or distribution side of that equation. like really bringing assets on chain that have true product market fit and you know demonstrable distribution channels be it through fintex family offices other allocators and so when I think you know in 2026 and beyond especially in the context of of rwas and what's underexplored when people talk about rwas coming on chain you know the conversation usually starts with inventory it's about treasuries private credit real estate and you could argue you know certain tokenized assets are poised to catch a tailwind this year depending on your macro view as a Fed balance sheet expansion and rate cuts, you know, could unleash like a fresh wave of liquidity. Maybe it's Latam sovereign debt or liquidity sensitive plays like uranium funds that are tokenized that'll that'll really, you know, gain traction. But I'd say that that supply side focus and framing really misses where the real change is happening.

And I'd say the most underexplored RWA category is is not so much an asset class, but more so in in the structure. And what I mean by that is it's vaults, the infrastructure that lets you, you know, express investment strategy directly in code with custody that never leaves the the investor's hands. And it's really about providing, you know, investors and specifically institutions with greater utility. And so, you know, traditional asset management at this point's duct taped together, like strategies are buried inside leg legal vehicles, assets are shuttled between custodians, administrators are scrambling to reconcile after the fact, and you know, liquidity is rationed out on a schedule. And even the best designed products end up sluggish, overpriced, and and opaque. And if we can find a way for tokenization and RWAS to address those pain points and really incentivize institutions to go on chain simply because it's better, faster, cheaper, then that's then we've you know achieved our northstar vision.

And I'd say one example that where you know tokenization is is providing more utility and would incentivize institutions to come on chain is is with vaults you know which are rules-based you know portfolio runs directly in software. investors can unlock, you know, and retain full control of their assets while, you know, allocation, utilization, and and risk limits, you know, all execute in a single settlement environment. That's the sweet spot between an ETF and an SMA. And the scale and accessibility of of the one, the precision and the guardrails of the other, where, you know, you're never handing custody to a manager, that's quite compelling for institutions and investors. And we've seen Bitwise made a move into Vault Creation this week. And I think that's a signal worth watching. And their $15 billion asset manager. See that? Yeah. They didn't just roll out another tokenized fund. They started writing portfolio construction directly into code. And it's just it's been more specifically a stable coin lending strategy on Morpho. I think it's charging about 6% yield. And Bitwise is setting the parameters. The smart contracts enforcing them. And critically, you know, the manager never lays a finger on client assets. And so the business case again is really concrete. There's utility vaults got the cost stack. There's no custody fees. There's no fund admin. There are no armies reconciling spreadsheets. And so new strategies can spin up without forming new legal entities. You know that shrinks launch timelines from quarters to weeks. And you know the accountability really flips from you can trust us to transparent real time parameters that that anyone can verify. And I'm really excited for this model to gain traction. I think that'll bring a lot more institutional participation. Bitwise predicted that their vault aum may double in 2026. And if they're right, one of the more value RWAS on chain may turn out to be, you know, institutional judgment that's spelled out clearly on chain and and enforced by code.

And non-custodial and gets the, you know, gets the best of DeFi in a rate cutting environment still gets good yield. People who are people who are new to you know crypto or DeFi will see that on from Bitwise and they will be very curious if their if their you know average Robin Hood gold account is giving them you know 4% three and a half right their money market on Schwab is that 3.7 3.6 six. All of a sudden, Bitwit Wise has a 6% product. They'll probably be a little bit, you know, concerned as to like what the risks are. And you know, lo and behold, there there is quite a bit of smart contract risk, DeFi risk, etc. But yeah, that that is a vault. We Olivia, we'll have to do a whole episode on vaults. I I think there's a lot for us to learn. Also, I feel like I need to say not financial advice. Do your own research. Like give all the disclosures for Should have started with that. Well, na naturally. Yeah. But th this was all tremendous information. I feel like you know we got our daily dose of uh financial education here whereas a lot of times we're talking about you know the more digital asset crypto side of the world but a place where these two you know the these two are going to converge. Andy and I both I think are planning on going to Vault Summit. It's in can so it's around ETC but it should have a nice mix and it's presented by Morpho. So, I'm I'm looking forward to that event. But, you know, there's a number of events this year that are that should be quite good as as more of these worlds start to intermingle together. Um, it should we should provide a nice balance.

Yeah, for sure. All right, Olivia. Well, we'll see you soon. Thanks so much for coming on. It's been an absolute pleasure. Like Rob said, learned quite a bit here. You're a great speaker. Thank you. Really appreciate you guys having me on. We'll see you again soon. Thanks, Olivia. Bye.

Pilot.