Would BlackRock Try to Save Bitcoin From the Quantum Threat? - Bits + Bips

I think the devs will probably continue to do nothing. They say that there's some stuff happening. There's not a lot. And I think the big institutions that now exist in Bitcoin, they will get fed up and they will fire the devs and put in new devs.

If you're Black Rockck and you have billions of dollars of client assets in this thing and the problem's not being addressed, what choice do you have?

I think the token side of the industry is basically over in its current form. I think there will always be tokens, but the VC backed flashy all token side is done.

Hey everybody, welcome to Bits and Bips, where we explore how crypto and macro collide one basis point at a time, hopefully without getting the stream banned thanks to Rahm's AV. I am your host Austin Campbell, scholar of Zero Knowledge Consulting, here with my co-hosts, Rahm Alawalia, Maester of Wealth, Leader of Luminina, and Chris Perkins, who I think still has not named the spin-off yet, so I'm not even going to pretend.

Chris, you got to get this done. And today I am super excited. We have personal friend Nick Carter here to talk about exciting topics, not just the market but also what the future of Bitcoin might look like or not if people don't fix things.

Before we get into all of that today, first just remember that nothing we say here is investment advice. Check unchainedcrypto.com bits and bips for more disclosures. And secondly, before we begin, a quick word from one of our sponsors.

Quick note before we get into today's episode. Bits and Bits now has its dedicated feeds. We're spinning off from the Unchained feed and moving to a new podcast and YouTube channel. So, if you want to keep up with our weekly live streams and macro meets crypto breakdowns, make sure to subscribe to Bits and Bips directly.

We won't publish there until March, but subscribe today so you can be ready for launch. Be sure to subscribe to the new feeds at unchainedcrypto.com/bitsandbips.

Did you know that Figure is giving away $25,000 in USDC? They're a decentralized digital asset platform for earning, borrowing, and lending. Download the Figure Markets app using our link figurearkets.co/chained DP, deposit into their democratized prime pools and earn about 9% APY paid hourly while you enter. Every dollar you keep in for 25 consecutive days counts as an entry. Again, the link is figurearkets.co/chained dp for full details.

If cryptotaxes feel overwhelming, you are not alone. That's why Cryptotax Girl, a team that's been helping crypto investors since 2017, is offering $100 off on one-on-one cryptot tax help. To get $100 off your cryptotax services, go to cryptotaxgirl.com/unchained. Again, that's cryptotaxgirl.com/unchained.

All right, welcome back everybody. I think we have to start with the Feb 5 market crash today and I'm going to run through a brief of many of the things that have been talked about here and then we're going to have a wandering discussion down many of these paths knowing us.

But to frame the discussion, last week's selloff saw Bitcoin briefly break towards 60K, one of the worst cross asset draw downs of years. This came after draw downs in gold, in silver, and we're going to talk about some of the stock market. The moves coincided across all of these things. Was this global de-risking or cryptospecific stress?

So, one rumor in the market is that the nexus of the problem lies with a large IBIT holder. It's the number one venue for Bitcoin options trading. So, one guess is that a hedge fund trading IBIT options is the culprits. Parker White said, "After talking to multiple folks, I am much more convinced now that a Hong Kong-based fund, who is a large holder of IBIT, blew up, moving from hypothesis to strong theory at this point."

There are some others who rejected it. Dovy Juwan Yufenni citing no abnormal fund behavior, no information leakage, and surprisingly few signs of opaque leverage like prior cycles. quote, "In order to blow up, you need to have a decently levered position. Most of the leverage in previous cycles has been facilitated by uncolateralized lending platforms like Genesis, Celsius, etc., which was very much not transparent to the rest of the industry and obviously ended pretty badly for most of them.

Most of the leverage in this cycle is coming from PERS. So, ETF options have plumbing. Bitcoin liquidity and selling pressure clustered during US hours consistent with ETF related flows rather than an Asian fund unwind and there are no huge redemptions or collapses coming out of IBIT that we've seen.

Franklin B suggested a trady multi-asset player may have been the source of forced deleveraging and especially with the move in metals, this seems at least plausible if it's a margin-driven selling thing outside of crypto.

I also want to raise the generic riskoff framework as we've been looking at a number of different risk on assets and Rahm, you've been talking about this for a while at the animal spirits reversing in this case. So before we get further into some of the individual bits here, I want to start with that layout and brahm start with you because you've been on sort of like the risk story changing for a while. What did you make of this?

I agree with your hypothesis earlier that you had hedge funds that were buying on the way down and over lever and they had unwind. There's another post on Twitter about a fund called Trend Research that was accumulating Ethereum on leverage.

And we talked a few months ago how the bottom would be marked by funds blowing up the bodies floating in the water and you're starting to see that now. And there will be more. I'm sure there are more names we have not heard of including obviously individuals that are part of that too.

And this is just a marker of how all cycles begin and so I think that's exactly what it is. And I thought you said it exactly right. This is it's a high beta sell-off. It's happening across different markets.

That day also coincided with a sell off in Mac 7, right? Microsoft reported it was down 10%. Amazon was down last week too and Amazon as well and it was down again the day after.

I was going to say the only winner out of the Mag 7 was basically Apple and they've been doing absolutely nothing. Meta Meta also. Yeah, they reported they gapped up, they pulled back, but now it's going up again for those that are keeping score. So, all right.

Chris, what do you make of the call out here on the perks front? Right. Like, I agree we haven't seen like a large leverage lender explode, but derivatives could be a tremendous source of both leverage and price reflexivity. What are you seeing or thinking there?

I guess the first question is, you know, we're trying to figure out 25 as it's now called. We figured out 1010 yet. Like we're talking about 1010 last week, you know, like it takes time and I don't even think we've seen the the bodies float to the surface on 10 10 yet, let alone 25. It's going to take some time to figure it all out. But what do we know?

We know that the market seems very nervous right now. I think 1025 was related to 1010 because as I was speaking to some of our counterparties particularly some of the market makers they were very very quick to liquidate positions that weren't meeting margin calls and so there's that nervousness to to liquidate quickly.

And I think that contributed to some of the downward spirals. I think I liked what Jeff Park was talking about regarding basis. We're going through a bit of a regime change in crypto for those of you who've been listening where a lot of the OGs are checking out and they're being slowly and methodically replaced by institutions and sometimes those institutions are slowly marching forward.

You know, retail moves much more aggressively. There does seem to be a lot of interconnectedness. We call it proyclicality in many cases. There's still folks ADLing away. that's still part of market structure in crypto which also contributes to that procyclicality and so I think you know be in time as institutions come in and intermediaries again assert themselves and provide those buffers I still think we're going to be bound for a number of different violent moves and whether that's you know gold's coming back to crypto crypto going to gold whatever it just feels like it's a time of violence continue to watch the basis.

I think institutions will continue to leg into the basis and the basis. So when futures prices are higher than spot prices, things get interesting and institutions can take advantage of that because they're not taking that real price risk.

I think there's a couple issues right now is that when they unwind that trade, prices go down and there's also a lot of competition in crypto for other bases whether it's in Japan or other places now where where maybe some traditional assets are competing with crypto. So that that's been part of the issue here.

But like I think Don Wilson was really really summed it up and I think Rahm, you talked about it in one of your chats where, you know, we had this exuberance after Trump came in. Everything's going to be great, everything's going to be fine. You know, everyone poured into that.

You know, this also feels like a natural pullback after some of that exuberance, but it feels like it's bottoming to me and it feels like slow and steady building from here, acknowledging that there's going to be some violence along the way.

Nick, you've seen more crypto cycles than most people are capable of living through at this point. What is your take on where the market currently is? And I I want to ask specifically for you. I know you've paid close attention over the years to like the thesis around Bitcoin and then a lot of the fintech developments coming out of this space like what what are we actually hearing on the ground from people in the space? Are the OGs dropping out?

I think some of them are. Yeah. I mean, we know the galaxy had a whale that sold 9 billion, you know, and some of us were mistaken listening to Galaxy earnings call wasn't about quantum for that whale specifically.

But I I think in every cycle actually, if you look at the age of coins that are being sold, actually the OGs are pretty good at timing market picking market tops. So every time there's this distribution effect of long holders distributing to the new entrance and that's definitely the case now.

It's hard to say whether we see this feeling of pessimism throughout the industry now you know whether that's persuading the Bitcoin holders to sell or not. Certainly, Bitcoin has become this kind of in like institutional asset like a careful what you wish for thing where it's much more exposed to global macro trends.

I don't know if that's enough to get an OG to sell. Some of some of like the core Bitcoin ideology things have have probably been invalidated to a certain degree like Lightning didn't take off the way people thought it would. It didn't become this medium of exchange. stable coins claim that crown, you know, Ethereum didn't die. Salana didn't die, you know.

So, a lot of these like the stock toflow model I think is I I don't know if everybody on this call agrees with me, but it's probably not real. You know, a lot of these like foundational Bitcoin mythologies are have been invalidated to a certain degree. So, that might have persuaded some people to sell.

But to the broader discussion, I actually don't know if we're going to get a a satisfying single catalyst, you know, to explain the recent sell-off or even 1010. I think we've been spoiled because in 22 there were all these specific things we could point to that were really nice, neat causal explanations and the broader explanation was a credit crunch and a deleveraging.

that in prior you know sometimes market structure just becomes inherently unstable and the tiniest catalyst sets off it you know can flagration so I think that might be the case this time we there may not be any f single large fund that blew up so I I I think it's very people always reach for an explanation because it would be great if there was one and then we could say okay well that's behind us we can go up now.

So one thing that I was observing and I was having a chat out not too long ago over the weekend with a friend of mine who's still a trader on the street is that the debasement trade overall was very crowded but probably not working for the reasons that people thought right like Rah you've been on this about if you look at the actual performance like EM stocks have been outperforming the dollar and you had people piling into like metals at silver and maybe to some extent Bitcoin though it had been lagging compared to many of these things.

And the thought there was it may actually be that a very crowded debasement trade leading to unwinds in that space when things stopped working bled over into a whole bunch of these things. Like we do know now that there are multistrat funds that also handle Bitcoin either outright in some cases or Chris to your point using things like CME futures right instead of taking the outright positions to hold tokens themselves.

And when you have extremely crowded positioning, which by the way you also have in the mag 7 to something Rob has been talking about before. I want to piggyback on what Nick just said, which is you don't need one specific blowup to actually start the chain of prices going down. The causation actually works in the other direction, right? which is the chain of prices start heading down and then you could start getting a string of discrete blowups as people get margin called or forced out.

But like here there's no crypto contagion into the traditional banking system. If anything's blowing up it's a multistrat hedge fund, right? Which is going to hit some prime brokers but those guys have more than enough capital to live or if they don't JP Morgan will buy them as is the fate of all financial institutions.

So, I've been watching like the string of unwind risk and I feel like the market structure problem is a key point which I want to bring us back to something that Rahm was just saying. Rahm, if this continues, what other sectors do you think are due for a little bit of deleveraging?

I think this is a a highly crowded market that's been unwinding, right? So like the mag seven stocks a good example of that. Digital assets at the passage of the genius act in June July around the circle IPO. These are highly crowded and concentrated markets.

And Max 7 has so much market cap that when it leaks capital right we're talking trillions and trillions of dollars relative to any other asset class and it flows anywhere else those other markets run up so much. Like look at Staples. The headline would be this is just a a high beta rollover story. You could tell the same story about Palunteer, about Robin Hood, and you know other high beta assets.

And what's taking that place is is value, right? The pendulum's come the other way around. International. It's the it's the inverse of what's worked well over the last two years. All caps.

I was going to say it's it's revenge of like what's the right way to say it? The physical atoms so to speak, right? Like if we're in an AI world where digital scarcity is being displaced, let's say, based the thesis that you've said and then we're getting into this very complicated position in the AI trade. The thing that should outperform is physical scarcity. Is that kind of the thesis here?

I mean, I know you've also been on the insurance company bandwagon, too. And I guess that comes down to physical, you know, presence. Cash flow. Free cash flow and value. It's like it's back to classic investing. It's the revenge of Warren Buffett. The revenge of Warren Buffett.

So, I was going to say somewhere Charlie Munger is laughing. All right. So, a couple of points that I want to sort of pile on to that we were just talking about here as we've thought about what's going on. We're talking specifically about all of these different markets and like idiosyncratic concerns, but I want to drill down on two of them in particular to talk about the risks and how they're impacting price appetite, whether people are buying the dip or not.

So, let me start with Nick on this one. Nick, what is going on with the people who are quantum skeptics in Bitcoin and how has this been impacting dynamics of people willing to step in there?

I think reasonable people can disagree about quantum for sure. There are very smart people that will deny that quantum mechanics is even real, even though that that's wrong, but you know, quantum mechanics is definitely real. There are smart people that will plainly deny that quantum computing will ever be a thing though, you know.

So, I would say a lot of the skeptics have changed their tune. Not the crypto quantum skeptics, the general quantum skeptics have changed their tune recently. Like you listen to Scott Arensson, he'll say, "Yeah, he used to be a huge skeptic." And I mean, he's active in the field, but he used to be much more skeptical than he is now. Now, he says it's probably just an engineering challenge, not a theoretical challenge.

So in Bitcoin, I think the disagreement is over timelines and I think a lot of people don't appreciate the fact that navigating quantum transition Bitcoin will take the better part of a decade. So it's not really about, you know, I would say what it's mostly about is starting early so that you can transition before the threat becomes material and how long you have, how much notice you have.

I think people think we'll have a lot more warning than we do have. So that's probably the crux of the disagreement is some people don't appreciate the immense lift involved. And then of course some Bitcoin devs are a little more precautionary in the sense that they don't want to change Bitcoin dramatically to reflect a risk that they don't even believe is real. And the change itself might be introducing new risks, which is definitely true as well.

So, I'm I'm on one side of this argument. Smart people are on the other side, too. I just I think it's not being taken seriously enough.

So, so I want to throw this one over to Chris who thinks a lot about investing like in general contexts here. Then as you look at Bitcoin in particular, the governance process there that would be required to change it for call it any major threat. Does this sort of behavior give you more or less confidence in the long term as an investor in something like that?

Well, one thing that's been on my mind is you've got three major technologies that are advancing at light speed and they're all interconnected. You have crypto, you have AI, and you have quantum. And I think AI is accelerating both of those streams. They're all, you know, look what's going on right now in in crypto.

I talk about re it's been a retail market. It's transitioning to an institutional market, but guess who else is going to show up? The Agents, right? That's a brand new environment and they're coming right and you know you look at AI these guys look what's going on you know X42 EIP A004 in the Ethereum ecosystem these guys are going to be paying each other these are technologies you can't look at siloed and along comes Nick Carter and Quantum you can't look at that in a silo either right what gives me I guess confidence and maybe I'm a little bit more optimistic and that's maybe a flaw law of mine is that because this issue has been raised to the surface by guys like Nick.

Thanks for that, Nick. I I feel like, you know, maybe people aren't going to move fast enough, but it it feels like there's enough capital on the line and enough people that are interested that that the risk has been identified. I do think it is it hasn't stopped adoption, but like it's a throttle we talk about, right?

If clarity act gets passed, the throttle goes forward and institutions move faster. If quantum risk surface, the institutions are still moving forward. They just have to slow down a little bit because that question comes up on every single IC now. On every single institutional IC, guys, I'm going to take my state fund or I'm going to take my endowment and pension fund. I'm going to invest in Bitcoin. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Do we know what's going on quantum? Right?

So, it just slows the process. I personally believe that the and again I'm not deep as like like Nick into the into the hardcore developer community in Bitcoin as he is but it feels as though this has been elevated to the surface. Maybe David Saxs should take on a third job and and and make himself the quantumar as well.

But look I I I think that you have to look at these things together. I think the problems are going to be accelerated with AI. So AI will help help definitely expedite developments in quantum, but it's also going to expedite the defenses that we're going to need. So, you know, I don't know. We'd love to hear Nick's response to that one.

No, I think those are very astute comments. I totally agree with you that AI is accelerating quantum development because quantum is quantum computing is about physics and it's about engineering and what is AI really really good at? Basically those things there's all these math discoveries that are being made with AI even the primitive ones.

What happens when we 10x the compute and the flops? What kind of math problems we going to solve then? probably the kind of stuff that will allow you to figure out how to do error correction really well on a quantum chip. So, I do think it's naive to predicate the future of Bitcoin on tech development slowing down.

I think that's not the right bet to make and it's weirdly regressive and litesque. you know it's it's odd as a supposed you know envelope pusher bleeding edge tech guy you're like I think tech is actually going to slow down like look what happened with AI in the last six seven years it AI capacity by whatever metric you look at increased from by six or seven orders of magnitude in under a decade whether that's flops whether that's the size of the largest training run, whether it's the length of a useful task that AI can do with the high success rate.

So, we know for sure that it's possible when a lot of excitement and capital is mobilized around a topic, a specific technological trend, and there's an inflection techn. We know for sure that we can churn through the orders of magnitude really quickly. Now, how many orders of magnitude are required to get a state-of-the-art quantum computer today to a point where it's good enough to break Bitcoin's elliptic curves? Two to three. Two to three.

It's not six or seven. And is there a lot of excitement in capital being mobilized around quantum computing? 100%. 2025 was the biggest year ever in QC by a lot. About 10 billion in private private capital was mobilized. And then you have China, another 10 billion. God only knows, you know, how much work they're putting into its strategic priority. Certainly one here.

So I just think, you know, it we are one of those inflection points. We saw it. The scientists at these top quantum companies saw something that caused them to go out and say, "Let's raise a billion dollars to build a useful quantum computer." And that's happening. They those fund raise have those have occurred. And Bitcoiners I think are just denying that. So it it makes me worried.

And on quantum look, timing matters and early is wrong. Like the direction of travel, I think Nick was right. AI accelerates discovery, math, engineering. But I'm reminded of Craig Venttor when he mapped the human genome in 2001 and you had a massive biotech bubble. There's a lot of hype around personalized medicine. Nothing happened. It was a big bust. 20 years went by. People said, "Geez, this is a lot harder than it looks."

Um, you know, we have sustained fusion reactions, you know, for a period of time where you get positive energy output, but we're still a long ways away. So, the direction of travel isn't enough. So, I I think we're too early on quantum driving real impact in the next couple of years. And the reason is we it's hard for anyone to propose a specific, you know, mechanism or pathway. We're still in the discovery and ideation creativity phase.

Um, so I'm more in the kind of skeptic camp on quantum from a timing perspective. I think an important point though about that which Chris raised earlier is you know this is one of those things that's like savagely beaten into you by the market as a trader is your opinion doesn't matter on some of these things in terms of prices which is to say if it's true that investment committees are looking at quantum for crypto and saying this is a concern and we have this concern and we're not going to buy this thing until this concern is addressed if you're like a Bitcoin core dev.

If you're like Nick or like Rom, it kind of doesn't matter to those people. They've got their concern and either it gets addressed or it doesn't. And if it turns out that quantum is not a risk, they will eventually change their minds. But that can be 20 years later, right?

And we live in this world where what's the right way to say it? Because of the speed of technological process, a lot of these are like mimetic things that get into people's minds and then they need to be addressed if you want to move forward. So in a strange way, if you're like a proponent of Bitcoin and want mass adoption, I don't think your personal opinion on quantum matters. I think enough of the asset allocators are telling you it matters that you address it or you slow it down.

I just I think it's exactly right. And you know, there's two ways to address the concern. One is to address the root issue, which is to add postquantum signatures in Bitcoin. There's ways to do that without just ruining the way it works right now. You could have optin, optional, post, whatever. So you could address the root issue that's hard, takes a lot of governance work.

We've had two updates all decade, so it's slow. You could also address the like more transient and apparent issue, which is the perception that there is a risk. You don't actually have to change the blockchain to address the perception. All you have to do is say, here's our road map. This is what we will do. We'll look at these milestones to determine when we, you know, do this. Ethereum already did this. Ethereum made it a strategic priority.

I know Bitcoin core development doesn't work like Ethereum. I know. But you could do that if you wanted to address the perception. Instead, we have the most influential Bitcoin developers calling me a FUDster. I don't think that is going to do anything to allay the concerns that the big invest and I think there's a huge gulf between capital and core devs which there's always been that gulf and the core devs deliberately try and ignore what capital thinks because they want to stay pure.

This is one of the issues with Bitcoin governance and that's been fine historically because there's been no change needed to Bitcoin that's been critical since about 2013. So in the modern era of Bitcoin, there's never needed to be a critical change, but now there might be. And so maybe it's time to rethink this whole notion of devs being this like monks like walled off inside the monastery receiving no signals from the outside world.

One one point I'd like to make just around this earlier point around institutions and this transition retail institution. Let me challenge that a bit. This is a compilation of 13F filings and it shows the largest ownership positions by hedge funds sorted by value. CC Millennium's got a billion dollars worth of IBIT, Jane Street, then Black Rockck. Then it tails off pretty quick. Now, this is just IBIT, but it is the most liquid ETF representing Bitcoin. This is not much.

Second, you can see they're all underwater. Generally these kinds of investors don't add to losing positions. I see Paul Tudtor Jones is in there. Losers add to losers. So I think this is another reason why there's been pressure on digital assets. Like institutions, they really aren't there. It's really been RAIA distribution vehicles to their end client base. That's what we mean by institutions. Those are really financial advisors that are offering these products. But they're not they're not offering it enough. There's not enough end demand. Of course, that's why prices come lower. This is a this is a very different cycle than any cycle we've seen before.

And we we talk about how in this cycle fundamentals utility really matter and and you really need to differentiate as you're looking at every single token in and of itself. But that's not how people look at crypto right now. you know, if Bitcoin didn't get its act together and solve the quantum conundrum, you know, it's pretty much going to take, you know, the rest of crypto down with it for a while, I would say.

Even if ETH had its act together because it's just we look at this asset class as an asset class. But, you know, the more I've been thinking about it, I think crypto is just a rapper. You know, you can take that rapper and you can wrap a security. You can wrap a bond. You can wrap a anything. You can wrap tech and call it cryptonative. So, I don't think we're there yet. I think right now we're just looking at all of crypto equals Bitcoin. Bitco Bitcoin equals crypto. Quantum is going to screw all of it.

But and I hope that we mature and start looking at you know these projects a little bit more with a little bit more discrimination. fundamentals and individual properties etc. And Chris, to your point, these blockchains have taken enormously disperate approaches to the problem. And basically, the more central, I'm not saying this in a disparaging way. The more centralized you are, the better you can deal with the problem. So, you can imagine how that maps to the major blockchains.

100%. Right. So, I mean, Bitcoin will just be the last one to upgrade. Layers of contradictions, Nick. Layers of contradictions. No. Yeah. No. it censorship is or centralization is maybe good now. Hyper liquid and Canton are the two blockchains that Don Wilson from DRW is talking about. They're centralized their own counterparties. Yeah, that's antithesis of a decentralized network.

To be fair, Don may be talking his own book a little bit. He's accurate though, but he it's his book because of his reasoning and I agree with the reasoning. I think that reasoning is accurate. I think he's he's stalking Multicoins book too, right? Sorry, I was a bad founder. That was a bad joke. You're now you're just causing trouble. yeah. No, the great irony is going to be when because Bitcoin core has too hard of a time coordinating here that the quantum resistant one ends up being Bitcoin Satoshi vision and that's what everybody ends up using in the future. Not a prediction. That is a joke.

Well, I I'll tell you what I think's going to happen, and I don't want to scare anyone. I think the devs will probably continue to do nothing. They say that there's some stuff happening. There's not a lot. And I think the big institutions that now exist in Bitcoin, they didn't before. They didn't in the 2x scaling wars debate. There were basically no institutions. They will get fed up and they will, for lack of a better word, fire the devs and and put in new devs.

If you're Black Rockck and you have billions of dollars of client assets in this thing and it's problems not being addressed, what choice do you have? So, I think this if unressed by the devs organically would lead to a corporate takeover, a successful one and then Bitcoin will look more like some of the other centralized blockchains. This is really an all roads lead to Rome type problem.

But like, okay, rewinding the tape here and kind of back to how we got here. When you have thisformational fog like around market prices for an asset that was previously a momentum asset, the other thing that's going to drive that to go back to sort of behavior is BlackRock is a fiduciary, right? Like they vote in shareholder things. They think about the value of holdings. If there is a structural problem here and they have a large view eventually they are going to be required to speak up. It's not even like a sort of call it preference thing. Yes.

Like I mean it's just a decision you but generally black rocking institutions go in the direction of management right when you see like those shareholder proxies. Now here there's no shareholder proxy but overall to say that they're they're passive. They're not activists. are they? There's all those what what's the right way to say this? Theoretically, Black Rockck and Vanguard are passive, but in reality, they do have opinions on shareholder votes. They do have opinions on governance.

Yeah. I mean, especially like a Vanguard who's also, to your point, got a whole RAIA business and needs to make recommendations. I'm just not sure traditional corporate governance maps that well. You know there is no board and there's no management team but someone needs to do something like maybe forget quantum any existential risk to Bitcoin some committee of people has to step up and do something. If that committee doesn't exist they have to be it has to be catalyzed into existence.

overall just the mood and the climate around digital assets just to put a word on it is bleak and dark and dismal. Would you would you agree with that characterization, Nick?

Yeah, I think it's be I think the the one main cause is because 90% of all token launches in 2025 were down and and garbage and garbage, you know, bad and they were down bad. I mean, I think anyone listening should be pissed at the crypto VCs and entrepreneurs and the lack of alignment.

Remember Geio Cities, Austin, Chris, you and I would probably remember Geio Cities. I am that old. Geio Cities was a website. I don