Jeff Smith: I would say the initial reaction is the eyebrows go up, and they lean in. Music is ubiquitous. It’s all around us. It’s amazing. And it touches our lives. And so you have this emotional currency that we all get. So they lean in and say “That’s amazing.” And then they’ll kind of sit back and say “Ooh, what does my music say about me? If I’m listening to Nine Inch Nails, does that mean I’m depressed? Or what’s going on here in my heart?”

So they go through that, and then they lean forward again and say “Oh, this is amazing. How do I incorporate this in my life, in my profession?” And I would say the surprise or the unique things that came out of those conversations is really these tributaries that were created.

So we built the tech, you patent it, you apply it to a sector that you understand, have influenced in, that has a large enough addressable market, good liquidity, there’s a budget item for engagement measurement… And you apply it in there. I didn’t expect then where this would take us, right? We’ve got mental health professionals saying “Hey, we want it as a screening tool to get ahead of certain things in our clinics”, as well as creating a profit center for them. We have athletes and sports psychologists looking at it for performance. We have the US military needing to address suicide rates and say “Hey, if we could just know more about how they’re doing…” It’s all about that early detection, early indicator on how they’re doing. And again, I want to stress, it’s a screening tool. It’s not a diagnostic or an assessment tool. So inside of therapy clinics, it’ll just get them to that BDI or GAD, the formal assessments quicker, which is kind of cool.

[12:18] So I think that was the biggest surprise for me, is I’ve launched a lot of companies, and it’s around the innovation or the relationships or the opportunity… This one was just – I use the word ‘ubiquitous’. It just – it’s emotional, it’s primal, it’s historic… It’s just in people’s lives.

We come to learn that the average person listens to 22 hours of music a week. It’s all around us. And so that’s just really cool. So I would say that was a big surprise for me.

Quincy Larson: And that’s how venture capital works. They’re trying to ramp up your valuation so they can exit when there’s a liquidity event, whether that’s an acquisition, or whether that’s going public, or something. And each round has to be bigger, otherwise you’ve got a down round, and you’ve got a company that’s in decline, and people start leaving the ship.

Adam Stacoviak: It’s very smart, I think, because you’re so comfortable in the Rails world… I think it’s smart because - yeah, Rails is mature enough that there are several opportunities out there just sort of waiting, in a way… And you could be a friend, you can bring something to it, you can give something new life, you can have somebody get liquidity out, or some sort of exit that might make sense… You can satisfy the existing customer base, you can bring it into the fold and grow it more and bigger… If we go back to the hub and spoke idea - and I don’t know exactly how far you go in to decide which really is your hub, but if you can start to surround this hub with various things that compliment this thesis, this idea of “Enjoy what you do, enjoy the process, great enough revenue to support other people, bring them in, everybody wins”, and you just kind of rinse and repeat… I think the question Jerod’s asking is like, at one point, can you exit that? And I think if you’re enjoying it for the next 12 years, there’s an obvious exit that can come about if you’re building value… So I don’t really – I personally wouldn’t care that much or concern that much with the exit strategy.

They do say every time you enter into a business or a room, that you should Jason Bourne it; you should plan your exit, right? You should never go into something and you don’t have some sort of like failsafe, or “What if this went to zero?” or exit strategy. I think that is smart. But I think if you’re comfortable with this Rails model, and this is only Rails SaaS apps, it would be kind of – not so much easy necessarily, but like you can see a clear path in terms of the word easy being applied. You can see a clear path to even the codebases getting refactored the same way, or having similarities across them, or services that you’re buying once, or you have one relationship, then benefit the whole entire pool. That’s why I like the lily pad analogy.

Joseph Jacks: Okay. I want to say a couple things that balance out my massive bull case that I just laid out there. I personally think the transformer is extremely inefficient, and like a brute force instrument for creating really powerful AI models. And I think this whole “Scale is all you need” narrative, and “All we need to do is build a half a million or a 10-million GPU compute cluster and we’re going to get to AGI”, I think all of that is utter horses**t. And I think there’s very diminishing returns that we’re going to reach, and I think the architecture is going to be viewed – the transformer thing is going to be viewed in a few years as today we view Fortran or COBOL in comparison to Rust, or to modern languages and modern compilers.

So with that view, which is a very technical view - and I can elaborate more on that if you want, but it would probably take a lot longer - I think that what Zuck is doing is actually totally insane. Okay? Because he’s basically mirroring what the big labs are doing, except he’s like sitting on a hundred billion dollars of cash, and going “Ha, ha, ha! You guys are trying to raise a hundred billion from the Middle East. I have a hundred billion right now. And also, I can do very effective liquidity transactions and leverage on my trillion-dollar company.”

By the way, I think Zuck is probably the most powerful technology founder in the world, above Musk, because he has a trillion-dollar company today, that he solely controls with his super-shares. Not even Larry and Sergey from Google actually kind of approximate or come close to that, because Google’s two, two and a half trillion or something, and it’s two guys. And one’s kind of like unknown, checked out where he is, and the other guy is sort of like bouncing around at AGI House and trying to help Google figure out how to build competitors to LLaMA. Which is Sergey.

So Zuck actually is playing the same game that Sam is playing, except he’s like this proprietary stuff. It’s going to create a totalitarian communist future. Let’s build in an open way, which is awesome. But I think the way in which he’s going about doing it is actually really flawed. And so we could see, in a couple of years, even though I’m still fairly optimistic about what you actually just said, Adam, like “God damn, my advertising experience is so much better. It’s like so relevant. It knows what I want. The thing I was kind of thinking about over lunch or whatever, there’s an ad for it. And I was kind of thinking about it… My God, I’m going to go buy that thing later”, or whatever. Like, that’s the best possible advertising. It’s not invasive, It’s not creepy… It’s like really, really specifically relevant to like what you want. That’s AI.

AI is making that happen. There aren’t programs that developers are writing. These are neural nets that are continuously learning based on all kinds of new inputs coming into the model, giving you a better recommendation for something.

[01:18:09.00] So even if Meta loses 50 to 100 billion on super-sloppy, crazy, inefficient transformer-based neural nets that are doing language model token generation, they could still recover those costs by producing a better advertising experience.

However, if they don’t actually have that much of a quantum differential on the cost that they’re going to be putting in the ground, which is probably to the tune of $100 billion, and the improvement in their advertising business, in reflection, they will actually look dumb the moment a transformer architecture replacement comes to light and shows the world that actually “Look, tweaks and optimizations can get you 5 or 10 or 20 times better performance on the transformer.” But there’s this new thing that’s actually 500 times to a 1,000 times better. At inference and at training time maybe it’s 100 times better. You cannot compete with that. Everyone will switch, and it’s going to be like “Wow, we actually only need 200 or 300 H100s to produce some unbelievably powerful system. We do not need 50,000 H100s”, let alone B200s, which are also still fairly optimized around this transformer thing. And so the AI bubble house of cards moment at that point will basically reveal that - whatever, the emperor has no clothes, and NVIDIA stock price will correct rapidly. I’m not recommending to short NVIDIA, by the way.

Cory Doctorow: They bought everyone else’s ideas and operationalized them. Now, those mergers historically would have been prohibited. Right up until like the Reagan era, you weren’t allowed to buy your nascent competitors to create vertical monopolies. You would have had to compete with them, or source them as a supplier.

So imagine if the entire ad stack or the mobile stack was not underneath Google, right? Because Google couldn’t build an ad stack on its own. It had to buy it from someone else. So imagine if that was not underneath Google. And then you would have multiple competing vendors, all using that ad stack. And because they were all competing with each other, you would have multiple competing ad stacks as well.

So right now, Google, because it’s stitched up the ads stack, because it’s the demand side platform, the sell side platform, the marketplace, an advertiser and a publisher… Right? They represent the seller, the buyer, they are the marketplace where they meet, and they compete with both of them… This is like when you go for a divorce and your lawyer is also your partner’s lawyer, and they’re also the judge, and they’re also trying to match with both of you on Tinder… And then when the whole transaction is done, who gets the house? Oh, it turns out the lawyer got the house.

So Google and Facebook - which, again, are a non-competing duopoly - they take 51 cents out of every ad dollar. Historically, it was like 10% was the rake that intermediaries in ads used to get. So that’s money out of the pockets of publishers, right? So you have to have competition, and we don’t have that when companies buy their competitors. As Mark Zuckerberg once said in a breathtaking act of self-incrimination, “It is better to buy than to compete.”

And then the next thing that happens when companies get this concentrated is you lose the second way that companies are disciplined, which is regulation. So companies that break the law, if they’re small, generally get punished pretty bad. We saw that when the GDPR passed in Europe - all the little European ad tech startups, they all went out of business, because they either couldn’t comply with the rules, or when they failed to comply with the rules got slapped around by the commission and put out of business. Google and Facebook just ignored the rules, and 10 years now they’re still ignoring them. Maybe they’ll eventually get brought up, but they can just like delay, move venue, move forums… They keep insisting all evidence to the contrary that they’re Irish companies, because Ireland is a crime haven, where they don’t really have a working data commissioner… There is a guy who has that job, but most days he doesn’t get out of bed, and when he does, he doesn’t put on his pants. He just sits around in his underwear, eating breakfast cereal and watching cartoons. So Google and Facebook get away with breaking the law forever in Europe. And so they’re not disciplined by regulation. So the historic contours of privacy, labor, fair trading - they’re just not in there.

[00:36:16.13] Like, if you walked into a store, and you said “Give me part number XYZ for my dryer filter”, and they give you a different part, or they handed you five parts, none of which were that part, and then when you bought one of them and walked out of the store, they didn’t mention that none of them were that part, that would be fraud. That’s how Amazon works. Amazon makes $31 billion a year letting people pay to match your queries when they wouldn’t be the best match otherwise. That’s Amazon advertising. And so we throw away consumer protection, and we throw away labor protection, which is the other thing that would discipline companies. So if you think about Uber, Uber does this thing called algorithmic wage discrimination, where Uber drivers, they sort themselves into these two buckets; they call themselves either ants or pickers. So an ant is indiscriminate, they take any job, and a picker is very choosy. And if you’re a picker, that is to say if the wage offer algorithm notices that you’re highly selective, it offers you a higher wage per mile than you would get if you were an ant. But as your selectivity goes down, the algorithm starts pricing your labor lower and lower. If you back off from that algorithm, the wage starts to climb up again until you’re back in. This is like a fisherman playing a fish on a hook. Reeling them out, reeling them in, reeling them out, reeling them in. In traditional labor markets, this is illegal. But when your boss is an app, it’s not.

And so this is the second realm… They’re unconstrained by regulation. So they’re not constrained by competition, they’re not constrained by regulation. And then there’s the third bucket of constraint, which is self-help. So historically, when browsers were a cesspool of popup ads, 20 of which would spawn every time you open a new window, and they would be one pixel square, and they would run away from your cursor, and they’d autoplay music, or they’d go full-screen, and show porn… I mean, these just awful, awful popup ads; we didn’t ban them. It’s just that browser vendors started to ship popup blockers that were on by default. It started with Opera, then Mozilla, and then because it was a competitive market, everybody started doing it. And so that was the end of it, right? Why pay for a pop-up ad if the pop-up ads never show up? So if you’ve been thinking about that Uber wage discrimination deal, it might have reminded you of something. Like, maybe it reminds you of exponential back-off in TCP/IP, or maybe it reminds you of how bids and puts are done by liquidity provision stock trading bots, where they notice that the price is going up, so they reduce the frequency with which they’re bidding until the price comes back down… So there’s no reason to imagine that you couldn’t like make an app that was like a meta Uber app for drivers, that noticed when the price was going down for labor, and coordinated among multiple drivers to not have that happen, to reject jobs until the price goes back up. Or you know, what you were just talking about - your app is giving you notifications you don’t want to see. There’s no reason why you couldn’t pop-up-block that. The reason that you can’t do it is not technical, it’s that section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The same law that bans you from removing DRM from an Audible audiobook also makes it a felony to reverse engineer those apps, because they’re encrypted.

And so one in four web users has installed an ad blocker. It’s the largest consumer boycott in human history. Zero app users have installed an ad blocker, because the first step to installing that ad blocker is to reverse-engineer the app, which can land you in jail for five years. And so this is the third area of constraint that firms are removed from. Their regulatory capture allows them to exercise unlimited discretion in how they reconfigure these infinitely flexible digital tools, and it allows them to confiscate the discretion that we would have to reconfigure those tools, so they serve us instead of their shareholders.

[00:40:08.10] Even when nothing unlawful takes place, if bypassing DRM or violating Terms of Service, or Apple, the subcomponents on iPhones have tiny microscopic Apple logos engraved on them, so that when they’re refurbed, or harvested in the Far East, and then sent back across the US border to be used in refurbs, they argue that that’s a trademark tarnishment and they have them stopped at the border, so you can’t get the parts, so you can’t fix the phone… So even the kinds of repairs you can do on an iPhone without bypassing DRM, and risking criminal prosecution, importing the parts to do it from old phones is potentially a trademark violation.

So you have this incredible regulatory leeway in preventing business customers and end users from altering the business logic of the service to serve them. You also have the same leeway in undertaking those same alterations on your own behalf as the OEM. And no one competes with you, so even if you could beat those other two forces, there’d be nowhere to go. And the reason nobody competes with you is because of those two things. And so it’s all sewn up.

So how do we get everything back? Well, the first thing we’ve got to do is just antitrust. And that’s amazing. There’s a lot going on right now with antitrust. Google’s in court, Amazon’s in court, Apple’s got an investigation pending in the EU; Salesforce, they say they’re gonna go after the Microsoft Activision merger again in the US… You name it, this is a historically unprecedented time. It hasn’t looked like this since I was in diapers. You have to go back before the Carter administration to find this degree of antitrust. And not just here in the EU, in the UK, in Australia, in Canada, and even in China, where the Chinese cyberspace regulation actually bans companies from reconfiguring their services to block interoperability.

So you have this incredible moment where people are recognizing that antitrust matters, and it’s happening across lots of different markets, and lots of different agencies. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau just promulgated a proposed regulation that will force your bank to interoperably port your data out, either to comparison shopping sites that will say “Oh yeah, this is your mortgage, this is your APR on your credit card. This is how often you get hit by overdraft charges. This is how much you’ve got in your savings, and what interest rate you’re getting. You should be at this other bank.” And then, one click, port all your data to the other bank, including all your transaction history, your pays, and everything. That’s coming out of that Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not out of the consumer protection agencies, not out of the DOJ, not out of the Federal Communications Commission… It’s like the bank regulators is getting in on the act. So this is great. So this is step one, antitrust.

Step two, constrain the way that the firms twiddle the knobs on the backend. Make them respect and obey privacy, labor and consumer protection laws. And the book gets into, as you said before, shovel-ready proposals for this. Ways that you can actually hold them to certain codes of conduct, where breaches are easy to detect… Because a lot of the codes of conduct that people want to impose on tech are really hard to prove when there’s a violation. You have to stop people from harassing people on your platform. It’s like “Alright, now we have to agree on what harassment is. Then we have to take some instance of a user doing something bad to some other user, and agree on whether that was harassment. Then we have to depose your engineers and figure out whether you did enough to stop the harassment.” And now it’s like five years later, and there’s been 50,000 more, 50 million more harassment complaints. What’s the point? It’s just not going to work. Even if you really think harassment is a problem, as I do, this is just not a workable remedy.

[00:44:01.02] But the book goes into some other remedies… In Mastodon, there’s a one-click facility to export an XML file - or maybe it was a JSON file - that has all of the people you follow, all the people who follow you, as well as your blocks and mutes and whatever. With one click, you can export that, and with one click you can export it somewhere else, and everything just shifts over. The same way – if you know the RSS spec at all, there’s like a directive in RSS where you can say “This feed has moved”, and just like the next time the RSS reader hits it, it just redirects somewhere else. So if you’re using Feedly, or whatever, and they start charging you money for something that used to be free, or they start spying on your users, or they, I don’t know, start [unintelligible 00:44:39.04] spotted owls as an internal corporate initiative to find a youth serum, or something… You can just like upload the redirect directive and then all the people who subscribe to your RSS go wherever you’ve gone to; some WordPress feed, stuff like that.

Jason Bosco: Yeah, that’s a good point. So I’d say the value of a business – you know, there’s building value into the core product that you’re selling, and providing that value to the customers who are paying for that core product. That’s one way to grow the value of the business.

Now, of course, if you’re looking at it from the perspective of stock prices, to be able to maybe sell the company later on, then building value in the core product is not going to be as financially rewarding as selling stock to investors. But I’m wondering if maybe – once you have a sufficiently large adoption of your core product, I’m wondering if that will help translate to also… You know, not that we’re looking to do this, but if we were to do like a crowdfunded fundraising eventually, maybe that core value that the product delivers is what determines our stock prices, if we ever were to do a crowdfunded round… Rather than – today, it feels to me like the way stock prices increase in a VC-backed model is that it’s only by raising your next round of funding. So once you get on a train, to keep your latest round of investors happy for the valuation that they paid, you have to raise the next round of funding, or go public, or have some sort of a liquidity event, so that the latest round of investors make good returns on that investment. So that’s what leads to increasing valuations; you just keep having to raise additional rounds of funding to keep that group of “customers” happy.

Sid Sijbrandij: I think it made us stronger. There’s a lot of rigor around processes if you wanna go public, and that made us better. I think we got to keep almost all of the transparency, for which I’m grateful. And for our values, we have 20 ways in which we reinforce our values, and we’re only adding to those. None of them got removed.

For the team members there’s now more liquidity for their stock, so that’s awesome… But also, we try to communicate “Look, this is a really big market. We have the leading DevOps platform, and this is gonna be a very exciting journey going forward.”

Gergely Orosz: I guess when I joined Uber I told myself, “Let’s have a check-in in four years. If everything goes well…” Uber is the first company actually where – when you join companies like Uber, you often get shares, or equity. This is not anything new for people in Silicon Valley, but for example in Europe this is quite rare.

I had some equity in my previous companies, which were worth in the end mostly zero… So I told myself “Let’s see what happens in four years, and then see where I wanna go from there.” And I was really happy at Uber. Professionally, I grew tons. Financially, it was also rewarding. Uber went to IPO, and people will argue, but I think it was a successful IPO because it happened, unlike some companies… For example Airbnb - it still hasn’t happened, and Uber and Airbnb were similar… Which just meant liquidity for employees who had some shares there.

And what I told myself before I joined Uber as well - if I have the option at some point, if I have the safety net, maybe I’ll try something else. And I looked back and I said “Well, hold on. I do have a safety net now. I can take a risk if I want to.”

And the other option was to stay at Uber and keep working with the team, keep leveling up to the next levels. As I reflected on what I really like doing, the most fun I had at Uber and previous places was always working with a small team, and getting something done against the odds.

[23:59] When I joined Uber - this memory is very vivid - we were a small team and we had this giant project; we were writing the Uber app and doing a lot of our part in it, which was just almost a death march. But it really bonded the team. We somehow got it done.

I’m really fond of the first maybe few years at Uber, where I had a small team. I was not as experienced as a manager; the engineers around me were not as experienced as engineers working in this environment… And we had so much fun, and we got a lot of things done.

As I moved on the path of managing managers, I kind of missed that. I always had the most fun working with smaller teams like this… And I wasn’t looking as much forward to going to the pint where I would manage mangers; I was missing this kind of fire in the belly, of doing something that is high-growth and is going to expand. So that’s what made me make this decision.

Whenever I make big life decisions, I usually have this test of “Would I really regret it if I didn’t do this?” This is when I changed from JP Morgan – I was really happy at JP Morgan, and back when I was there in London, working in finance, I had a really supportive boss, I had a good salary… And then Microsoft reached out and said “Do you wanna build Skype for Xbox 1?” I first said “Nah, I’m really happy… You know, supportive boss, I’m gonna be promoted…” But then, as I went to sleep and I tossed and turned in bed, I thought “Huh… I could be building Skype for Xbox 1”, and I had the feeling I would really regret it if I didn’t do that.

And it was the same here - I felt I would really regret it if I didn’t give this a go… For two reasons. Coronavirus is oddly one reason. This is a crisis. A lot of people are losing jobs, including in software. It’s a hard time for everyone… But I tend to look at things a bit differently.

Some of these situations are some of the best times to start a business, because there’s a lot of venture capital out there. There’s been really high returns on all the companies. You see the IPOs that are happening right now…

Sid Sijbrandij: We don’t necessarily wanna cash out the company, a so-called exit. I like to keep going. I’m having fun, it’s interesting, we’re adding something; I think the people at GitLab are producing great work… And the community is really helping the product become better at a rapid pace. On the 22nd we’ll have GitLab 13 come out, with all kinds of great new features… The reason that we need to do something is that we raised money in 2015. As soon as you raise external money, they wanna get that back, hopefully more, and you need to get to a liquidity event. The two options are selling the company, or going public. And selling the company, you need to have interest.

A thing I can talk about is that in 2014, when GitLab was less than nine people, and I was living in the Netherlands, and we never took an external dollar - we got an offer for ten million dollars to sell the company. The company was owned completely by me and Dmitriy at the time. And my accountant said “You should sell. You’ll never have to work again.” My response was “I really like work.”

Jerod Santo: Exactly. So it’s close enough, where you don’t have to go from USD to Ether to BAT, or from USD to Bitcoin to BAT. You can go from USD pretty much directly to BAT, and that will hypothetically remove the price volatility from BAT, away from Bitcoins, away from Ethereums, assuming a certain amount of transactions and liquidity over time.

Chris Beams: Yeah, certainly. If one were to ask “What’s the key limitation, what’s the downside of Bisq?”, one is hey, we’re asking you to do more and think more and care more, and the reward is privacy and security. If that’s of interest to you, then Bisq is for you; if not, then that’s okay, too. So that’s one thing.

The second thing is liquidity, volume. The likelihood at any given moment that you wanting to buy or sell, that there’s gonna be somebody right on the other side of that trade to pick it up. So the state of the situation today - we have trades happening every day, it’s a consistent, predictable number that’s actually growing over time, but we’re talking about orders of magnitude in some cases fewer trades per day (let’s say) than an exchange like Coinbase, or an exchange like Bitstamp, or Bitfinex, or really any popular centralized exchange. They’re moving thousands of Bitcoin for every one that Bisq does.

Now, in practice it seems to be the case that people can get into Bisq – just from looking at the trades statistics and so on, it seems to be the case that people can arrive at Bisq, place a trade or take somebody else’s offer, and get what it is that they were looking for. But it comes at a premium. It comes at the premium of time - you might have to wait a little while for something to show up or for someone to take your order.

[01:08:16.06] When you’re on a centralized platform - back to the convenience thing, these are automated matching, automated order book matching, where just the mere act of saying “I wanna sell at market price this much Bitcoin”, it’s instantaneously matched for you, because basically the exchange itself is accepting the order and it know that there’s gonna be enough liquidity on the other side to make the right match.

Peer Richelsen: So eventually, by just picking a very big, ambitious goal like connecting a billion people, you end up in an industry where you either sell for a couple billion to Google, or you go public. And I’d like this to be an independent company the way Sid runs GitLab as an independent company. And even Stripe will eventually go public. There’s just too much forces at play to liquidate early investors.

So that’s the first line of thinking. Once you’re in this industry, you will probably end up having a liquidation event, if things go well. And the second way of thinking is we think as an open source company and looking at other open source companies. Being a public company is another testament of being just – yeah, a public, an open company, that anyone can share in the upside of.

[01:20:10.23] I bought GitLab on the Daily IPO, because I never had a chance to buy any secondaries before. And I want them to do well. I truly believe in the mission and I want the retail investors to profit off it as well. So I think that’s my view on public companies. I don’t see it as a way of just having it in my CV, or a checkmark. It’s more of like, okay, what’s the economics behind it, what’s the best way to connect as many people as you can, and then fundamentally, that’s probably the outcome.

Nader Dabit: Some of the DAOs allow you to just join for free, some of them ask you to mint some type of token… But either way, you have to have, for the most part, some type of token to get in. And the reason that that’s the case is to kind of give ownership to everyone that’s there, and also provide them a way to liquidate that ownership.

So for a token, you can basically sell that, either on some digital exchange, or maybe like an NFT would be like OpenSea, or some type of NFT marketplace… But yeah, most of the time you can get a token or buy a few ERC20 tokens, or work for those tokens by participating in the Discord, and then you can participate in that way.

For the Developer DAO, which is the DAO that I have created for developers, the token is completely free. All you have to do is just go to the website and mint the token. And you do have to pay the Ethereum transaction costs. When you pay that cost, you get that token sent to your wallet.

And really, the reason that there is any type of cost at all is to kind of have some type of way to prevent civil resistance… Because if this token is gonna be worth money at some point, what’s to stop someone from minting all 8,000 of those for themselves? Like, how do we equally distribute ownership between a large number of people? Well, there is some type of way that we can do that with needing someone to mint.

But what I’ve been doing is actually setting aside a few thousand of my own dollars, and just minting those and sending them to people around the world that can’t afford even the $20 minting cost. But that way I know that that person is real, and that they’re kind of in it to be part of the community, and they’re not just in there to kind of speculate.