Permissioned vs permissionless: which rails win for institutional adoption? | EBC12

Treasury bonds. As long as US Treasury bonds are at 4.5%, there will be buyers around the world looking for it. At the same time, there is no access to stocks that are available in many emerging markets, in South America, India, Thailand and the entire Asian market. So there's certainly a lot of opportunity for that part of the world where they're going to have to go through a bunch of checks and the rates are really terrible for a lot of people who have access to Tesla stock or any Google stock or any other stock.

So, of course, that's true. I don't really know if Ethereum has any kind of permission initiative, so to speak. It is mostly a combination of institutions It is mostly a combination of institutions , but there is no specific initiative for assets with permits. So it's not just the main network, right ? There is an L2 where you can have full permission control, and you can have a private L2 if you want.

There is also a base-level ecosystem that fully integrates EVM, right? So, I think right? So, I think from my perspective, there's a natural flow to what's happening. And a good example is JP Morgan. So, they launched Onyx, a fork of Ethereum that was renamed Connextus, and which today processes several billion dollars a day.

And this creates an entire organization. I think they have 700 people on their digital assets team who are familiar with EVM, and then when they launch products on public permissionless Ethereum, they usually tend to look to the mainnet or the basenet. So if you look at JLTXX or money, which are two tokenized money market funds, or if you look at the underlying depository token , that's like a pathway for them to eventually move into permissionless activity. So I think our perspective is that , you know, it's a whole ecosystem. This is not just a basic network.

There is L2, there is a base. Obviously this is a big win with Robinhood, as well as a bunch of other people joining the ETH mainnet as well. We also work on the Ethereum hyperledger because that's obviously where most of the development and innovation happens. All of this volume goes to Tron. It's Binance's fault.

Well, that's actually a good point, and I think it just reinforces the fact that permissionless nature just allows for scaling and growth in a way that's otherwise not possible, right? When it comes to packaged products packaged products , they are primarily a way of access, to make them affordable. Um, and you know, I would, I would venture to argue that, um, the success story of stablecoins is largely due to their permissionless nature, right? And not so much because people were necessarily interested in, say, the possibility of instant payments or something like that. The thing is, I don't need to collaborate with anyone, I can just keep everything under control.

This is for a significant portion of people who may not even have access to a system that would otherwise perhaps even support real- time payments, right? There are many real- time payment systems, you know, crypto exchanges could integrate with Revolut. They didn't do it They didn't do it . They use stablecoins because of their scale and the access they provide. Right.

So Western Union, all the other MoneyGrams, all the other people are definitely using stablecoins. What are the best use cases I think we've come up with in the last 7 years? Well, I'm not entirely sure I'm not entirely sure if we're done. Yes? Good.

Good. So, I want to close by just saying that obviously we have opinions on both sides. There's obviously room for innovation on the permissionless side and accessibility around the world, but at the same time, there are obviously closed assets that we like to keep permission for and work with, uh, the rest of the regulation. Good. Thanks, guys.