SCG,Tellor,Everclear,Centrifuge,Aave-Overcoming Centralised Points of Failure Across the Stack

okay this okay it's a first panel overcoming sorry overcoming centralized points of failure across the defi stack uh we have a phenomenal panel here and before we get started uh can everyone just give a little intro to themselves and what they're doing yes it works H hi everyone I am Emilio my name is Emilio I work in aabs and I I supervise uh development around uh the AA protocol as aabs is a contributor to the a DA and we are currently developing the new version of a a V4 plus a variety of other uh tools and features around the the a EOS system hello everybody I'm Brenda and I am with teller we're in Oracle and we're currently developing an L1 uh as an oracle to reach consensus faster than we have before and that's pretty much it hey guys my name is Lane I'm one of the founders of Everclear formerly known as connect uh We've are doing have been doing interoperability protocols since 2019 and just released a new version about two months ago guys uh well Julian Balu I'm the co and founder of state capital we uh do invest M Venture Studio being in space for quite some time involving uh some of the major also stab Co like Cur Finance um yeah let's see hi my name is Lucas I'm a co-founder of cuge um we've had a focus on bringing traditional Financial products into def for uh the last seven years that we've been doing this uh what is now known as real world assets right like the idea that like you can use defi not just for Crypton native assets but actually like make it make a build a better alternative to the financial system overall all right and to start this off um we've all seen the recent election of trump and the most Pro crypto conference Congress ever uh it seems like stable coin legislation is well on its way with this being apparent what is the point of pursuing decentralized stable coins in the future should I yeah okay what's the point of pursuing decentralized that is a good question I mean like like uh first of all I don't think that a pure decentralized stable coin design exists like or if it exists it's going to be really really hard to find it out because like um trying to follow and track the value of an asset that is uh not that doesn't belong to the same ecosystem where the uh the tracking derivative is it it's really comple without like having any kind of interaction with the external world where this access whether this asset exists is really really hard we have tried many ways we have failed in many ways even spectacularly like with Luna and everything um probably a full truly decentralized stable Co that can scale to trillions because right now we are talking billions but in reality that that's a very small number right right we need if we want to scale a stable coin to trillions a full decentralized design is probably not possible I do think that like we can achieve um an intermediate and acceptable Solution by mixing up decentralized and and less decentralized sources of emission for for the stable coin and even centralized instances it it is important because like it add resilience to the system if it's decentralized if it has at at least a component that is fully decentralized it add the resilience to the system it's a component that cannot be uh turned off or or like manipulated by a centralized party and so on and so forth MH yeah I think that that's exactly the point like what is the point or should we continue to if it's going to be accepted we should continue to pursue this this is the whole point of crypto is that it's supposed to provide an alternative of what we already have yes if we're always using an underlying asset that is centralized uh that that is control with through a centralized party it is very difficult to achieve but what we have achieved up to now it's also at one point in time was thought that we were never going to be able to to achieve and we have solved problem problems over time that have allowed us to get to this point I I think what is the point it's you never know what could change in government and that is the whole point of crypto right now it's a it's it seems like we're going to get some uh regulatory clarification whether or not that happens still to be seen and who knows if the clarification is for or against and by and and or even enforceable and then if it does become very clear can it be the worst case scenario it's it becomes The Unofficial official um cdbc and that's not what we want I mean I I imagine that that's exactly what we're not trying to rebuild like if we wanted that should just leave it up to the government to do it anyway yeah I guess uh from my perspective I agree like there's no real way to build like a fully decentralized stable coin but the reason why I've stayed in this industry for almost eight years at this point is because I think it's important that this is the first time that individuals have really been able to fully part participate in the construction of a financial system and I think that it has such power over people's lives that it's worthwhile to pursue and even if it's not fully decentralized like making strides in that direction so that it's more auditable it's more transparent is extremely worthwhile even if it's not achieving all of the pure goals that we wanted it to when we set out well completely agree with you I think it's giving more um value or accessibility for people to join um um a tech like centralized Finance is something that is not uh quite easy for people to join or participate in so with defi it's quite easy um and I I I feel like it's just an evolution of the um the course of uh Finance um CI in the 80s or 90s if you look at the books or history was also seen as the um the the good the the cool kids you know trying to disrupt the financial industry and now defi is seeing that's a cool kid and CI is the the bad guys but it's just the course of the evolution of Technology um so I mean I I think I was I was one of the I know I was one of the first 100 people to Mint uh die uh when maker die went live and actually maker was probably after sigh yeah not for the old I still hold I still hold s simp it's actually both D it's worse more than D yeah it's better it's a better stable coin um it also actually was maybe more decentralized than die but um no I I think I mean maker was the first after ethereum was the first thing that made me really excited about crypto um I think the idea of a decentralized stable coin is super important and it's like something we need to experiment in I think we if you look at it like the world that I think we will will be in is going to be um like there will be centralized stable coins but a centralized stable coin will never truly be Global I mean the US dollar right now is kind of a global Reserve currency but there's many many countries that don't like that I think if we look at at what this will look like in defi like the the best bet we have of really creating a Global Financial system without any borders is if we manage to go beyond that now that is like a very like extreme or maybe not extreme but like like far future version and I think yes we're really not ready yet but um like looking at at this technology it's like 10 years old the internet is 30 years old today more more actually way more 50 years old um so like that's that that for me is like just just imagine where this can go I think it can go quite far wait you said that a centralized stable coin will never be Global but right now you have had their usdc dominating um so do you see their position may be vulnerable in the future so you think there's opportunity to overtake them well do you think that the Chinese government will gladly put their foreign currency reserves into usdt no that so that's what you mean that's what I meant with it yeah so you think they'll just oh so do you think there'll be like thousands of stable coins out there like different options that people can choose from I mean that would I I mean we I think we probably there will be many stable coins yes and I think the good thing about defi is it makes like defi is 100 times more liquid than than like our traditional system so actually like swapping between those is going to be much simpler I think like monary policy for each country is what preserve uh security of a country so I think what we'll see is just the minting of not new type of um new currency but just St coin of existing currency M for each country that's how they can remain competitive and and protect incentive for their for their own uh country it's like a monetary firewall in a way yeah yeah yeah um moving on so in terms of a centralized points for stable coins there's collateral equality which is a huge point of convergence uh ailio what kinds of collateral would you deem safe does it make sense to pursue anything that isn't USD equivalent uh when it when you explore new types of collateral what do you look for and what novel forms of backing would you like to see in the future okay um I'm not a risk manager so okay what that's an important yeah but like um I mean it depends on which uh angle we are looking at the matter so as a developer of decentralized Technologies and um uh like if we want to pursue uh decentralization the safest assets that you can imagine are certainly the ones that are the purest in terms of uh uh from a decentralization standpoint so on ethereum for example I don't think there is any other better collateral than e that's the that's the reality and if you want to minimize the point of failures that you the system you're developing is exposed to both in terms of uh technology in terms of decentralization in theory you should never move out of it as collateral but because I mean black Thursday showed us that correlation is as big of a risk as any other way yeah yeah I'm talking more about uh from a technical standpoint so like for example rapid BTC already has a different degrees and different risk exposure for a protocol like a compared to e right eth is an asset that cannot be centrally manipulated of course there is like the the volatility risk that's inevitable kind of but uh from a decentralization standpoint from technical standpoint like you should never move never move out of EAS collateral if you want the purest safest less uh risky platform to use to use a collateral that's one angle that's why I mentioned there are different angles to it then uh there are variety of other aspects that you need to evaluate like centralization dependencies liquidity on the market uh nature of and quality of the price feeds um and nature of the asset itself so for for example crypto and crypto derivatives are one category RW are another category stable coins are kind of rwa as well uh but like they have a bit different Dynamics so we can put in even on different category and so on and so forth so I don't want I can take talk about this for 5 hours what do you think about multic collateral multic collateral like you're saying yeah yeah like you're saying like stick stick to eth or like whatever your ecosystem is like within that ecosystem do you think it's there's any um well you know like I for example supports I don't know 20 different collaterals I don't remember the exact number now and all of them have different uh tradeoffs and they are in a because like there were Risk Managers that evaluated the TR off decided like a set of risk parameters that kind of um um basically Define the exposure that the protocol gets to those assets and therefore these assets can leave together um you like that better sorry do you like that better or not or you're still s to do I like that better I think it's uh necessary evil because if you want to scale if you want to give possibilities to as many user as you can to use uh the platform use the technology that gives serves for them a purpose then inevitably you need to expand the the possibilities for users and therefore this increase the complexity uh and from a risk management perspective a lot but I do like it yeah what do you think no I I like it I mean General like when you build your portfolios in you know you do deserve diversify as well because of risk and so when you say like just e if that's like your ecosystem I feel like well you know it could be good but then you go back to um so anyway I I yeah I like do you have any thoughts well I'm just curious like what vectors do you define having the biggest impact on risk because if I think of like stable coin collateral for me like the one of the big impacting factors it's like okay well what's your like total supply of the stable coin because if it's massive then eth becomes pretty poor collateral and then you take on additional centralization risk but at least you're able to like sell things off without devaluing your collateral yeah is a question for me and for everybody I was looking at you though no I mean um uh again I'm I'm not risk manager I can I can answer because I've been following this a long time but like like there are other people that probably have better insights than me in any in any case like uh there are a variety of aspects so for example centralization dependencies is one that is very strong and very important I don't know if you have probably followed like the rap BTC like the whole the story around it and the change in the like structure behind it and the involvement of Justin sun and so on and so forth which causes a lot of like um like a lot huge kind of um discussion within the the space and like some maker wanted to change the parameters sa didn't want at beginning now maybe they want we do I like it's hard so centralization dependency is one aspect that can be very very relevant in evaluating if an asset can be good collateral or not liquidity is another aspect so for example there was the issue with CRV a few few months ago and that's a different kind of risk that needs to be evaluated it's it's really really a lot of of Dimensions to look at yeah I I don't think that it's I mean I do think a multic collateral is a little bit better but I think it also has to do with the goal of the stable coin so if if it's primary goal is uh it's is of transaction or off offr becoming an off R then you can you know if it's an offramp then definitely like you know whatever the coin you need to offramp to it's probably a good choice but then if it's for E of transaction then I think multic collateral or anything that reduces the risk and volatility then it's probably better but obviously complete opinion and I'm definitely not a risk manager uh Lucas um what novel forms of collateral have you seen at Centra fuge or where could you imagine backing stable coins in the future h I mean the a few years ago real world assets were the novel um yeah novel clad and I remember like I mean it's it was quite interesting because like so if you ask like the first like 20 people that worked on maker like like 2016 you know um like it was always a big like diversification was always a core pillar of like the risk management approach right um but also no one had an idea of how you actually would bring diversify collateral on on chain like first there was eth and then I think there maybe like five other tokens that you could um use the fact was those tokens were all so correlated to eth that you had no diversity at like no real like diversity at all in in your portfolio um then like came stable coins and then like I mean I think multic collateral die was live for like two years before the first real world asset came and that took us a long time um in the beginning I mean the market changed a lot because we went from like a zero interest rate environment where like whether you held treasury bills or uh usdc on your balance sheet as a stable coin didn't really make a difference I think like short-term treasury bill yields are like half a percent um at at the lowest time um or maybe even less um so right so like there really was not that big of an incentive to kind of look for for these kind of assets so like maker and and S fut experiment with private credit was hugely risky we made like we learned a lot of stuff and ultimately I think the the main the main thing we built was just building the legal infrastructure and the like understanding and honestly just proving to people that this can be done at all uh now like the interest rates changed and of course like everyone moved into treasury bills because if you don't then you are losing out on 5% a year right um but where do we go from here I think from a like tra traditional Financial products like what what a lot of people are well a lot so some of the people that are thinking about what's next are talking about is like basically debt products like going and not going all the way back to like the most exotic like tiny tiny asset classes that we like experimented with in the beginning the beginning it was it the Nate the only way to do this stuff was to to do it at like $5 million in size so like you had to do pick very small stuff like now we have like several billion in in kind of real world assets on chain so like we can actually go into say like investment gr credit and you'll make like maybe 1% more than treasury bill rates right which is like substantial um like for maker that's like for Sky it's like millions of dollars a year in extra Revenue um so I think we're going to go there um and then I think ult but ultimately I believe that every Financial product will be on chain and therefore also will could in theory be used as collateral in defi um it's just a matter of like going down the the path of like starting with treasury bills commercial paper credit cl's private credit whatever else right yeah it's a spum of credit um I don't know about Tesla stock or SpaceX stock I'm I'm still waiting to see when equities are actually going to be traded on chain I think we haven't cracked that yet and I think it's mostly a question of liquidity and I see we um could agree with you and like the real old asset um aspect of defi but I think as a space we quite failed in uh building um a strong stable coin cuz if you look so it was Bitcoin um then it was ethereum um and then as a D5 we tried to build a stable coin that was basically using uh USD uh rather than actually being U or continuing the work of uh what maker started which was uh using e and BTC without being correlated directly to to US dollars but because of uh Simplicity or something that is easier to build or scale then we start um adding usdc USD usdt in order to scale but this I think it was um yeah major mistake in the in the sense of the the true value of this ecosystem so having new type of assets like real old asset uh like bonds ETF and uh and those structure products I think it could potentially become bigger than um or the goal is to have something that is not entitled to one stable coin I mean to one money AR policy like US Dollars and having something that can be used across the globe without being backed by one country or one um political aspect of the society and I think yeah um having more diversification of U asset um being able to back as T coin is the what we actually trying to build here in as a ecosystem but for some reason raising capital or becom one of the largest projects some people trying to go shortcuts and and and use Ed something that is easy maybe I mean and I talk about reward assets but I would also say like if we look in the crypto native space there's not like there's not a lot of assets that aren't like that I'd say like you could value on on fundamentals and look at from like a purely Revenue perspective and I think until that changes right like you'll never you won't solve the correlation issue you'll you always have huge variability like the number of of crypto projects that have like significant like gold and all well okay yeah that's real world asset again but if we think about um like the crypto like the the equivalent of what like equities would be in in traditional Financial system right like you look at at like tokens in in defi projects like the or or crypto project in general like it's like eth it's maker it's a uh like that actually have Revenue uh I mean it's just just three examples right but like the number of of of these kind of projects that have Revenue that you can look at and say well like this is good collateral not because it's like people speculate on it but because there is like a fundamental value behind it and this number is still just very small right and I think and and most of these still have like very hu huge volatility and are mostly like like priced by the market based on like future potential and not like actual revenue and I think when that changes then you'll have interesting collateral that is completely uncorrelated um that isn't uh an offchain like traditional asset and I that's going to be really interesting yeah Lan uh ever CLE was uh did cross chain transfers and everything um so with more and more chains coming online uh liquidity fragmentation is an issue what are some ways that this can be resolved uh I mean with the number of chains that are coming online and expected to come online with all of the RAS providers and everything the best way for it to be resolved is for token issuers to adopt standards like xc20 or the new one that optimism just came out with uh those standards really allow Bridges to Mint and burn the tokens directly instead of having to pool liquidity in some form either by like solvers fronting it or like liquidity pools or anything like that like scaling that across hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of chains just doesn't work you're really going to need to update how the money moves just at the base layer of the token definition what central ization risk does that bring about that don't already exist yeah uh I mean well it depends like how much do you consider upgradability a centralization vector and like how much would you be willing to get rid of it I think that like it's my personal opinion is it's probably more dangerous to not have that in a lot of the systems that are being used today than to like just have it and have like a defined process time locked upgrades or things like that I think our process as an industry for defining upgrades could be improved massively like one thing that I was just talking about recently is how it's crazy that so few protocols use opt-in upgrades like to just Auto upgrade everything so that the implementation changes and there's like no choice by the downstream consumer is crazy and like anti pattern for the rest of how software is used so I think that upgradeability is you know it's something that people say they would like to not have until it's really needed and I think the technology right now is a bit too immature to not have it yeah ail do you have any thoughts on liquidity fragmentation doesn't even have to just be Crossing transfers but onchain itself well this is an aspect that we have been um evaluating a lot with go because we have like a full like multi-chain infrastructure for that is canonical for go and the idea behind that is that we had observed through previous experiences when uh a went multichain it was really really painful in in many ways one of the most painful that I remember is that very often it happens that you go to a new network this regarding the other protocol specifically not go go is a little bit different uh you go to a new network uh you inevitably need to list assets that are in general most of the time bridged from ethereum uh so those assets for example are stable coins so you list on a stable coin usdc that is Bridge from ethereum right then one day Circle comes and say you know what today we are start meting the our yeah uh canonical version directly on this network so now what happens you have two versions so USD usdc you have the bridg version and you have the native version well you could have multiple bridged versions exactly we do like we like we had at the beginning like there was strong like position to not list any bridg asset that was not the native one because like if you start listing multiple version then it really be get becomes a mess you know so once circles start minting natively then what happens is that everyone starts to push liquidity towards the the native version rather than the um the bridge version so people that had Supply there is water coming from somewhere yeah it's liquidity so um what happens is that like you kind of need to incentivize users to migrate from the bridge version to the native version and if you you have a user that that was on ethereum originally and it doesn't have an easy way to offramp from the from the network where are on you are forced to basically sell your native for the bridge and then Bridge is a terrible ux like honestly really really terrible we ended up in this situation in many uh cases it was even worse there were in worse scaras with multiple version multiple native version was some places was a mess so like when we were thinking how to approach multichain go like we were like okay we need a a canonical version right off the butt and not like something uh we cannot start bridging within native bridge and then I have a different version that are not interoperable with with each other so at the at the time like we evaluated the options like one the most uh reasonable option at the time like it provided already whole full infrastructure for ethereum to the destination network from uh multiple ler twos or side chain and then we use with decide to use ccip which we are currently using and this gives us the benefit that uh we do have one canonic conversion that is directly uh controlled by the avow in every Network where go is available this comes with complexities of course because like there are um a a lot of different aspects that you need to evaluate then like how is ccip actually uh managing under the hood like the the the transfer how how do you manage like the fact that go can only be minted on on ethereum and if you start minting on other networks the accounting become a mess I mean again I could speak about this like for five hours but like yeah and that's a problem that we're all facing in defi as as we saw the landscape change and that's that's exactly the reason teller has moved or is moving to its own one it's because of liquidity fragmentation and the dependency of having to have a bridge or even approve for the token and having the same issues of like do we want to do another talk and the hard would we track the minting it's um but anyway everybody's dealing with that and everybody's dealing in a different way I think a lot of the app chains or app that are not dealing with like stable coin stuff I think you you that's one of the reasons you see a lot of us going to our own chain to sort of I think so that the viability of that strategy of just like okay you know what we're going to use ccip for our token and our token is going to be the one that's minted by ccip starts to like go away when you get hundreds of thousands of rollups because then you're dependent on ccip to get your native token to all of these new app chains when realistically if people want it they can Bridge it there and get a version of that that then your right back it's square one yeah but also like you will have thousands of uh rollups but how many of those will actually have meaningful liquidity where it's actually uh business why reasonable business-wise reasonable for the AV to actually go to that chain that another another aspect so that's why yeah many angles to it yeah yeah uh moving on Julian uh what role does governance play in stable coins uh while may help decentralization does it help does it also hinder development and service um yeah I think we've seen in the maker or uh right BTC uh the centralized governance or decentralized governance both aspect that um I think governance is super complicated um what we've seen over the past few years I'm not sure if you remember but in the conferences before like two I think it was two or three years ago people could uh pitch any project and mentioning oh it's a new Dow uh this project use Dow whatever now no one is actually uh mentioning that name anymore because more like we want from decentralized aous organization to decentralize autonomous chaos I would say uh so we're back to Dax yeah it's like d where there is only one guy yeah so and then but it's fascinating because we um we thought that decentralization or Dows will basically solve the problem of uh governance and we were even trying to pit this to um central banks and European commission European Parliament you should use da or even for a country in order to govern the country you should use Dow um completely failed and what's fascinating is we want from okay each individual can then vote for protocol updates or decisions in risk management into delegating voting power for the people that get the most money so what we want is it actually we brought a system that is even more it's not only more centralized but also it's a it's a a transparent bribing mechanism where you bribe people in order to make decision for yourself so I believe like even um the US election or the the French election or whatever is actually more um uh optim uh um more transparent and more equal in the sense of voting because you have one individual that can vote or in go in the in defi now it's more like driven by Massive entities or or incentive platform that basically distribute rewards for people to make a decision in order to update uh list an asset or U provide incentive or yield for an asset so we get request from Big players like usdt usdc or whatever that are trying to bring high yield into liquidity pool so then they are willing to incentivize and people that have those governance tokens they then make decision not necessarily based on what's the best for this ecosystem but what's the best for their own bag so we move from good value to centralized um selfish value I would say um so it's it's very difficult um it's very difficult I'm not sure like you have um what will happen when um you like it or not but like for example World coin all those type of initiative when you have one um ID per per person will actually become something that you are forced to vote and not not being able to delegate your voting power so we've been testing everything so far I think of course we we've seen some good outcome and and bad outcome of those decisions but operating a um decentralized governance on on chain is super complicated and brings more chaos and toxicity than actually bringing value um so yeah I'm I'm looking forward to see any new attempt to unchain governance and also truly believe that if you want to build and this could probably a good feedback but a as well but for example curve or other project if you want to build um a project you need super strong caliz ation from the core team because the problem is like the team who's building the project is completely away or far away from the people using the product in term of incentives because people retail players they're mostly incentivized by short-term return not necessarily long-term success of the protocol where the people building the project they here for the long term so by Nature it cannot work out so you need to find um features that bring um Mutual incentive across the entire stack that was the point of ve to economics right to align token holders with the builders yeah but to do that short medium and long term in couple of different faces it's really difficult and that's why we've seen project that plus people raising a lot of money like uh then they are not necess then the Cy is not incentivized to build and then you have people that hold the token so it works on both Sid sometime you have the holders that hold the token and they want the project to be built because otherwise there's no value but then the founders they don't necessarily have incentivize to build it because they already the value so it's complicated yeah Lucas uh from your experience that maker what are your thoughts on governance and stable coins all so I mean the I used to attend the weekly governance call at maker for many many years um not anymore I think it's I'm not as pessimistic as jul are saying I mean tell me one doubt I've Su succeeded none of them except you could consider Bitcoin and eum that they only Dows that huh they're not DS they're not well consider like Dows because they have you the minor and you you can make decisions and update in a decentralized way so that's why we consider the are the closest one to Dows I I I would I would agree H it's like like implicit decision it's actually implicit governance where people build like public governance but they didn't walk out I I mean I think with like with with within maker right like there was a lot of back and forth and like like going into details I think would would take two hours but there's a lot of back and forth of like what how do you actually how do you decide um how do you what do you vote on where do you abstract uh like things away into subgroups um how do you present decisions how do you do polling I I agree like it's it's been really hard to actually come up with the model so far and I think most most DS have failed um if I think of um like like the things that have worked in maker I would say it's like it's been like it's been like having a relatively consistent like schedule I think that was always very good um people knew when to vote and actually there was a decent amount of participation uh compared to most other um other D5 protocols that had uh voting I think there still like it's mostly um influenced by like a very small set of large holders um I think another a big problem though is like the people that are able to participate in governance today so I I used to like back like in 20 202 I used to talk to all of the like top 10 largest mkr holders uh those were like all the big VC funds and then the SEC started enforcing um like I started or there were several Lawes not just by the SEC that went after like large holders that were participating in governance there wasn't a lot of certainty around if you participate in a DAT what liability do you take and suddenly all most of these VCS stopped voting they even it even went as far as they stopped delegating so then you had um this problem that now who is left to vote it's maybe a couple of Court team members that own enough and are willing to take the risk and maybe are not in the US are not financial institutions that have a lot of this regulation and so then like that that I think was like a huge loss for Define general because now the people with the most long-term um well you had the court team but outside of the Court team as as you said like retail token holders they don't have the maybe they don't have the experience they don't have the time or they don't have the resources to kind of really build an opinion whereas like if if a if a a VC fund buys tokens and plans to hold it for 5 years has an operational team of like 15 people like a a couple of them like just thinking about Defi and Dows right like that they they would be the ones that are qualified to make these decisions except for they they often times can't do it anymore or are not are not don't know the risk are taking therefore they don't want to do it um because if you're going to get into trouble and you're going to have to explain to your investors why you did something like that it's going to be a really tough tough um tough conversation and I think that is actually one of the biggest issues I have with with with Dow governance today is like institutional holders can participate so a lot so a lot of the large holders can't really weigh in and so that skews the all of these decisions a lot so it's even worse than centralized governance yeah yeah I mean it's much it's much safer to be a board member in a publicly traded company then to vote on onchain yeah ailo uh what are some of the biggest risks to stable coins right now that people aren't talking about and what are some stable coin risks that could be there in the future when we reach uh 500 billion market cap a trillion market cap and Beyond well I think like the risk uh the surface for risk and issues doesn't necessarily scale like you can have the same kind of risk whether you are 1 billion or 500 it's just that the explosion will be much yeah the re effect would be much bigger but like I mean if we talk centralized stable coins the issue is always the same so what theter is doing we cannot audit we cannot see we we just need to trust them that they say that they are reinvesting and they have enough cash and whenever there is someone some fud the price starts to drop and someone does like that we don't know who is like does uh Market man making and so on and so forth that that's like unfortunately inevitable for anything that is fully centralized like that is and it's a major risk because like it's basically the same risk that we face every day with institutions and Banks and investment funds and so on and so forth uh that's why I mentioned before that like maybe we cannot have a fully decentralized stable coin but a stable coin that do multiple issues like and maybe controlled by a so for example like the maker design so you have multiple issues controlled by a dow part of it is decentralized so that part cannot fail by itself or is not necessarily influenced uh by the rest as backed for example by decentralized crypto collateral that's why I I prefer towards something like Teter which is basically like Financial institution that can do all the worst crap that we have seen in the past other institutions doing so that's one major risk for sure Brenda I think one of the big risks that we're not talking about is that the bigger they grow they have a bigger risk of actually becoming or ENT either governments or you know requiring them to get a bank Charter which they control which they can also control or mandate reserves interest rates and and even and and further manipulate how they operate so the bigger we get I think that's a big risk that we need to address well or at least um acknowledge yeah I think I read something about like I don't remember if it was the Chinese government or the um US Government concerned about the fact that thatas so much money that they can buy so much debt that they can actually become a problem for for the government itself I think I read something like that so that's probably something that you can scale with like having a private institution like T having 1 trillion or 500 billions of liquidity they can reinvest in comp in a a debth of a government which basically they buy the government is could be complicated I think teder is one of the 100 largest Buy years of us short-term treasury bills yeah Soo can see a government like having concerns about about that but when the US government want I mean tether's a black hole for us treasuries isn't that a good thing for the US government because it's like a infinite buyer but it's like uh grayscale if they start dumping they crush your de what EOS did actually rais the money and then bought the usury to get protected I don't sure something like that uh yeah so I guess that's it uh we're out of time thank you so much everyone thank you sa Summit thank you thank you