Panel | FX Market Structure and Onchain Design

Who has made a stablecoin transfer? Raise your hand. Everybody on this panel should be raising a hand. Okay, maybe not you, Avi. Um, who has made an FX swap or transfer?

Raise your hand. Oh, this is pretty good. You know, small sample size, but still good. Um, I'm Tessa. I'm the head of market research at Flashbots.

We have a great panel today. Uh, just to give you heads up, $9 billion worth of FX stablecoins are traded annually, and we're going to compare that to the $9 trillion FX that trades off chain. So, this is a great market. We're going to get into it. My panelists, please introduce yourself and your company.

Hi, everyone. Happy to be here. Um, I'm Avi Shubatov. I'm from the Digital Assets and Currencies team at Deutsche Bank. Hi, I'm Martin.

I don't BD for Curve. I have originally tech background, and I'm sitting here because we have something called FX swap who is doing well for FX. Hey, everyone. Uh, Danny Kwok. Uh, I'm from Mento Labs.

I lead product here. Uh, FX stablecoin platform enabling what we're talking about today. Um, yeah, I build all things product here. Cool. We're going to deep dive into, I think, FX market structure at first.

So, we'll start with Danny. Danny, with Mento, uh, you use a hybrid model for your stability. Do you want to kind of briefly describe what Mento does differently and, um, the stability mechanism that you have in place for your major FX pairs? Yeah, awesome. Um, for those of you that that don't know Mento and what it does, um, we're a stablecoin platform.

We have, similar to what Polaris talked about earlier, we, uh, issue decentralized stablecoins backed by, um, USDC, USDT, and other prime, stable coin assets, fiat stable coin assets. Um and what we have is this novel mechanism called FPMMs, fixed price market makers, which leverages oracle price. So, instead of doing price discovery on chain, we bring the 9.5 trillion FX market from TradFi on chain and bring that rate so that you could swap with no slippage. Um there is still this dichotomy what happens when traditional FX markets close.

Um so, FX markets, for those of you don't know, are open 24 uh five. So, basically from like London to Japan to Sydney to New York, etc. Um what we do is we flip to a hybrid AMM model over the weekends and we have circuit breakers to ensure that like trades um go through and that um there's no loss losses for LPs and things like that. So, um what we've really done is instead of having price discovery on chain, what we do is uh we enable um price um we bring prices on chain. Um and that allows you to swap, for example, a BRL for a JPY at the given FX rate or um we're in New York, so 1.

15 uh ish plus or minus euros for a USD at any given time. Um with no slippage and um not relying on uh market makers and arbitraging to bring what we all know is like Uniswap or other AMM models, Curve AMM models. Um so, it's just a different approach. Um there's pros and cons to each, so yeah. Martin, you're part of the Curve OG concentrated liquidity pools for stable coins.

How have you modified what Curve has done for FX stable coins? Yeah, so um the initial, let us say, we basically founded and invented stable swap. And but even at this time FX was some kind of dream or target market basically and then we had like a crypto swap who is for non-correlated asset who worked pretty well. But we made recently an iteration on this and we call it FX swap and uh yeah, we we we we are like all in basically one of the reason we are in the camp of have auto-managed liquidity basically so that the the system is basically rebalancing itself on the spot where the trading is happening and it's a very good solution for a low volatile asset basically also for real world assets but also for FX and because FX is now yeah, we see more and more non-US dollar stable coins coming to the market basically we we that's the first market we want to move into basically. And um yeah, I think mm we are in the yeah, it should be auto-managed basically.

We see system where asset issuers can manage or liquidity providers manage system themself and I don't think that's the future. It has to be simple and reliable and yeah. Cool. Ivy, you're from the banking world. Deutsche Bank is one of the largest FX currency I think banks.

Uh what needs to happen I think for the banking side to actually come on chain? Like what is missing in the FX market structure on chain today? Mm. I think I start with the maybe the positive side where we already see like there is a um like a tech side there are the solutions which is let's say think about the FX transaction uh life cycle um then the price discovery let's say it's for especially like a major currency pairs it's easy let's say to quote or import a quote from from the off-chain market right because it's a fair rate. Um and also we can also regarding the MM solution is a it's it's quite stable, right?

And the question is really when we're moving to more emerging markets and also under stress situations, then it gets trickier. And to your question, I think bank in the traditional FX transactions, right? As the let's say a liquidity provider, we don't just quote rates, right? There's there's two key topics I think we it's still very way out of dominant to be honest is why is the liquidity provision. We basically it's our balance sheet that we how we kind of either through internalization or or through certain hedge strategies, we basically transfer that risk from from the clients and to our balance sheet and we we do have the capability like to absorb, right?

Especially for largest institutional tickets. Also this is one thing. And second thing is I think there's these controls, right? All the all types of execution controls. I think Tony just mentioned in the previous session to say what happened so we need to know our counterparties, who are we are trading with.

What if tomorrow they are gone, right? What if I cannot trade as you know, the supposed to be kind of rate, right? Because of a deep pack rates because of the illiquidity and so on. So I think this is where we do a lot of validation check, we do credibility check so that to ensure really you know, from a last look perspective that we are offering a firm and executable quote that will take place, right? This is this is kind of certainty kind of from bank as a liquid provider perspective we can offer.

And this is very group question. Uh right now you're seeing major stablecoin FX pairs. For emerging market FX pairs, how do you anticipate bootstrapping liquidity in those markets? Or what have you seen? Or maybe for you IV, what do you normally what normally happens in in TradFi for emerging market?

Do you want to go first?

Yeah. I don't know. It's just interesting. What I see is like for the very deep liquidity big pairs with low volatility, on chain is not really competitive right now. But what we see or we have pools with more like second uh second quality currencies basically.

And they have product market fit in the sense that they they bring the flow themselves. So it's more like emerging market because they looks like people have much more need or are willing to transact on chain because some of them also have like yeah the hedge back into USD basically. So and these pools have quite good traction and they and the the dirty secret of this is because it's more sometimes it's not even it's not a mainnet. So it's not competitive. So the basically they're the only venue where this token can be traded.

And then you don't have to set the seas very fee very low. So basically you can set the fee where you make some revenues on the capital. So it's like I think the more competitive competitive gets mainnet or also other chains will have like a deep liquidity of different non-USD coins, then there's almost no money in this market basically. But if you go more out to more like uh not exotic but other currencies, then it's different landscape. And I think some of the push will coming more from from this side basically and less from the institutional side on on on side.

Um I think that's a very good point. Um, you know, looking at the major pairs, so like your LGBPJPY, so on and so forth. Um, on chain liquidity just can't compete with fiat liquidity. There's literally trillions, which is like exponentially more than the Bitcoin market. Um, I think the way I would look at like on chain utility for those um, those pairs is that you can do certain things that you can't do in trad fi markets.

So you can settle on weekends. Um, you can actually use um, Circle has this like instant redemption rail where you pay a little fee, but um, it's still like cheaper for you to um, get into fiat instantly through stable coins as uh, opposed to like through the international wire system. So you can send money from like Europe to Japan much more seamlessly. Although it's capped by the liquidity limits, obviously. Um, yeah, uh, I'll touch on the FX stuff, but I want to give Ivy a chance to or the emerging market stuff.

Um, I wanted to give Ivy a chance to Right. I think we covered like different models, right? I think the one maybe I can add to is um, um, I mean, traditionally we have this RFQ or RFS kind of style, you know, basically dealer based, right? So we for example, as a bank, we can be one of the dealers, but then you also have other, let's say regulatory and non-regulatory financial institutions and so on. Um, I think this is probably something um, it's it might be a solution that's good for emerging markets cuz it's um, uh, let's say um, what happened there is really it's um, there's a capital control as example, right?

So basically you cannot you actually don't know what's a fair rate there. Um, and a lot of most of the cases as mentioned, you know, you might have a big dealer there already internalized the flow. So actually not every flow is pushed to the pool. So even if you have the access, that whatever the rate of access is not really the fair one. Um so I think this let's say this dealer approach is a similar to what the TradFi currency is you know applying.

Um and you will really be like a positive like solution-oriented thinking. I think this um I think we all appreciate like the smart contracts based flows and also leverage stablecoin in terms of post-trade. But for the pre-trade piece we can think about near-term maybe some hybrid approach, right? So in terms especially for certain stress scenario or emerging market, you know, I do feel like this RFQ and R as at least short-term it can be the really attractive offer alternative. I think that's super interesting and super compelling because I think we often times live in this world where it's you know binary where it's like one way or the other way like on-chain or TradFi or whatnot.

I think the RFQ model is really really important and I see there's this like hybrid approach as we kind of like develop these markets where um the blockchain kind of becomes like the settlement layer but like liquidity can come from anywhere and if like firms like DB or other firms kind of plug into these systems, it really enables like a lot more things to happen and a lot better capital efficiency and it just becomes settlement layer where things happen and there's this like trusted layer that sits under all the liquidity from whatever source it is. Yeah, exactly. And just also to add not just the capital, right? It's also especially for emerging markets near so about expertise, right? You you have certain scenarios that you really need such a manual intervene.

Um I I agree. I really appreciate all the types of I think bank perspective and we really appreciate all types of automation where you kind of in the era of automation and blockchain. Um but just there's a but we need to think about whether we can build in such like a controls, you know, like a man manual override um capabilities. Uh instead of let's Yes? Okay.

That's uh yeah, challenging. So, on that topic what happens during volatile events, Martin? Um what happens to Curve? Like how does Curve's internal oracle protect LPs during a volatile event? Yeah, that's interesting because I'm yeah, if you're a DeFi on-chain guy, it's a different.

And one of the models we see with the tick-based model basically Uniswap V3 and many copies of it. The issue there is you set you own liquidity or somebody owns liquidity. You set your ticks where the trading is basically. And every time there's volatility, the price moves out of the range. So, basically trading stops and that's worst-case basically.

So, this means the market just disappears. And the reason is also even if you're like a how would I say a decent assume that you are a liquidity provider who who wants to basically guarantee liquidity all the time, you have to withdraw, you have to reset to some range. And at this point, you also lock in loss basically. So, it's always a decision. Maybe you think, "Yeah, the market's coming back tomorrow to the same price."

So, I just stay out. It's not that our system Curve system, it's not that you you also can go out of the market anytime basically. But because you don't have to manage it, so the liquidity is unified. So, this all liquidity of all the participants basically is is treated the same and is also shifted the same way automatically. So, basically what we do and we also do this in backtesting, we backtest 5 years volatility and then we see that basically in this condition, it should be if you assume the future will have the same volatility, it will always be in the best traded tradable range, basically.

And yeah, our system is not disappearing in this adverse scenarios. And we did see this in many on the USDC depeg, basically. Curve then basically is the secondary market for on-chain liquidity because sometimes it's only venue where it still gets traded assets. Even possibility people could also withdraw the liquidity and not expose them to this kind of risk, but you also make a lot of money in these markets now because then yeah, there are a lot of trades, so you make a lot of fees. So, I think because our system is more passive, it allows you to you don't even have to manage it yourself.

So, of course you can monitor it and then go out of the market, but that's not what we're seeing, basically. So, we are more resilient by by design, basically, because the friction to disappear is like higher than to stay in, basically. Danny, do you have any sort of features that in your FPMMs for high volatility situations? Yeah, so we actually take kind of a different approach to a lot of what on-chain builders take. We actually take a more similar approach to like TradFi and equity markets.

We isolate each of our pairs and we kind of have like a quantitative circuit breaker set to each one. Similar to really highly volatile times in equity markets where trading halts, but for us we see this as a feature, not a bug, because in those times each of those pairs are isolated. And one of the things we've seen in DeFi happen a lot is especially because we rely on oracles so deeply, we've seen like oracle attacks, we've seen oracle failures like completely drain LPs. So, this is a feature to actually protect LPs under the hood until kind of um these circuit breakers are are lifted. Um so, yeah, it's a it's a slightly different approach to most of DeFi, but um we really see it as like a way another mechanism to protect uh LPs um during several of the, you know, kind of black swan events over the last several years, you know, we've been able to maintain our peg and come out without um any losses for our LPs.

So, um yeah, we're pretty proud of that. Ivy, since the banks are mainly, I guess, prop trading on FX swaps, um what are, I guess, the legal, credit, and uh capital conditions that need to be in place for you to feel comfortable to be able to scale your FX business on chain? Um right, so we talked about the uh liquidity provision. Now, it comes a little bit of like dry legal side, which is very important for, let's say, regulated financial institutions. Um I think firstly, legal certainty, as you mentioned, right?

So, um I think for, let's say, if our clients is a large corporates, right? They need to really understand, okay, if I have a dispute, if in case of insolvency of my counterparty, so which law is governing this transaction, right? Where um And I think in general, there's there are some development from regulatory side, right? I think English law is generally very open, like uh they they do allow like embedded, let's say, smart contract you know, in in their law. Um and also ISDA is working on some, let's say, tokenized collateral framework.

Um yeah. Um but again, this is just we only see like silos, right? Currently, in terms of the reg development, it's a one jurisdiction. If we're talking about FX, cross-border transactions, you actually need to really align the standards, and it's really about uh in all the relevant jurisdictions, right? Um and I as I think you mentioned also capital requirements, right?

Cuz this is probably more like a bank perspective. Um cuz whatever the role we are playing in the future ecosystem, right? Whether we are issuing, let's say, stablecoin ourselves, so it's on our our balance sheet, or we just like let's say pass through. So, for example, we offer some like a wallet infrastructure and so on. It's clients stablecoins or it's going to somehow land in our book or pass by, right?

And the regulator, they from the cap potential requirement perspective, they're very strict, right? They say, "Okay, what kind of tokenized money are we talking about right now? Is it a regulatory stablecoin? Then we probably category them, let's say, under Basel Accord as 1B, right? And then we don't have a very harsh, let's say, capital treatment, right?

For for us, like in terms of um you know, the buffer and so on. But if, let's say, certain criteria is not fulfilled, right? For example, redemption you know, standards is not there or or there's no strong governance of the issuer side, right? So, then they might have a very, like, unregulated stablecoin category, then we are really talking about like a huge capital like buffer that we have to reserve for such a product. Right?

So, this is something like it's not a showstopper, but it's something like we definitely want to look into before we just like say, "Yes, we are on. We know we want to bring everything on chain." and so on. And then this question is for the group. You know, for if you wanted to trade, I guess, in emerging market currencies, you have a very wide spread in in just natural TradFi.

How have you seen on chain kind of minimize this spread? And like what sort of ways or like what is the mechanism that has kind of decreased the spread that you've seen? I can take that. Um This is actually like the killer use case for Mento and Mento's platform. Um you know, looking at the the major currency pairs, you know, it's it's really hard to compete with what um a lot of like the TradFi firms offer their like enterprise clients, but for end users and what really what we're really trying to build is like democratize access to these markets.

Um because we take an aggregated rate from um the the the global FX pool, we're actually able to offer um a very very tight spread um on a lot of these emerging market pairs. So, um we have several African currencies, we have uh several Latin American currencies where we're able to offer it at pretty much like the best rate you can get from an enterprise client of like a Deutsche Bank or any of the G-SIB banks. Um if you look at like one use case just to like put this into into perspective, like I'm from I'm from in California, um a lot of folks send money back to like Mexico, back to their family or friends. Um Remittances, that that's a tighter corridor, but remittances to some more emerging markets um can be up to like 6 or 7% um to pay. And you know, there will be fees on, you know, platform side on um um crypto applications or DeFi applications or fintech applications, but um we can get that down, you know, tenfold easily.

Um we we have a partner in Opera, the browser company. They have a wallet called MiniPay, and they've basically enabled this um through like P2P transfers with stablecoins uh in 60 markets globally. So, um and they have like 10 million users on that on that wallet. So, um we we really feel like that is one of the killer use cases, um in addition to kind of like B2B and enterprise flow as well, but I think it really hits home when you see like the spreads that are the money that you can save from spreads for like an everyday person. I would also Yeah, that's also the argument basically because if you send money off on the traditional ways, you have to pay much more fee on other places, so the spread is not your main concern at this moment, I guess, if this is the use case, basically.

And what I see, but this is more like in general the difference between trade five and D5, they they they on FX if you get if you have ask for higher quote to get the a smaller spread. But on chain in in a way it's different. The higher the trade size, the higher the slippage and the spread. And I think there's also need some learning experience. I guess if you trade five wants to adopt D5, they need to Yeah, they need to DCA and basically hope to either DCA over time and then hedge the position or however you do that.

Or yeah, you just have a different mindset because otherwise you always That's a little bit the question we got many times. Yeah, I want to DCA the trade size and trade size high and then oh, the slippage is so high. And it's like, yeah, why are you doing this because it doesn't make sense. You should basically trade over I don't know, 30 minutes and basically hope that somebody that the pool is good arbitrage and the price basically you get the mid price over the next 30 minutes and not just trade in one go, basically. Which brings me to Ivy.

Ivy, what sort of uh features or what needs to happen to bring TradFi to DeFi? What sort of design mechanisms or features do you need? Right. Just to comment shortly on the spread part, right? Cuz um that's our one of our, let's say, revenue like model, right?

We earn we as the like a liquidity provider, we earn from the spread and so on. But um I don't Let's say I don't disagree, right? For certain markets, let's say the major currency pairs, uh we do see advantages that especially from user perspective, that might be really a fee perspective advantage, right? So, like on chain, it's it's less spread. However, if you're talking really about the institutional use case, right?

With a large ticket, cuz that spread with a bank, as a liquidity provider, they offer that considers really the ticket size. And especially also whether the market's liquid so for emerging markets and and the current situation, right? We do believe that most of the try effects they're actually bilateral, right? It's very discreet, I would say. And under that that kind of setup, the client actually gets a really gets gets a certain quote and it gets a really good spread offer.

So, so why? Because it's a lot of things they are internalized. They are not really about like open to the entire market to say let's just expose to the volatility, you know, like it depends really on the how deep the liquidity pool is and so on. So, it's it's again like we're really leveraging our network, leveraging the the whole uh let's say the the balance sheet, right? So, we internalize it, we hedge, and so on.

So, this is why I don't uh well, I don't disagree, but for some markets I do feel we have advantage in terms of, you know, this offer. Um maybe I think we covered quite several points, right? Both from liquidity provision, controls, and also legal perspective. Um maybe just a little call out to say um when we talk about to bring, let's say, effects flows on chain, it's the solutions might be really varied depending on use cases. And also on regions, right?

Uh just for example, in Europe, um we have a SEPA instant. So, then the if you talk about within Europe you make a transaction, then the question is there is there really a beneficial, let's say, to leverage stable coin because we we do have other, you know, alternatives, right? And also um let's say there are also from central bank and also BIS, I think there's a project on Agora and the ECB there is also like a lot of a pilots about the uh wholesale central bank money. Right? So, these are all like a let's say tokenized money formats um that's from institutional perspective we we can consider as alternatives.

So, it's really depend and they all have compared to let's say stable coin is both pros and cons, right? So, it's in the end really about which use case are we talking about, uh which corridors, uh and which real that make really most most sense, you know, for both the clients and the bank perspective. Look, I I think um we'd be kidding ourselves if we said we have effects solved on chain. It's still really really early and I think um like trading is one use case, but I I I I think like I want to put this as like a call to action to all like the builders and partners out there. Like this really only works if we can build kind of a network of different endpoints where, you know, the blockchain is kind of the central node, but um if you're talking about remittances, if you're talking about cross-border payments, if you're talking about international payroll and all these things, this really only works if you can get good partners in each jurisdiction because regulation is really tough in each jurisdiction.

There's no one platform or no one like company or protocol that's going to solve all that. I don't think a protocol literally can solve that because of like regulatory uh issues. So, um it it's I want to say it's like really really early for this and um it network effects compound and um it's really only going to get more efficient and better as like more partners that trap out firms that look into it, you know, on and off-ramp providers. We're in Europe, like we really need separate rails to get like a euro stable coin to be really like effective and have utility. So, what do you think the biggest pain point is for say Mento specifically in each of your respective uh projects?

Um yeah, just like really quickly, I think for Mento we're an infrastructure player. We really rely on like partners. Like Many Pays is a great partner. They have enabled us to access like all these rails in Africa, which are really tough for a lot of um for a lot of people. Um if you look at the most used stable coin in Africa, USDT, I think by all measures, how do people access that today?

It's Binance pretty much, I think. Um someone can prove me wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's still the case. Um Many Pays has built out like um um what is it called? Mobile Money wallets, uh integrations with specific rails in like Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, etc., etc.

Until we see that type of integrations through like every other part of the world, like um infrastructure players can only do so much. Martin, what's been your bottleneck or pain point? Yeah, not enough non-euro stable coins, basically. It's a little bit true because we've been waiting for them like since ever, and every time it's like, "Yeah, they will arrive now." But yeah, we see we see there's some growth now.

So, I guess we are over this, basically. And yeah, we we in a way we are more like infrastructure before us to use. So, we many problems we don't have to fix, basically. So, others have to fix it as the issuers. And we are more like uh have we are like a deep tech company who have good solutions.

And we we we like offer this to everyone, basically, because we are open open system, and we're protocol. So basically many things we don't have. So we don't care about regulation AML this kind of trade five things which is a good place to be, but we also need like people building on top of us and many do this in different things. So Yeah, I guess the it's hard to scale then this basically. That's why one day the same question.

Yeah, I would want to really like push a little bit more like collaboration kind of way. So yeah, of course we worry about regulations, right? Not just worry just we cuz we are kind of in between, right? It's a relationship we're offering to our let's say corporate clients as example, right? It's not we cannot say it's your risk, it's your decision to use the you know the coin on chain everything that we just facilitate it's not you know, it's a really long-term relationship.

And also we are regulated financial institution that's we do care about regulation, right? So I just want to make point of one thing about transparency. I do see that on that front there was a really good collaboration collaboration virtually collaboration between like the tech team and also traditional try five, right? Cuz I think couple years ago we were talking about moving try five for even some sort of pilot let's say you know, like a on chain exercise. Um we would definitely say it's that has to be permission chain, right?

It has to be closed and we just don't want to expose to risk and so on. But then because of the privacy concerns of confidentiality particularly for the pre-trade, right? Because you otherwise it would be really counterproductive and then you know, you have the upside kind of market movement so on. But in and for the last couple of years and there's a lot of like tech development, right? So for example ZKP and it started to solve the privacy issue and you do have Did you see like a lot of tag providers that you try to install, let's say, really be spoken compliance, or like a control stack on the permissionless chain, right?

so this is something like I think we are open. In the end, it's really about let's tick the box. Does it really offer, you know, what our clients and we ourselves also as a client are looking for? And then this is something that we do believe there is a potential. Yeah, just to add something to transparency.

Yeah, everyone I think DeFi is very much built on transparency, and it's a good thing in a sense because if there is like the resolved issue you see in like a day basically it's visible who is exposed to what basically. And yeah, I'm I'm just saying for us as DeFi guy on-chain guy, as soon as we start taking away this transparency, we basically lose also part of the potential of this. So it's like we as a industry, all the DeFi builders, we need to solve part of this maybe at some point, but it also has like huge side effects, which basically is damaging part of the value proposition we have basically. Yeah, I agree. I'm not saying taking away.

No, no, it's not It's not It's not I don't say it's It's not a moral judgment. It's just a fact basically. I don't know if DeFi works well with privacy built in. I have high doubt I guess we will lose yeah, part of the value proposition. So basically it's just more like this.

Yeah, I think it transparency is very very helpful, right? For post trade, let's just pick this FX transaction example for post trade, it's great. It did really enforce, let's say, traceability, auditability, right? This is what we want basically. Um and but for the pre-trade, it's really especially for large ticket, think about like a big corporate, they want to 500 million pay a US hedge US dollar and then everyone knows there's a move and then they're going to react, right?

And that's yeah.

Like these outside oil positions in the last couple of years. Okay, we're down to a minute. I want to open it up to the audience. Does anybody have any questions for our panelists? None?

Panelists, do you have any questions for the panelists? Um I have a question for Martin uh cuz I want to circle back to the point you made around needing more stablecoin issuers and more liquidity around that. Like how do we how do we grow uh the over the last year I think I've seen like a lot of really good teams um in many jurisdictions issue stables. Um how do we how do we grow adoption and liquidity as like a ecosystem and as like a as like protocols? I think about this a lot.

It's a hard question. As a protocol, you mean? Oh. Yeah, just like as like in we're both like infrastructure layer. Um we provide like a service to these guys.

I think one one of the things that they've struggled with is getting adoption, getting liquidity. Like they're no USDC, USDT, right? Um with like billions of dollars in circulation. Yeah. I mean we as protocol, you know, we we can't manage to demand side in a sense, you know, this is we don't see the market.

We we are not like we are like they have clients and they need basically to to find yeah, product market fit basically. So for us it's hard as a protocol. We can't we can give them good technology and they can use it, but at the end, you know, we are just like uh yeah, the infrastructure is also means the user should not see that we are used basically the back end. They just get should get a good service basically. So it's like we should disappear at the end.

That's the goal basically.

Yeah, same here. Um, we we've issued um, decentralized stable coins as a means to an means to an end, but I think like my future vision is that, you know, there's fiat deep deeply liquid fiat issuers in every corridor in the world. Yeah. Well, thank you guys. Thank you panelists.

This is a great conversation. If you want to discuss more with them, I I'm going to push them out to the side or somewhere else, and then you can chat with them. But, thank you.