Hyperliquid Has 0.1% Of Wall St's Trading. At 1%, Fees 10x | David Schamis - HYPERLIQUID STRATEGIES INC

Today, it's actually doing a lot more than crypto. The total market cap of crypto is still less than like NVIDIA, one stock in the United States. RAOUL PAL, Yeah, it is like half of NVIDA, exactly. And it's hard to put a limit on how big this could get. The majority of the time, I'm sitting with people who run big firms, lots of capital, and they say, OK, what is Hyperliquid? And I say, well, have you heard of Jeff Yan? They say, no, who's Jeff Yan. Yeah. And I say, OK, sit down. This is going to take 45 minutes. The other day, right, there was a massive buyout of some OTC tokens. It was about 320 million. I'll break the news right now. Read my lips. This content is directed at persons outside the United Kingdom. It is not directed at and must not be acted upon by persons inside the United Kingdom. Nothing said on Risk Takers is a recommendation to buy or sell any token asset or security views expressed by hosts and guests are solely their opinion and not financial advice. Check the description for more information. All right, David Shamus from high political strategies. Thank you. Thanks for having me. It's good to be here. It was a pleasure. It was a pleasure. Likewise. So David, you got the arguably the only debt that's managed to provide positive P&L. Yeah, ever, right. Which is, you know, quite quite a statement, really. And fundamentally, the reason for that is there's no surprise. obviously you guys are really well managed, but you were holding hype, right? Which is the only token to actually have been outperforming the market over the last, especially the last year, but it's been the best tokens to have held over the past two years, really. What makes you so bullish hype now? Well, I think that the world is just figuring out what we've sort of been following for a while, which is that there's a lot of room to go on hype and hyperliquid more specifically. So what do I mean by that? It was less than a year ago when HIP3, hyperliquid improvement proposal number three, went into effect. That is where you can put real world assets, other exchanges on top of hyperliquin. So a year go here at Token, that was like still a bright idea that wasn't up and running yet. That went live in November and a whole bunch of real world assets came on and we've seen it happen so far, but it's still just a tiny percentage of like the total trading volume of the world, right? Like any amount is impressive, but you know, a year ago, Hyperliquid was a really successful crypto exchange with talk about doing more than just crypto. Today, it's actually doing a lot more than crypto. And the TAM is just so much bigger, right. Like we say this all the time, all this stuff going on here, token, all that, the total market cap of crypto is still less than like NVIDIA, one stock in the United States. How? Yeah, it's like half of NVIDDIA, exactly. So if you're Hyperliquid or anyone else, and you're fighting for that crypto volume, nothing wrong with it, but it's a narrow TAM. Where we are now, which is where we thought we'd be a year ago, but here we are, is now it's a much, much bigger TAM. And, you know, it's hard to put a limit on where how big this could get. I think that's a really good point, to be fair, because if you think about I've been I've been doing a lot of these calculations, like like for a long time, but really try to understand where the kind of like, where Hyperlink was trying to grow, right? Yeah, so we're good point that crypto, yes, it said an amazing job here. But for it to be worth what it's worth today, it really does need to be expanding into the into the to try and take chunks out of the infrastructure that is already alive right now yeah and so if you think about ice and cme combined it's hard to know exactly but give or take over a year they're doing roughly three quadrillion dollars in volume um hyperliquids doing about three trillion so 0.1 percent right what we saw initially when the u.s first got like um on like bitcoin right yeah what we saw is actually that the volumes offshore increased yep by like 2x plus the volumes obviously onshore in the US they like 10x yeah so the US regulating this stuff allowing more players to play yeah didn't increase the entire pie yes so with regulation and we can touch on it a little bit as well but I think the regulation is kind of been like beaten to death really for the most part like it's happening right like things are happening you know Jake Chavinsky very very well very well we can we can definitely talk a bit as to what's actually changing and what needs to change but i'm more interested in the numbers really if hyperliquid is currently like like do you think that the regulation if hyperliquid becomes like us-ified and it is a place that institutions can trade does this increase the pie overall let's say hyperliqid plus cme plus ice right now is 100 does hyperliqual take one percent and it remains as 100 or does it become 110 and hyperliquel takes 1% or 10%. How do you see that? It's a great question. I think so far, it's increased the pie. Even before regulation, it has increased the pi. I would even go so far as to say, we've probably increased the revenues on the CME and increased volumes on CME, even though the world is worried we're going to take their volume away. The reason for that is, you know, when oil went on hyperliquid, right, someone's going long the PERP on hyper liquid wherever, but there's a market maker who then has to short the PER and go long spot. And when they go along that spot, they're doing it on the traditional, the traditional exchanges. So the short answer is today, I think it's already expanded the pie. Over time, as this gets bigger, does that continue? Actually, it's a really good question. I think that what we will see definitely let's just say we snapped our fingers right now and tomorrow, totally legal in the U.S., totally acceptable. You have the full regulatory stack allowing hyperliquid. I think what you see is a huge unlock of the number of people trading on this who aren't today. So the obvious thing is U. S people, right? There's U. As retail U.s institutional. That's the obvious one. I also think that people don't talk about much. There's going to be a big unlock of non-U.S. institutional, right? Like today, even if you're outside the U.S., as an institution, there's still a pretty big sort of gap to actually... There's still pretty big gap you have to cross to say, okay, I'm a non-US institution. I'm in France or whatever. I want to trade oil on chain. I am going to go set up a wallet on a decentralized exchange. Like some people would do that. Some people have done that. Not everybody will, right? That French institution, I'm just using France as a fancy example, they might feel more comfortable also when there's a U.S. FCM, DCM, DCO regulated stack to invest in. When they go to their compliance people and they go to their regulatory people and say, actually, we came to you a year ago, this wasn't allowed in the US, now it is, and it's through the old-fashioned regulatory sort of rails that the US has gone for many years, that will unlock a lot more there too. So I think that brings a lot into hyperliquid. That's the easy question. The harder question, which you asked, is does it increase the total forever? I don't know if that's true. I thinkthat's a tough question. I'm not sure why it would, although maybe people smarter and more creative than me will have good ideas as to why it works. The reason why I would think it potentially could, right? You're smarter, more creative, so go ahead. Maybe just, you know, hallucinate it with another- Certainly younger. So like, as soon as you, you mentioned market makers, right, and they're the people who actually would increase the volumes, right. Because suddenly you've now got instruments where you can hedge differently, instruments where there's funding fees, instruments where if you're going to market make in one place, then you're, you're gonna have to hedge it at another place, just by nature of actually having to make the market across the institutions and the fact that there's arbitrage from one place to another place, that's inherently going to make people claim that arbitrage, right? And so if people are there claiming the arbitrage it should inherently increase the volumes across the board. Yeah, I agree with you and you get my juices flowing here. I actually think I'd go even a step further and say markets like choices. Some people like derivatives, options. Some people like options. Some people like perps. Some people who don't have access to perps would like perts if they did. So as people have more options, more choices, as ways to invest, ways to express an interest, as Jeff would say, ways to address alpha, you're going to have the pie growing. So I think you're convincing me here. I do think more choices more options no pun intended you're gonna have more volumes in total. And again, I don't, I do think for many reasons, both short-term and long-term, people like the CME are being pretty short-sighted by seeing hyperliquid as just a tremendous near-term threat. Yeah, yeah. I mean, CME launched, CMA's case against hyperliqid really is they launched purpose already. No one really uses it. Therefore, the products are pretty rubbish. Like, what do you think about the, like, there's an argument on either side, right? Purpose are better because X, they're worse because Y, right? Why do you think perpetuals are inherently, or maybe you don't, a better instrument to express a view on an asset? Yeah. So I think there are reasons it's better. There are reasons there are worse. Again, markets like choices. You might make one choice. Some of us might make a different choice. To me, the obvious big difference, let's just say to ourselves, both perps and equity options are two ways that people could choose to invest levered equity, right? You can a little bit of leverage, a lot of leverage. It's levered equity one way or the other. The problem with options is that even for the most liquid names, NVIDIA, Tesla, Microsoft, whomever, even for most liquid name, for every one equity, for every NVIDA, there are hundreds or even thousands of different QSIPs for the different options that trade. There's puts, there's calls. There is each strike price. There is each expiration date. So you take the total liquidity wanting to trade levered Nvidia and you divide it over all those QSIPs. The problem is even for the most liquid ones and certainly even more for the less liquid ones, that liquidity is fragmented and the bid-ask spreads for those different QSIPS become wider. So it It costs more money to trade those things. The Citadels of the world, they love that, right? There's a reason Citadel pays for that order flow. They're not paying for the order flow because they're good. They pay Robinhood for that older flow. They don't pay Robin because they were good guys. They pay Robert because they are wide bid air spreads and they can take advantage of that in the perp world for every one in video. There's one in Video Perp and whether you want to go long in Video perp 20 times levered for two hours, or whether I want to go short NVIDIA perp, zero leverage for six months, it's the same contract. It's the sane perp. It is the same liquidity. The bid-ask spreads are minuscule, exponentially smaller than on the option side, and that's a big difference. Again, that might be really important to you. It might be less important to somebody else. Markets like choices. I think that's very, very well said to be fair. One question I actually have, and this is more sort of like a, there's no definitive answer, right? Hyperliquid has made its name by having effectively tokenomics that we've never seen before in crypto, like the most pristine. They've learned basically from all the failures of things that have come before it. And obviously Jeff and the team have just been absolutely incredible at creating a token that truly drives value to token and even you could argue this entire like i hate to say revenue meta because like obviously it's not a meta to make businesses that make money yeah but it feels like crypto sort of jumped on this bandwagon like okay oh revenue generating protocols are now the thing that we need to be focusing right yeah it felt like in a lot of ways hyperliquid actually drove that train yeah now what i want to know from you is like given all that given that the token economics are incredibly twisted. At TG, there's about 330 million tokens. Do you think the circulating supply, including staking, non-staking, just total tokens in circulation, ever surpasses that 330 million number? Oh, yeah. Well, let me take your question in two parts. First part is, I would say, Hyperliquid's done not just one thing, but two things really well, right? The first thing is they built a great blockchain and a great exchange on top of that, where others can build exchanges that work incredibly well. You can do that without creating a token also. The token and the blockchain are two separate points. So item one, they built something that's really valuable and really highly functional. Secondly, and separately, they created exactly what you said, a token with really thoughtful economics, where they've learned from a lot of other people, where it's, I think, the closest thing I've seen in crypto that represents this sort of an equity-like instrument of a blockchain, right? Solana is like that, but so much of the revenue in Solana go to the validators, not to the token holders. I think Hypers really nailed it. So those are two separate things, don't have to be the same, that have both clicked, which is one of the reasons I believe it's so good. Now to your question, when we think about tokens outstanding, and we have a page on this on our website, I don't think circulating supply is the right number. I mean, that's too low. I also don't of billions the right the number, that's too high. To me, the right number, what I would equate to a traditional company's market cap, shares outstanding, is the circulating supply plus the locked tokens that are still owned by the team. Those will unlock over time. Jeff owns a lot of those tokens. I am pretty damn sure Jeff is not going to quit his job and go take a job at Goldman Sachs. If that's not happening, those tokens will unlock. So I think the number I have, those two numbers together, are about $475 million. And when you say to me, what's the, quote, market cap of hype? I take the price of $90 times $4.75, and that's my number. So that's what's worthwhile, actually. And again, I grew up in the traditional finance world. I'm still very much in that world. That's how I think of market cap. And just on Jeff, as you mentioned him, I think in a lot of ways, it still requires belief in Hyperliquo, I think, in a lot of ways. Because when you think about what the team have done, what they've built, they took no VC money, you know, the story is incredible, right? And you kind of really have to go into the story to understand that, like you said, you don't think Jeff's going to go and work at Goldman Sachs. He's definitely going to be off with that job if he wants it. So do you think it's still like you're requiring belief from these guys? Like, you You know, when you bet on an Elon company, you're really betting on Elon and you're betting on Elon to keep being Elon. Do you think hyperliquid is still a bet on Jeff and the team to keep being Jeff and team or this? Oh, and when does it break free of that? Sort of like those shackles, I guess. Yeah. Look, I would say that, um, and I've been saying this comment about financial services companies for years, right? I've investing financial services companies since the 2000s, so for 26 years. Unlike Coca-Cola, unlike McDonald's, unlike lots of companies, there are very few financial services companies, if any, that have a true franchise value, right? There's nothing one company does that someone else can't do. No one's splitting the atom. No, one's making the Coca-cola formula. It's just, it's not the case. So what every financial services come down to is the quality of the people and the quality execution. So, I think sitting here and saying, well, Jeff's not going to be here forever, or we have to count on Jeff and the team to continue to execute, guilty as charged. Like, yeah, of course. And if you buy Goldman Sachs stock today, you've got to count out Goldman SachS. They're people continuing to execute and being better than the average investment bank out there. So, the answer is, I believe it's a false choice to say we can't count on the team because we're confident they will continue. Now, that being said, they are building something that I think is bigger than them. I think that they have been very humble. You know, most founders want to build empires. You know, my goal is to create something that's really big with 12 employees, right? And part of Jeff's genius, in my opinion, is that he has allowed other people in the community to do things that often the management team would be doing themselves. So for instance, you know, trade XYZ, right? They've been unbelievably successful doing real world assets on hyperliquid. A different company, a different CEO might say, we're not letting other people build on top of our blockchain. It's our blockchain, we are going to build it. And we're going to do real world assets, and we're going to oil and we are gonna do God knows what else people can dream of. I think he has this humility about him where he recognizes that he might be able to do that, but other people can probably do it better. And having a 50% revenue share of a much bigger number is better for me and better for the whole ecosystem. He could run around talking to institutional investors about why hyperliquid is so great. I'd rather him be spending time on the development side and let me run around and do that. Which is kind of how I spend my time. This is a paid promotion for Kalshi. This content is directed at persons outside the United Kingdom. It is not directed at and must not be acted upon by persons inside the United Kingdom. Kalschi is not FCA regulated and is not available to UK customers. You know Kalsshi, the biggest prediction market in the world. Elections, the Fed, sport, all of it. KALSHI now does perpetuals. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, even gold and silver. And it's the first exchange in America the CFTC has ever approved to run that. So this is perps with a regulator. Your money sits on an American exchange under American law. And it's the cheapest. A $10,000 trade costs just a dollar. A 100,000 dollar trade costs 10. That is the lowest fee in perps on any exchange anywhere. And your money earns while it sits there. Kalshi currently pays 3.25% a year on funds you hold on the platform, cash and open positions alike. That rate is variable. New accounts get 25 bucks on a $50 trade. Markets run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and a position never expires. Cauchy, an American exchange under American law. US customers only, trading perpetuals is high risk and you can lose all the money you put in. Terms and conditions apply, check the screen. So what is your relationship like with Jeff? What's my what? Relationship like with Jeff? Very friendly. I think he was, I got to know him when we first started to do this. He was friendly. He was encouraging, but not, you know, one way, he didn't care one way or the other. In other words, you want to do with that, that's great. You don't want to deal with that. That's okay too. We talk frequently. Generally, the conversation is me asking them, us asking them what we could be doing to make their lives easier, how we can be more helpful. An obvious area that we're looking at is in the United States. Obviously, hyperliquids move into the US. What are we? We're a US listed company. We have a lot of cash on our balance sheet. We a lot of capital. We have no debt. We have a very highly credible board. We have a modestly credible management team. And I think that combination might be able to be helpful for his journey in the United States. Maybe it won't, but we're here to help and I'd love to be helpful. And so that capital you've got on the balance sheet, you know, I think it's funny when it comes to DATs, people think that they get into this like zealous idea that, ideology that the DAT can't sell the token, the debt must do nothing but use the cash to buy the token. Fundamentally, a debt really has a judicial responsibility to its shareholders. 100%. What do you guys view as that cash on the balance sheet? It's not just all of this is reserved to buy hype. You view it as something else? Yeah. I would say a few things. To answer your first question, I absolutely agree with you. I don't think you can function as a debt if you're not willing to sell your tokens. Now, I've never sold the token yet, but I'm not a religious zealot. I certainly might one day. And you said it exactly right. My primary responsibility is not to Jeff or not to the hype token holders. It's to my shareholders. And that's my primary fiduciary duty. And Trump's everything. That being said, I think that I agree with you as well. I don't think in the long term the best thing for our shareholders is to just operate as an ETF, right? As an ETF we would take a hundred percent of our cash, we buy hype with it, and eventually the best we'd ever do as far as our MNAV would be one. And maybe that's okay in life. I think our job as a management team is to try to, we have an MNAB above one right now, to try to keep it above one. And the only way you can do that in the long-term is to find ways in the ecosystem to generate revenue and to generate earnings beyond just owning the token. So we're working hard to do that. We're also not saying yes to every Yahoo that walks through the door. I only want to do things that are both really intelligent and really do add value to the ecosystem where we can get more than our share of that revenue and that are meaningful. You know, to spend a lot of time and energy and calories on something that doesn't move the needle for a company with a $4 billion market cap doesn't make any sense, right? It's got to be something that's meaningful, that moves the needle. I would say we're looking at a handful of those things right now. I'm in the deal business. They all might happen. None of them might happen, but I'm looking at the deal. That's the business we've chosen, and we'll see how it goes. Can you go into any of those that are sort of in the pipeline at the moment? Not really. i think uh again the only thing i would generally say is not all but some of the stuff we're looking at is definitely around hyperliquids entrance to the united states okay yeah yeah amazing amazing and you touched on it earlier hype is the only things that sort of feels like as close to equity as possible as a token can be do you think that hype is better than equity like like like if you go back two years and go okay here's a business um make the business make hyperliqua make the business but it's it's not it hasn't got you you separated nicely here's this amazing business here's the token fine get rid of the token here's a business you can have equity in the business yeah is it is it does this structure actually inherently better than this structure for holders of that equity or token maybe and let me give you an argument um this comes back to jeff and the team and their humility so um a normal company a normal well-functioning company generates earnings. At the end of the quarter or the end of the year, the board gets together at some fancy hotel or something, and they have a big meeting, and they talk about lots of things. And one of the topics is what do we do with those earnings we generated? One thing might be pay a dividend. One thing Might be do a share buyback, which is effective at Hyperliquid does. Third thing might be reinvest in something to generate more money. A fourth thing could be let's buy the CEO a new airplane because the old one's not good enough. Many times, boards and management teams allocate that capital really thoughtfully. Sometimes they don't. Often, people have delusions of grandeur. They expand more than they should. They pay their people too much. There's lots of ways, any number of ways that public companies over the years have misallocated their capital and their earnings over time. And there's a million examples of that. Jeff has said he doesn't want to do that. He doesn't want to have to make that decision. 99% of that revenue every single day goes into the buyback. There's no board meeting. There's not debate. There's discussion. Every single day, the buy back, which is effectively a share buy back keeps happening and there's no debate about it. Will that be better than every single company ever in the history of the world? Of course not. Some companies will reinvest unbelievably well and that'll compound the earnings by a lot. But plenty of them don't. And this is an area where, as an investor, it's actually nice to know that no one's trying to outsmart themselves. No one's try to think of the next great thing, the money's being used to repurchase a token. And by the way, there are plenty of hype bulls out there that I know that actually think Jeff and the team should be doing less buybacks and figure out more ways to reinvest that capital. I give them a lot of credit for having the discipline. I mean, people love spending money. It's like a human condition. I give them a lot of credit for having that discipline not to be doing that. I think that's a good point because it is a regular critique of Hyperliquid. You know, they've gone too far to the extreme where they're not using their capital to reinvest in ways that they can buy back their token because they've got nothing better to spend that money on. Yeah. And this is kind of an interesting critique of the MAG7 over the last five, 10 years. All these guys have got nothing to spend their money on. They're just doing share buybacks. And funnily enough, now that they're not doing that and they're issuing equity and they are issuing bonds to go and build data centers and they get criticized for that as well. So you can't win either way. Everyone's got an opinion. Yeah, for sure. But by the way, to that point though, I will say if Jeff was here, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think what he would say is the whole idea is that others in the ecosystem, whether it's trade XYZ, whether its outcome XYZ. I mean, there's all sorts of people building on top of Hyperliquid and it's their job should be to do the marketing. Their job should be going out and find that next customer and they're doing it right now. Yeah. I mean Hyperliqid is infrastructure, right? Yeah. Hyperli is infrastructure. You need builders to build up all the infrastructure to really get those network effects. Yeah. he likes the best, I think, is AWS. And I saw AWS has a booth here, but generally speaking, they don't do a lot of marketing. Marketing relative to total revenue has got to be pretty damn small at AWS. The other day, there was a massive buyer of some OTC tokens. It was about $320 million. They bought out some of the team's unlocked tokens. Famously, the team have only taken like five percent of all tokens that they could have had you know again put it seeking to their tokenomics hyper liquid and then the sort of team behind them anyway um you got 300 bucks 300 million bucks on your balance sheet i was like okay probably you know it's hyper legal strategies i'm pretty sure it's not you guys it's no i'll break the news right now it is uh read my lips i'm a public company ceo that was not us so who was it i don't know uh i don'T have any more insight into you i've heard some rumors on twitter uh i even heard a good joke that they use it to pay for their party on Monday night? The answer is, I don't know who bought it. So the rumors I've heard on Twitter are that it was ICE, right? So is that the same? So tomorrow here at the conference, Jeff and Jake Stravinsky and I are in a panel and the moderator is someone from ICE. So there's been some theory that that's going to be some news broken tomorrow. If that is, that'll be news to me as well. So that'll be kind of cool. But I really have no idea. So if it, you know, it's obviously a large player, it could easily be an institution. Which institutions do you think are yet to buy hype that are likely to? Well, and why, I guess, as well. Look, ICE is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. And again, I have no idea who it is, but I think it's clear that Hyperliquid's first partner in the US is going to be Kraken. That's pretty obvious. I also think it's pretty clear they won't be their last partner in the U.S. And I think that there are plenty of institutions who have been talking to the whole hyperloop, not just to Jeff, not just to labs, the whole ecosystem, plenty of institutions whose names we all know, whose names we've known before we knew about crypto, who find this interesting. And I Think a lot of them are circling around that. And if it was my guess, if I had to guess, I think it would be sort of a brand name like, well, if I had to guess, and if it was an institution, not like a financial buyer, because who knows, it could be a financial buyer. I think it would be sort of a traditional institution we've heard of, not some newfangled crypto thing that just came out. But again, I'm entirely speculating here. Of course. But I think I think is interesting because it is that it kind of is speculation. But on the other hand, it's trying to think about who are these people that need to buy hype to issue new markets yeah and so how many of those new markets do you think are actually going to be online in the next you know 18 months um those hip free markets that require you know so this hip three which is outside the u.s this hip3 star yes that'll be in the u s um i think quite a few i mean certainly certainly more than one right one would be cracking definitely more than one. I think in 12 or 18 months from now, if it is only one, I'm not sure that means we're a failure because as we learned with TradeXYZ, one could be pretty damn great. But I think the vision is more than one. And one person will do one particular market well, and someone else might do something else well. And that gets back to Jeff's humility. The guy who does oil great might be different than the guy who Does Nvidia stock really great. And the best people do the best stuff um so i don't know how many it'll be i think more than one is likely and from my point of view as a hype holder i actually think the more capital the more smart people chasing after this to be the best to be to go after that the better it is for us and so what kind of let's go 18 months into the future then we'll take say like by 2028 oh yeah is that yeah that's those numbers what uh what kind of volumes do you think um hyperliquid needs to be doing across the board hip three star hip three um hip three normal like the entire exchange for it to be for the last 18 months to have been successful it's a good question i'm not sure i have a number in my head and by the way like there's perps which is what we all think about with hyperliqid but hyperliiquid is perfectly capable of spot uh and you know those are those those numbers compare differently So it's hard to put a number on any of this stuff. But if we take $3 trillion today is roughly what it is per year. Is it six? Is it nine? It's certainly growths and then multiple to that, I think. But also it matters what that makeup is, right? So year on year, hyperliquids revenues and volumes are sort of flat to down, right. So you might be sitting here saying, well, I listen to Sound Show, right, Why is the, you know, why is this token up so much? And the answer is it's the makeup of those volumes and the makeup of that revenue, right? A year ago, 100% of the revenue was crypto. As we talked about before, it's great stuff, but it's a pretty narrow TAM. Today, so much of that is real world assets and the TAM is just tremendous. So it trades where it trades today, not because of the last 12 months revenue, but where the world thinks that's going. So again, it'S really hard for me to, I can't put a number on it And if we're slightly below, we'd be upset. And slightly above, we would be happy. But continuing to move into these very high TAM areas, I think, are what's incredibly valuable. And we're talking about Tesla stock. We're talking the S&P. We're talk about oil. There's a lot of things we're not talking about. No one's talking about Russian stocks. I was talking to someone earlier today who is an investor in a HIP3 startup that's going to do Chinese stocks, both onshore and offshore. Like, that sounds pretty interesting, right? That's actually adding real value to the world, right. We all know buying, you know, the A shares or whatever they're called, isn't so easy for foreigners in China. It's been a long time. Here's a way to kind of break that in PERP form. Anyway, there's just so many pockets of the world that haven't been touched yet with HIP3. Trade XYZ has both been incredibly successful and only, I would even call it the tip of the iceberg. I call it like the nub of the iceberg, I mean, it's really, really small yeah um what do you think is obvious today in your eyes yeah that everyone else just doesn't see yet well everyone's a lot of people i thought yeah yeah yeah that's fair fast like mostly but most it's not obvious to the market let's say in two years we'll go oh yeah it was obvious about them so it depends on how we define the market if we define people here right the crypto native people um i think the answer to that question is that what we're talking about right now, just appreciating how big the TAM for hyperliquid is and how well positioned they are to take advantage of that and grow. I think if we're talking about people not in this room, which is really most of who I spend my time with. That's where the TEM is. That's what the TEN is. But it's also where an investor base is that doesn't know how hyperliqid is. I spend a tremendous amount of my time meeting with institutional investors. and many times I walk into a meeting and the people are really knowledgeable and they know as much as I do and they're peppering me with detailed questions like you are about hyper liquor. That is the minority of the time. The majority of the times I'm sitting with people who run big firms, lots of capital, and they say, okay, what is hyper liquor? And I say, well, have you heard of Jeff Yan? They say, no, who's Jeff Yan. And I said, okay sit down. This is going to take 45 minutes. And I say, OK, Jeff got out of Harvard. He's a computer science type guy. Got a job at Hudson River Trading, dot, dot. And here's what HIP3 is. And that's a 45-minute discussion. And as you have that discussion, you kind of see the light going on in their eyes. And they say, okay, now I understand. This isn't just some other crypto exchange. This This isn't someone just, you know, trying to be the next Kraken or the next Binance or the next, or the Next Gemini or whatever. Like there's something more to it than this. And they make the AWS connection and like, it really opens their eyes and they understand it. And again, that's not a five minute discussion. Not possible. That's like 45 minutes of like paying attention and taking notes and then understanding it. And, and, and you know most of my day I spend with people like that. And the vast majority of the world are people like that, right? It's very hard to find a social investor and you say to them, you know, J.P. Morgan, they say, what do they do? It doesn't happen very much, you now? Happens with hyperliquid a lot. And is there something I should have asked you today that I didn't? I think you've done a pretty good job. Look, I think that, you kno, one thing I'll say, and we broke this up earlier, but you know we try to have the same humility that jeff does running our our little debt i think that and you touched on this but i want to beat a dead horse here like we've outperformed a lot we're one of the few that trade above mnav but we're not confused about the fact that why that is like 95 percent of the value we created in doing that was choosing the right token and recognizing that the world needed a hype that i always say that when i did this a year and a half ago i didn't want to be the next Michael Seller knockoff. It took me a little while to realize that the world needed a hype that. So as I say, 95% of the value we created that was on the first day, but we're still working hard to continue that. And we know full well to continue with that. We can't just, you know, keep riding that first decision we made. We got to keep making good decisions. Awesome. David, this has been so much fun. Thank you. Thanks for having me. This was really good. Pleasure, man. Thank you.