cryptofreedman

@ryanconnor i wonder what the customer market segments they think exist for this politics/sports are the dominant modes for retail noise traders more sophisticated actors already work hedges multifactorily and likely don't view event binaries as useful

Crypto native teams still have major advantages over incumbents One is the following: incumbent orgs are still far too conservative and will ship a sub par product just to please their compliance departments

@connorking lower IR score could also lend itself to valuation inflation because well capitalized actors won't participate in those token markets so hopeful noise trading becomes a larger share of mcap

@LiquityProtocol sometimes we cook, sometimes we slow cook gg

BREAKING: Circle has acquired Liquity. This acquisition will enable Circle to offer its users a non-freezable stablecoin and directly distribute yield under the Clarity Act.

@bkiepuszewski i believe you

This is very telling, straight from Canton biz folks - "one canton app who has decided to disclose their data". How generous of them. Let me tell you - together with my friends I am running in my basement my own Canton connected to SV network. There is 2.765 B worth of RWA there. Prove me wrong. Can I have it listed on rwa.xyz ?

@ImperiumPaper defi fixed rate/traunching + IRS haven't worked so far participant + yield homogeneity (no long duration liabilities to trade IRS; token printing "yield" = jr gets wrecked when the ponzi dies) tradfi capital/credit onchain might create enough of a market for these to develop?

One of the challenges faced by borrow-lend protocols is that depositor a borrower granularity is low. But rate sensitivity tends to be quite high at the margins. This creates conditions where a single depositor like His Excellency or large borrower like Abraxas can unwind, moving rates substantially in the short term. While rates often normalize quickly as new “hot money” figures out ways to capitalize on some new equilibrium of rates, it does mean there is a bullwhip effect where small (relative to the entire system) changes in deposit supply or borrow demand create significant volatility in rates. This has largely just been a normal feature of DeFi markets, where lending and borrowing moves quickly. But with the growing dominance of carry trades in lending market activity, a bullwhip effect in rates can, even if temporary, have major PnL impacts on carry trades with multiple turns of leverage. I think it is a mistake for DeFi protocols to focus so heavily upon institutional deposit bases, because you end up with a lot of concentration where if that depositor merely tweaks their position at the margins, it can set off a yo-yo kind of path in rates where borrowers bleed cash. There are several answers to this. The harder one is to actively court a granular, diversified deposit base. This usually means a significant investment in retail marketing and UX, neither of which crypto is very good at, if we’re honest. Another is rates that don’t update in real time. The original MakerDAO CDP vaults would be manually updated, and typically could go weeks or months without a change. This reduced uncertainty for borrowers who simultaneously knew the rate was semi-fixed in the short run, and could also predict the new rate a week in advance by monitoring the forum. Painting with a broad brush, I think DeFi lending had stagnated the last few years, with a focus on experimentation in underwriting (beginning with Ethena, Pendle tokens and evolving into looser and looser standards like with Stream, Resolv, Elixir, etc). Notwithstanding minor experiments in loan structure like 40 Acres (on Base) or 3Jane or Credit (on World Chain), there has been little development beyond simple overnight margin lending lately, which keeps the depositor and borrower universe limited due to a tiny suite of available products,

@AvgJoesCrypto ICM innit

If I was heading up agentic commerce strategy at an L1 or L2, I’d be a lot less focused on payments and a lot more on fundraising/financing. Payments are already a low margin activity, and the only blockchain that has really been able to successfully monetize payments is Tron. Even then, Tether makes significantly more revenue from USDT on Tron than Tron makes. So, even if agentic payments really take off, I think most of the value generated won’t flow to the underlying blockchain, but to the stablecoin issuer and/or whoever controls distribution. As such, I think the real opportunity for blockchains is to cement yourself as the agentic commerce fundraising/financing layer. AI massively reduces labor costs, so the limiting factor for startups/ventures in our agentic economy becomes capital. Whichever blockchain becomes the go-to platform for agentic startups to raise capital will likely be able to create a much more durable revenue stream than any payments-focused blockchain will be able to.

@hosseeb in fairness to crypto people they were also bullish after billions in fresh VC/private market inflows

After a few weeks in SF, one thing stands out: AI people are more bullish on crypto than crypto people are on themselves. There's this narrative forming in crypto that AI people think crypto is a joke. It's just not true. I keep hearing this over and over from AI people who remain bullish crypto. Hell, Sama, Jensen, Elon, Zuck, the biggest names in AI have all been publicly bullish on crypto and its convergence with AI. Crypto's problem right now isn't that outsiders don't believe. It's that insiders are playing scared.

tl;dr for those who aren't connoisseurs of concepts like Ontology as I and Gabriel are ## intro - the "security token industry" has built compliance infrastructure assuming tokens are securities and compliance can/should be smart-contract-rules based - this is in direct conflict with the core value prop of blockchains: not "same intermediaries, on the blockchain w" but *disintermediation* - starting from this incorrect assumption about what tokens actually are has lead to a compliance theater cul-de-sac that just adds tech complexity on top (doesn't reduce compliance cost) ## the ontological confusion - Gabriel outlines 6 relationships tokens can have to securities: 1. chain-as-ledger 2. certificate tokens 3. instruction tokens 4. control agreement tokens 5. synthetic tokens 6. souvenir tokens - #1 chain-as-ledger means the token is actually the security because the blockchain is the ledger the company uses to track ownership; #3/4 instruction or control tokens direct (with varying levels of legal force) the issuer to update their offchain ownership ledger based on token movement/holdership; #6 souvenirs have 0 legal enforcement structure, may vaguely match an offchain ledger but there's no legal binding that creates consequence for dislocation - Gabriel argues only does #1 actually make tokens a security, none of the current chains/ERC implementations do so, and because of this they essentially only add complexity and compliance theater vs create meaningful economic value ## the PEB Report and the Token Instruction Model - the Permanent Editorial Board for the Uniform Commercial Code - the body responsible for monitoring and interpreting the UCC - has been circulating a draft report on the tokenization of securities transfers that primarily analyzes models #3 and 4 above, but also notes #1 (chain as ledger) is an explorable design space - the PEB report explicitly suggests tokens are not securities but Controllable Electronic Record under UCC Article 12 whose transfer of control constitutes an "instruction" to the issuer directing that the transfer of the uncertificated security be registered - under this model token transfers are messages to the issuer to "register this person as the new owner" BUT the issuer is not obligated to comply if certain conditions are not met; Gabriel argues this means the smart contract compliance logic is essentially theater because the issuer is still legally required to evaluate the transfer and determine whether to update it's offchain register or not ## why hard coded transfer compliance makes no sense for instruction tokens - when a token is simply an instruction and not a security, the entire compliance question remains where it has been with offchain securities: with the transfer agents/issuers who decide whether or not to honor the notification; these actors already have very sophisticated systems for tracking ownership and informing decision makers via richer context than onchain data provides, which renders smart contract logic redundant/thinly additive - Gabriel argues onchain compliance pipelines are worse than current offline implementations for three reasons: 1. onchain pipelines misidentify who bears compliance obligations; securities can trade peer to peer relatively freely, it's issuers, broker-dealers, transfer agents, investment advisors, etc who are subject to regulation; these intermediaries *can not* delegate their legal obligation to infrastructure (smart contract automations) and incorporating controls to attempt to do as much destroy the "marketability" of tokens (composability in defi; if you can't trust you can liquidate a token because the issuer might freeze the txn you can't accept it as collateral) 2. onchain compliance pipelines presume transfer control is the primary modality of securities regulation when it is in fact offering/holding period/resale restrictions for private market securities and broker-dealer/transfer agent/investment advisor activity in the case of public securities; some of the related activity could be monitored/controlled in smart contract functions but current implementations do not do this 3. onchain compliance pipelines are inflexible in a way that is incompatible with how compliance actually works; securities compliance is intentionally risk-based, judgement-intensive, and governed by principles not bright lines because bright-line hard-coded rules are inherently gameable; by hardcoding the compliance at the transfer layer protocols give the false impression that compliance is being handled when it is only being gestured at, which comes at the cost of gas expenses, composability constraints, a false sense of security, and the embedding of today's compliance assumptions into immutable/hard to upgrade code ## the permissioned-ledger variant - instead of wrapping public-chain tokens in compliance logic, Canton replaces the public chain entirely with a permissioned ledger where unauthorized txns can't even be constructed; Gabriel argues Reg SCI / PFMI / CFTC compliance don't require that unauthorized txns can't be attempted, they just can't be processed (by compliance departments who aren't disintermediated by any blockchain), so Canton trades away public chain competitive advantage while overfitting compliance needs - in doing this, he argues Canton is essentially isomorphic to existing post-trade infrastructure (DTCC/Euroclear/Clearstream), essentially adding a DAML layer on top of their COBOL, as it still requires all the same institutions, same gated membership, same bilateral opacity as the existing system - Canton's sub-transaction privacy also kills a concrete legal benefit to transparent blockchains: DGCL §§ 219/220 grant stockholders the right to inspect the stock ledger, and a public-chain architecture makes that automatic; to solve for privacy near-term: issuer-controlled view keys encrypting PII while the ledger structure remains publicly verifiable; longer-term: per-issuer ZK rollups (ZKsync's Prividium, already live with Deutsche Bank) settling to a public chain, gives you transparent settlement + encrypted state ## the common thread - the common failure across ERC-XXXX and Securitize/Canton tokenization standards is that all treated intermediation as a design constraint rather than the problem to be solved; every architectural choice assumes the existing intermediary chain persists and blockchains just add slight efficiency; this produced the false premises: if intermediaries are given, the token doesn't need to be constitutive, compliance can be encoded in the token, and the chain doesn't need to be public - by reducing the chain to a notification layer for offchain intermediaries (instruction/souvenir/control agreement tokens), these protocols threw away the one structural advantage of public blockchains: settlement finality; when onchain state is a suggestion not a fact, or even where state is authoritative there are god-mode admin powers, tokens become unusable as a DeFi primitive which is why tokenized securities have generated near-zero meaningful ecosystem activity - the "progressive decentralization" defense (ship instruction tokens now, make the chain constitutive later) has a poor track record: centralized dependencies become structurally embedded, the offchain DB becomes the system of record, admin keys become operationally necessary, compliance modules become contractual obligations to institutional partners, and migration cost exceeds maintenance cost ## what it means to really put securities onchain - Gabriel argues onchain compliance only does real work when the token is the security, which is why MetaLeX CyberCorps build from DGCL outward; bylaws designate the onchain system as the stock ledger under § 224, each Stock Ledger Entry Token (ERC-721) carries the full legal metadata (holder, class/series, share count, § 202 restrictions, Rule 144 dates, officer auths), and the smart contract's rejection of a noncompliant transfer is the issuer's refusal to register; ownership mutates via metadata updates not wallet transfers so a stolen NFT doesn't change who owns shares - entry/scrip separation solves defi composability: ERC-721 entry tokens hold the authoritative legal record + issuer governance powers, ERC-20 cyberSCRIPs mint against them for fungible liquidity with irreversible admin renunciation capability; lenders get real security interest with no override risk vs. ERC-3643 where agent freeze makes collateral unusable; the scrip layer accommodates multiple legal theories per issuer while chain-as-ledger stays intact underneath ## conclusion - the corrective isn't a better compliance module but a different question: "what legal architecture makes onchain state authoritative?"; Gabriel argues the answer starts from corporate law: bylaws designating the onchain system as the record, tokens carrying their own legal metadata, compliance doing structural work on the actual stock ledger not theater on a notification channel; a token that doesn't know what it is can't be made compliant by infrastructure that doesn't know what it's protecting - his argument revolves around what a token actually is as a matter of law: get it right and compliance follows naturally, the blockchain does real work, the intermediary chain shortens; get it wrong and no compliance engineering meaningfully closes the gap - the stakes are whether tokenization delivers its promise: self-custodied legally authoritative ownership, peer-to-peer settlement, open stock ledgers, programmable full-lifecycle infrastructure; that requires chain-as-ledger (tokens = legal record, chain = ledger, governing instruments fusing both); instruction tokens can't get there regardless of wrapper sophistication

@0xsmac but how many tokens did they consume while selling so much so fast

observing the cta positioning

@ZeusRWA another example of the gap between token x equity that @MiyaHedge @lex_node and @metaproph3t are working to solve

Ondo Finance is one of the clearest examples right now of how far tokenization has actually come… and also how early we still are. everything looks incredibly strong. Ondo is sitting at roughly $2.9B in TVL, pushing close to $50M in annualized fees, and distributing products like USDY and OUSG across multiple chains. It’s exactly what people have been talking about for years when they say “tokenization is the future.” They are expanding rapidly and found PMF with their Tokenized stocks. In Q1 2026, Ondo generated just over $13M in revenue. Sounds great. But the cost of that revenue was also $13M. Which leaves earnings at… zero. And that’s not a mistake or bad accounting, that’s by design. Ondo isn’t built to extract yield from users, it’s built to pass it through. Ondo is an onchain asset manager. Users deposit capital, Ondo allocates that capital into real-world instruments like US Treasuries, and then the yield generated from those assets flows back to the users. Products like USDY and OUSG are simply wrappers around that process, giving users access to yield-bearing dollars or short-term treasury exposure, but in a crypto-native format. So when you see “cost of revenue” equal to revenue, what you’re really looking at is yield being distributed. The protocol earns, but it immediately passes those earnings back out. That’s why profits sit at zero. Not because the business isn’t working, but because the model is designed to prioritize the user. Ondo is scaling fast. It’s attracting institutional capital. It’s building one of the strongest distribution layers for tokenized treasuries & stocks we’ve seen so far. And yet, despite all of that, the ONDO token itself isn’t capturing any of that value today. There’s no revenue flowing to holders. No yield. No earnings. Nothing. At the same time, the token is sitting at a multi-billion dollar valuation. So what are you actually buying when you buy ONDO? Right now, you’re not buying cash flows. You’re not buying yield. You’re buying exposure to growth. You’re buying into the belief that $Ondo continues to scale, continues to dominate tokenized finance, and eventually introduces a mechanism that links that success back to the token. And that’s the key point. This isn’t a broken model, it’s just an incomplete one (in my opinion). Because if Ondo ever decides to introduce value capture, whether that’s through fee take rates, buybacks, or some form of revenue sharing, then everything changes overnight. You suddenly have a multi-billion dollar onchain asset manager, generating real yield from real-world assets, with that value flowing back to token holders. That’s the unlock the current holders are betting on. Ondo isn’t just a case study for itself, it’s a case study for the entire RWA sector. It proves that tokenization works. You can bring real assets onchain, you can generate real yield, and you can attract real capital at scale. But it also highlights the biggest gap in the market right now, which is value capture. Most people think the hard part was getting assets onchain. It wasn’t. The hard part is figuring out how tokens actually benefit from that. The easiest way to explain Ondo to someone new is this: it’s essentially a fund manager putting your money into US Treasuries and giving you the yield, just wrapped in crypto rails. The offer Tokenized stocks & are also offering ONDO perps. The token isn’t the yield itself, it’s a bet on the fund manager becoming one of the largest in the world. That’s why Ondo is so interesting. Not because of what it is today, but because of what it could become if that final piece falls into place.

@Crypto_McKenna capture the opportunity in defi-ing tradfi, earn the right to build anything you want

Generalized L1 mandates will increasingly shift from no direction to capturing the emerging digital asset megatrends: > Stablecoins for global payments > Tokenization and settlement of RWAs > Perpetuals becoming the dominant derivatives instrument for digital asset and TradFi markets Any mandate that is not laser focused on capturing the above will fail.

@fintechfrank i can't believe no one in crypto thought to do this before

They're putting private credit on the blockchain

@DennisMidas @RRE @creandum if you can pull of liquidity and transparency this is a real winner gg

I am proud to announce our $50M Series A, co-led by @RRE and @Creandum. Last year, we issued nearly $2B of assets onchain, growing 100x within a 9-month period. But those numbers only tell the polished half of the story. Finding organic product-market fit in a relentless, 24/7 industry is anything but easy. Building here requires navigating a complex labyrinth where finance, technology, law, and (to some degree politics) constantly intersect. At @MidasRWA , our mission is to bring financial assets onchain. We are doing this by building infrastructure rooted in the core tenets of liquidity and transparency, to create onchain investment products with actual composability and utility. I believe we are at an inflection point. With the new SEC chair saying that “all markets will be onchain within two years” - a stark contrast to past rhetoric - it opens a clear gateway for institutional and individual capital to come onchain. We have built a world-class team equipped to make it happen. Day in and day out, we roll up our sleeves and get to work.

@Yannimoto @Blockworks @MetaDAOProject @StreetFDN and @MetaLeX_Labs all doing interesting things re: token/equity hangover

DAS NYC was actually good this year. @Blockworks cooked, but NYC being the crypto capital helped. Few thoughts: → Institutions are asking informed questions. They get crypto better than most of CT gives them credit for. What they want is to build new business lines on (I believe) open infrastructure. → Tokenization was everywhere. So was DeFi & Bitcoin as a productive asset. → Also agree with @Matt_Hougan: Tokenization takes a ton of the traditional asset management stack off the table. Custody, settlement, reconciliation, etc. is all handled onchain. So what’s left is the our job: risk management, strategy, capital deployment. → Vaults package all of that into one contract and one asset manager (or curator if you like that word). any platform/company can plug in to offer yield or lending without the need for a fund. As companies with any float want to make it productive, it’s pretty clear why all asset management converges here.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ → Onchain treasury management is going to be huge. Payments were the obvious first use case but companies managing capital onchain is a much larger market. → We still need to solve the token / equity hangover. That’s unfinished business. Also shoutout to the @Bitwise marketing team. The events and dinners had a great mix of TradFi, protocols, and crypto native people in the room. Some of the best conversations I’ve had. cc @SolanaFndn @Anchorage​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ @Lombard_Finance

@AvgJoesCrypto i am with you in the war on just another gambling app ™️ but in that war we should be honest about stated vs revealed preferences if we want to actually win; gen y/z has a large cohort of gamblers

More engagement on this post than anything else I have ever posted. Consumers do NOT want glorified gambling apps, yet Coinbase and Robinhood seem determined to push in this direction. I believe this makes for an interesting opportunity for an exchange to grow market share by just simply giving a damn about their customers. The exchanges that embrace the "Costco hot dog" mentality will win.

nice breakdown of the heterogeneity in "Private Credit Onchain" re: my post the other day about the sources of wealth at the root of yield lets trace back top line APY -> source of yield -> fundamental wealth generation and see if crypto's real advantages = real SAM Zeus presents 6 different examples of "Machines" behind onchain yield: 1. @maplefinance, direct lender - pools onchain capital, originates + lends, collects borrower repayment and delivers back to onchain LPs 2. @centrifuge, @HastraFi capital bridge - routes onchain capital to existing Real World credit needs; he particularly calls out working capital loans + HELOCs that earn/provide value via maturity transformation 3. @Securitize, @stokr_io wrapper - tokenizing existing funds/notes that offer yield; here the onchain actor (securitize) is essentially completely hands off of yield generation and adds very little to the risk layering 4. @paretocredit, programmable credit infrastructure/fund of funds - pareto blends two different concepts, one the more classical fintech play enabling third parties to build programmable onchain credit facilities, with a fund layer on top in USP 5. @onrefinance, reinsurance - as Zeus mentions, different in kind to "credit" though like credit it is a source of yield rooted in risk transfer in my previous post linked in the thread we looked at the sources of wealth generation in the Austrian sense, then the broad categories of financial services that can be provided to support wealth creation to generate "yield" this gives us a sense of the roots of value creation and how blockchains/defi might meaningfully create net-new or better-in-kind opportunities we outlined categorical sources of yield: 1. Time value (capital now > later) 2. Roundaboutness Productivity (% share of wealth created by facilitating expansion of existing wealth production) 3. Entrepreneurial Productivity (% share of wealth created by facilitating the discovery of new sources of wealth production) 4. Risk Bearing (absorbing *calculable* variance for others) 5. Liquidity Provision (facilitating immediacy/optionality for others by standing ready to transact) 6. Rent (payment for access granting to scarce factors) we then examined potential real competitive advantages across these factors blockchains/defi may have, and saw: 2+3 - insofar as technical access to opportunity blocks capital allocation, permissionless defi + globally accessible blockchains may genuinely facilitate cheaper/more effective flows to wealth generation 4 - well designed smart contract systems may reduce counterparty, duration, etc risks enough to better facilitate risk transfers across interested parties 5 - perps, AMMs, flash loans are real financial innovations, still testing in prod whether they're value add at scale/for sophisticated actors 6 - globally accessible, permissionless, automated financial infrastructure likely meaningfully reduces network Rent costs (even as we admit there's more to Visa/Mastercard/Swift than simple information sending) now that we've refreshed the context - do we see anything interesting in a durable sense with our "private credit" yield examples? direct lender - blends 2, 4; broader capital access + better quality/cost risk management through transparency/automation might create genuinely new yield that's delivered to LPs capital bridge - in the described sense (working capital/HELOC), 2 4 6 wrapper - 5, if we just isolate us treasuries for now (simplicity + differentiation from the other examples); broader capital pool access makes existing financial product markets more liquid; perhaps blockchain infra also adds 6 (rent reduction) and for some actors 4 (broader access hedges than local markets provide), though the "yield" from this value add isn't delivered to the RWA holder programmable credit infrastructure - 6, maybe 2; whether insourced our outsourced a well functioning defi infra should be lower cost than existing alternatives and that may be passed on via yield fund of funds - in the described sense ("private credit"), 2 reinsurance - if the insurance contracts are moved onchain, with transparent and automated payout mechanisms, 4 (reduces the cost of bearing the risk via better modeling); for now likely just 2 until a lot of legal and BD work is done to bring a meaningful amount of the operational details onchain thinking across these examples I can see space where the net new elements of crypto can add real world value though at this level of analysis the question is how much of that value creation will remain endogenous to company equity holders vs be passed on to those allocating onchain capital to these products

@agra_gg very cool team up interesting to think about who wants to be counterparty to people exiting onchain Aussie RE credit 5%+ below nav + 5%+ realized yield seems attractive

@TziokasV @Blockworks enterprises already spend B$ on working capital optimization cut in and out times by hours/days enable entirely new product access (can move in/out on weekends, new instruments accessible within cash conversion cycle) 2T+ in non-finance deposits according to FRED nice TAM

Some thoughts on DAS: > first, a big kudos to @Blockworks. DAS is getting bigger and better every year and their team is always professional/proactive and fun to work with > crypto is increasingly institutionalized but most teams don’t spend enough time actually talking and listening to institutions. they *believe they know what tradfi wants but it’s mostly a projection of their own pov rather than the reality > most tradfi execs understand crypto better than what CT thinks. this is good. it’s good because they realize what is the *actual benefit of blockchains and the core of it is neutrality. they want to build a new line of business on a platform that can't turn into a chokepoint > this is the core moat of Ethereum. it’s undeniably neutral and open to everyone to build. and arguably, from a game theory pov, it’s smart that its brand is cypherpunk. ethereum trying to be too Wall Street-y would undermine its moat > L2s can fill these gaps. both from a brand and tech pov. and this what we do at @zksync. we enable banks to come onchain on private, customized, scalable rails > selling tech doesn’t cut it. selling solutions does. vendor fatigue for tradfi is real. there are many enterprises who tried to build onchain and they just gave up due to the complexity of vendor management > we completely abstract this by transforming our tech (prividium) to a full vertical solution (prividium + custom hooks/soc/access controls + native integrations with enterprise ready solutions). a turnkey bank stack. our partnership with @BitGo builds on that exact direction > another example of an underrated factor of enterprise adoption is change management. for a large corporation to build onchain, they need to have clarity on: who will build it/who will maintain it/how can i train my people to use it/how does it appear in my books etc. we spend a lot of time in the background working with the big four on this > the tokenization genie is out of the bottle. the whole economy will move onchain. and by onchain i mean on an actual chain. not on a flashy database. we've seen this play before and we all know how it ends. open networks always win. > tokenized deposits will be huge. they are the perfect gateway for banks (especially small/mid sized ones) to come onchain, compete and innovate. they can coexist with stablecoins. the ultimate winner is the end user/consumer > corporate treasury solutions are also going to be a big thing. not just cross border payments. this was the first domino. the real TAM is a completely new way for corporations to manage capital > this is when network effects start kicking in. an interconnected economy of banks/fintechs/corporates/suppliers/vaults moving money much faster than today. better/stronger/faster capitalism. > growth, growth, growth

@jamesrosst was reading about life sciences real estate ownership/development yesterday which seems completely unrelated except that it's also a market where T1 operators as a rule internalize RE as a key operational need/advantage while the vast majority of the Lab market is leased

Yesterday I met with 8 hedge fund data teams at an event in London which included blackrock and worldquant… and yes they do buy data But they don’t buy the type of data people think, are extremely skeptical of any data sets that claim to have alpha (why would you sell this?), are more interested in the data generation process and focus a lot on who else has access, also top tier are very unlikely to buy ever but mid-tier do! Right now selling data to funds is $2-3 billion per year industry, which is pretty small and complex to navigate Its equally as hard to sell services but much more upside in this especially around ml/ai which has been a recent focus at @SynthdataCo