Recording

Transcript

Hello and welcome to Hashrate. My name is Mark Jeffrey and my guest today is Publius of Been. But before we begin, I want to give a shout out to our partner crypto exchange Maxi. Get up to $4,100 when you sign up using my link in the show notes on YouTube. Maxi has over 1500 coins, which is kind of a lot more than anybody else, and they have all the cool three x leverage coins and you can use them in the United States.

So Maxi, use the link. Sign up. I love it. Go for it. Okay. So welcome Publius to the show. How are you doing? I'm doing well, Mark. Thank you for having us. My pleasure. Thank you for being on. So let's set the stage a little bit for people who don't know about being in decentralized stablecoins. And I think I want to start today with U.S. SDC.

So the big news over the last kind of 48 hours is that circle bricked Usdc. So these are coins that are in remote wallets on, you know, on people's homes, right? So usdc in connection with a sanction that was released against tornado. Right. Which is the mixer that people use basically to launder crypto. Right. A lot of times or for privacy, I mean, it's used for both.

And and this action was ostensibly to stop hackers who had stolen money and North Korea. But I think that, you know, the sort of what's significant about this is it's really the first time that we have seen crypto remotely bricked on a mass scale. So while this was ostensibly for legitimate law enforcement, it woke a lot of people up to what a malevolent government could do with that same power.

So, you know, Justin Trudeau and Canada maybe with, you know, protesting truckers or China just on sort of an everyday basis. So with that in mind, tell us about what a decentralized stablecoin is and why this could not happen with that. So there's a lot to be said about this, Mark, And to your point, in effect, circle and Coinbase, the entities that operate U.S., DC effectively, I wouldn't even argue that they censored the ability of people to use Usdc.

They effectively took the usdc away from people where in practice the usdc in those wallets is now no longer viewed as legitimate. So people had currency that they thought was convertible for a dollar's worth of assets with circle and in effect circle decided as a result of the actions of the US government this week to effectively dishonor that usdc.

And so there's a couple of questions that you're really asking. I think the most fundamental is a question of whether dishonoring, which in effect is censoring certain certain users, whether that's something that's good or bad, and whether that's something that that should exist. And one of the key principles of permissionless technology is that there shouldn't be any individual or entity or operator.

They can they can censor or dishonor certain participants obligations, whether that's because they're a terrorist, whether that's because of the color of their skin or how they identify or who they choose to spend their time with. Whatever the social reason may be that the government of the any government may decide that certain people entities are, uh, off limits.

Right. So are you now or are you or have you ever been a communist? Oh, well, I guess your usdc is now bricked. Well, yeah. And and we, we Publius we were until the the, uh, the exploit. We were totally anonymous. And so we, in fact, used tornado cash as part of our on chain anonymization process. So we were we were wondering, is the usdc in our wallet going to get blacklisted because we've used tornado cash before?

And at the end of the day, we're just a user. We've never contributed to tornado cash. But nonetheless, these are just these are tools that people should should be able to use in general. And I think the the thing that's most noteworthy about the actions from the government this week was that they weren't sanctioning an individual, a terrorist organization or a particular terrorist or people that are using this technology.

They were they were sanctioning the technology itself and saying that this this piece of software or this implementation of this piece of software is inherently, uh, illegal or inherently something that the government doesn't accept. And that's is that first time that's happened. And to my knowledge, that is the first time. I mean, I can't think of another example.

I'm not a lawyer, but to my knowledge, this is this is new precedent. And when you consider that code or the the operation of that code on chain, uh, I mean, it's I think we're getting into the realm of constitutional issues of what? What, what is appropriate speak of. Yeah. I mean, in our case, we would argue that we certainly had the right to publish the Bienstock code in a public setting, whether that's in a book or on the Ethereum blockchain, where it's immutable.

We would argue that we you know, we have we have that right, the right to free speech and to express ourselves. And I think in the in the nineties, I want to bring something up here. In the nineties there was a big debate over whether encryption itself actually should be, you know, can be censored or labeled. It was actually labeled a munition or a state secret.

I can't remember which it was, but some of the cipher punks back in the day would actually wear the algorithm on their T-shirts as they walked through an airport and went to a foreign country, thus exporting ammunition. Right. Just to prove the point that that shouldn't be the case. And I think where that ended up was, you know, the, you know, code was free speech and then so it could not be labeled ammunition.

I think that's how it ended up. So I believe you're correct in that Mark. And so this is new territory, clearly that that the space is encountering. And we would just say tornado cash was used to launder all of the money that was stolen from Bienstock. So if there's if there's any group of people that you'd think would be particularly sensitive about tornado cash, you guys.

Yeah, exactly right. But the reality is this is a time to to stand by as as a as a decentralized community. This is a time to stand by our principles and the principles of the right to privacy and the right to access this permissionless technology is under fire right now. And from our perspective and you asked the other question this is how can this not happen to beings?

Well, first off, in the case of Bienstock, there is no single entity or individual that has control. We actually had a lot of our listeners may not know your story. You know, they know it's a decentralized stablecoin. But let's talk a little bit about what that is first, and then let's come back to this. So you guys created you know, so first of all, regular, you know, regular old, you know, version one stablecoins are tether and usdc.

And that's basically there's a bank somewhere, you know, like Bank of America. And if you got $1,000,000,000 in Bank of America, you issue $1,000,000,000 worth of your token and you know, do we know whether that billion dollars is there or not? We don't really know. There's no way we can check. It's not on chain. We have to take you at your word.

And there's some debate over whether tether, you know, that money is is really even there. Some people doubt that it is. I personally think it probably was low at some points, but it's probably okay now. Usdc tends to be more highly regarded in in trust anyway that the money is actually there. But that's sort of version one of doing that.

What you guys been did was you created a fully decentralized stablecoin so that it is collateralized in an entirely different way using crypto only. And we can go check on on chain to see you know, what's going on. Sorry Collateralization is the wrong it's an algorithmic stablecoin by mistake. And you have and we'll get into exactly how the mechanism works, but we can basically see the state of your entire system transparently at any time.

So it's a little bit different from the, you know, sort of traditional 1.0 stablecoins in that sense and you guys released it, you had great success. It started growing very fast and then you were hacked and and that sort of might have killed you, but you then figured out a plan to come back. We're going to talk about all of that.

So any any comment on that? My description so far, if I got it right. So far, so good, Mark. Okay. All right. So so let's talk about so tell us what. So just take us take us would be tell us what being is in your own words or so for people who don't know. Tell us what it is and where it's at right now.

So billion is the stablecoin issued by Bienstock and Bean, as you said, and it's not quite collateralized. Bienstock doesn't use any collateral to create value of a bean, but instead bean stock is backed, beans are backed by the credit of bienstock. And so what that means in practice is that any time the bean price is too low, any time there's an excess of supply of beans on the market, Bienstock tries to borrow beans from the market in order to remove the excess beans from the market and return the price to a dollar.

And so when when when we say beans, beans are backed by the credit of bienstock, The point is that as long as beanstalk is viewed as credit worthy, as long as bean stock is able to borrow beans from the market, then Beanstalk should be able to retain the bean price at a dollar. Okay, so what determines whether a bean is a dollar is if in curve.

This is in my mind. So you tell me if I'm getting this right or not in my mind. If on curve, which is sort of the largest exchange for Stablecoin to stablecoin for reasons of it's just far more efficient and curve, I'm going to get into how the how the magic works, but just it is if I can trade one dollars worth of usdc or tether or Bitcoin or etherium for one dollars worth of bean, then that bean is worth a dollar.

And if you so the way you maintain that peg is it's a simple exercise in supply and demand. If there's too much bean on the market, you want to incentivize people to lock it up into something sort of like Treasury bonds on your end, where it takes it off the market. So, you know, it's not going to be traded or sold.

So you reduce the supply, which brings the price down. Right? Or the opposite if you don't have enough being on the market and sorry, the price is too high, then you want to incentivize more being to flood into the market. So at that point you start rewarding the people who had previously taken being out of circulation with more bean, which brings the amount of being up and brings things back into equilibrium.

If I got that right, I think the only thing that I would correct is when you say the word you, you don't mean me, you mean bean stuff. So bean stock is a an entirely autonomous protocol. The only thing that is not truly autonomous at this point in time is the decentralized governance mechanism. As a result of the exploit that happened in April, the protocol is moved temporarily away from totally on chain governance and currently is run by a community run multisig.

But even that we don't control. So you you is probably the only thing that you said that was inaccurate, but in general. Got it. You're exactly right. When the bean price is too high, it's easy being stuck in increase the bean supply arbitrarily and increase supply at some point returns to being price back down to a dollar. And on the flipside, beans bean stock tries to borrow beans when the price is too low.

Okay, So it's effectively just I mean, it's kind of similar to what the Federal Reserve itself does just on a smaller scale. Right. The Federal Reserve is trying to it doesn't always do a good job, but it tries to keep a dollar more or less worth the same. Right. And so it has Treasury bonds that it offers to take money out of circulation for some period of time, which they then, you know, give you more money that they print in the background at some point in the future.

So it's you know, you're not really that far off from, quote unquote, you know, real money or I should say traditional money. So but what you have built is sort of got a lot in common in my mind with Bitcoin itself. So it's kind of like the Bitcoin of Stablecoins is a protocol which is completely independent runs on its own and nobody controls it.

Nobody can brick it. So there is no centralized authority which can take your being away from you. Like with Usdc, we've now seen your usdc can be taken away from you. I suspect tether probably can be taken away from you also. And let's play that through a little bit further. Right? So you have a stablecoin like FRAX that is largely collateralized by USD C and therefore has a lot of exposure to the potential censorship of USDC.

Whereas in the case of Bienstock at the moment the entirety of being liquidity is against three curve, which is in part USD C and Tether and DAI, which is largely backed by Usdc. But the concept is that Bienstock can and will in the near future support a beneath pool. And as long as Usdc trades against Eve on any Amazon chain being starting compared to being here for compared to the Usdc eve pool and figure out the price from there.

And so the concept is as long as Usdc continues to exist in any capacity trading on Amazon chain, then being stuck and run without any direct exposure to the potential actions of censorship of the operators of usdc or tether or what have you. So whereas if your protocol is collateralized directly by us DC, if your wallet becomes blacklisted now you're you're absolutely screwed.

So this is from a, from a, from A to every level of the being stock mechanism. The goal is to make sure that it's entirely permissionless and censorship resistant. And that includes the Oracle, which is is one of the major, major problems that needs to be solved around Stablecoins. And it is just worth saying that the Beanstalk Oracle to your comment about the current scale being smaller, probably is this model of comparing the Usdc pool compared to the BINI for something that probably works at the scale of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, but is unlikely to be sufficiently censorship resistant at the scale of trillions of dollars, let's call it.

So over time, the expectation would be that a more sophisticated, decentralized oracle would be developed for the US dollar ratio, let's call it. But this is something that can be done over time as being stock scale. So at the moment, the current Oracle solution is censorship resistant and relatively, relatively scalable, but probably not the ultimate Oracle solution, if that makes sense.

What is an oracle for people who do don't know it? What does that do for people who don't know? So an oracle is anything that delivers data to a smart contract, whether that's on chain data or off chain data. And Oracle is the source of some sort of data that then is processed by a smart contract. And how are you using it?

Why is it important for yours to be independent? So in the case of Beanstalk, Beanstalk needs to understand what the bean price is. And more, more specifically, not just the price, but how many beans to mint or how many beans to borrow from the market. And so in order to do that in a permissionless way, Beanstalk needs to understand what is the price of a bean in dollars.

But the problem is that there are no dollars on chain. There is no way to directly exchange beans for dollars on chain. So $6 actual dollars cash. Yeah, Yeah. Money that you'd hold. Well, some people think tether is dollars, right? So not that we're talking about an actual dollar. So the next best thing would be to go beans to us.

DC But if you only have a bean usdc pool, that can be censored, right? Because U.S. circle can blacklist that pool pretty easily. So the concept is now you need to go one layer more removed and compared the bean eve pool where Etherium is totally permissionless and the Usdc eve pool. But you can assume that circle is not going to blacklist the Usdc pool because that would basically be the nail in the coffin for their entire business.

They'd kill themselves at that point. There is no there is no usdc If you can use it in an AMA, you can't use it at all. So this is this is to some extent not not a perfect solution, because then they may have to kill themselves in order to comply with the regulators. But that's something that is unlikely to happen imminently.

And as we said, a more sophisticated beanstalk native Oracle, is likely to be developed in the coming years. And in the meantime, the current options are probably sufficient given the stock's current scale. Right. So I want to go back for turn for a second and thank you for that explanation. There are other so we talk about first generation Stablecoins sort of the second generation was Dai DJI and you know, the collateralized stablecoins that are collateralized by other cryptocurrencies.

So Dai is collateralized by a basket of things that largely end up being usdc to the point where some people call it wrapped usdc as a joke, right? So but there's some, there is some truth to that, right? So and then the other big one is FRAX, right. Which very I really like FRAX, but it also is largely backed by Usdc under the hood as part of its sort of basket of currencies.

MIM, which is another Stablecoin is probably more sophisticated than those two in some ways in my mind that's backed by 30 or so yield bearing assets, also pretty sophisticated but ultimately collateralized as well. And you are not collateralized. So those things that are collateralized largely by usdc are susceptible to censorship. Usdc gets censored, the U.S. goes down, they go down also.

So they're sort of linked at the hip. They're not separate. You are separate from that universe, at least as separate as possible at the moment. And maybe to to summarize this, the state of Stablecoins up to Bienstock. As you said, there's the first iteration, which is what we would call a non network native convertible Stablecoins you have the stablecoin that is convertible to some other asset that is an off chain and you need a custodian in order to facilitate that conversion.

So that's your circle, that's your tether, that's a wrapped bitcoin where you have some convertibility to a non network native asset. Then as you were talking about, you have your DAI and your Mim. We would shout out liquidity, which is sort of an ideal implementation of this sort of CTP Stablecoin, which would be then a network native convertible Stablecoin So each of those coins still have convertibility to some other asset, but the assets that they're convertible to are on chain, they're network native, and so the convertibility can be facilitated with a smart contract instead of a centralized custodian.

So that was to some extent an upgrade. But the issue is that these protocols that use network native collateral run out of collateral pretty fast. And there's not a lot of decentralized network, native collateral. It's really just a theory and liquidity only uses Etherium accordingly because there's there's no other good decentralized permissionless assets with with endogenous value that you can use to then mint another derivative on top of.

So that's a major limitation. And as you said, Dai, for example, has had to move to wrapping Usdc in order to get around this lack of collateral. So these are fundamental issues that are related to collateral, and that's something that I think we've spoken about before, Mark, which is that the collateral requirements around previous Stablecoin implementations is really the thing that has held back the the growth of these stablecoins their adoption and in turn the, the larger adoption of DEFI technologies because there's noncompetitive carrying costs and so bienstock instead of using collateral, recognizes there's not enough collateral to go around and instead tries to use credit.

And its ability to borrow means to to create stability without the use of any collateral. Now, there is still the requirement of there to be assets trading against beings, right? So it's not that there isn't any other any exogenous value in the system, but it's just that it's not serving the role as collateral, it's just serving the role as liquidity, which is fundamentally different.

And so there's there's a question of scale. The bean supply can grow much more because of this lack of a collateral requirement. And in particular, go ahead. Yeah, I'm just going to say, you know, I mean, fiat currency has no collateral. It used to be collateralized by gold and now it's not. So this is not like a wild and crazy idea.

I mean, Bitcoin has no collateral either. So there you know, there are two great examples that clearly work to some degree that have no collateral whatsoever. So things don't have to be collateralized, I guess is my point. Well, and we would argue that any any currency doesn't have collateral by definition. So if it's going to be something with value and margin is value, it cannot it cannot be from the collateral, then it's a note effectively that's not going to be a currency with that endogenous value.

So you highlight Bitcoin gold would be another example. There's no collateral behind gold, right? So if if the goal is to create new value and to create new money, which Bienstock is certainly trying to do, collateral does not serve that role, then you're just wrapping the value of the collateral and creating some sort of derivative of that value.

But you're not creating new value. And in the case of Bienstock, Bienstock is trying to create new value. Yeah, and arguably, I mean, Taryn Luna tried to do this also and they succeeded wildly for a long time, and it was only when they tried to collateralize it in addition to their what we use, I guess you call it endogenous value.

You know, it it was only when they crossed the blood brain barrier from the pure faith into from purely algorithmic to collateralized, that they got in trouble. And there's some who argue that that, you know, they'd still be around today if they hadn't tried to collateralize partially. So both FRAX and Terra use relatively similar models with the exception that FRAX only uses that model partially and then has Usdc backing the rest of it.

But if you if you ignore the Usdc collateral aspect of FRAX, what Tera and FRAX were and are doing was securing the value of the stablecoin that was issued by the protocol with the equity of the protocol. And so you can think of balloon as the equity of the Terra ecosystem and you can think of FSS as the equity of the FRAX ecosystem.

And in both cases the there wasn't collateral. Now you have some usdc for FRAX, but the rest of the value is backed by access. There's equity. And what was discovered or demonstrated quite clearly in the collapse of Tara was that the the value of equity in a project is highly correlated with the price of the token and therefore is way too reflexive.

So the concept of using equity was effectively and it's not to say that it can't be done, but current implementations of using equity debt to create that endogenous value have failed. And to some extent that makes a lot of sense because equity is speculative value and the speculative value is destroyed during these bank runs. And certainly over the short term you have equity that is fungible and during a bank run that becomes incredibly unattractive to hold.

And if that's the the thing that is creating the value of the system, it's it's way too reflexive to to serve the purpose of a stablecoin. So FRAX, it seems, is moving away from this model to some extent and is now trying to shift to having access serve as some sort of a credit mechanism where now the FRAX is going to be partially backed by outstanding loans.

So this is a shift towards a debt based or a credit based model which is much more in line with how Bienstock works, which all of the endogenous value is created fundamentally from the debt of the protocol. And I'm unlike equity, where people are all holding this equity, and the equity in theory entitles them to some sort of future growth.

In the case of Bienstock, you have lots of ecosystem participants that are holding debt and the debt is worth something. Only in the case where Bienstock succeeds. And so you have a fundamentally different relationship where the people are holding the liabilities of the protocol and are therefore inclined to support it. Whereas in the case of an equity based model, you have people holding the speculative future growth of the system.

So in the case of being stocks, the debt only becomes paid off in the case of there being future growth, but holding the debt versus holding equity, it is a fundamentally different relationship and B seems to have demonstrated quite clearly that the the debt based model is a more anti reflexive one than the credit than the equity one.

So, I mean, one thing that struck me about your design for Bain's design when I first started looking at it that I really liked was that there is only one coin. There is only one coin in the entire system, right? Taryn Lewin And all these other things have other coins where you call the equity coin, but being only has been, there's only the stable coin and the stable and then there's the smart contracts that do things with the stablecoin.

But that's it. There's no other coin. And that, you know, so being is always worth a dollar, right? So it's a very it's a much cleaner, better design I think because of that. Well there is a governance token within the beanstalk ecosystem stock, but the only way to acquire stock is by holding be an exposure and even. Go ahead.

Sorry, I should have said liquid say a liquid coin. I apologize. So yes, there is stock when it's not even in the but even in the world where stock became liquid. The point is that nobody thought with an L just so people know there's a well, it's a play on words. It's a play on words. So stark is the governance token, but it sort of also functions as you know, as it's a governance token.

So it models equity in that regard. But the concept is that the only way, even if stock were to liquid and people can sell their stock in practice, the only way to create stock or even even another way to say it would be marginal demand for stock translates directly in an efficient market to marginal demand for beans. So unlike a tariff system where speculative demand for Luna does not translate to demand for Terra at all, In the case of beans stock, speculative demand for stock would translate directly to demand for beans because of this direct relationship.

So the liquidity isn't necessarily the the defining feature. The goal would be at some point to make stock a liquid ERC 20 token. I know you've said that before, and I don't know if I agree with you on that. I know you've probably thought about this problem a lot more than I have, but I feel it destroys kind of some of the magic.

But maybe you can tell me why it does. I feel like if stock is liquid now you're back to you got a lunar token at that point, right? Well, here's the thing. There's there's two separate things to be said. One is why it's inevitable. And then two, how to think about it as compared to a two token system.

The first is that and Vitalik has written nicely about this due to the nature of the open source technology that we're all working on, there's nothing that can prevent anyone from creating a smart contract that functions as a wrapper for deposits, where you send the deposit of all assets to the smart contract, it deposits it for you into being stock and issues you liquid stock tokens that are then just a derivative.

So the starting point is that this can and therefore will at some point happen. And so given that same thing, given that it will happen now, the question becomes how to do it in the best way possible. So it's it's in a perfect world, maybe you'd only have one liquid token, but this is not a perfect world. So with with that said, now let's talk about why the implementation of stock.

And it was always conceived with the goal being that stock and seeds would become liquid. And a similar argument can be made for seeds. Seeds will likely become liquid at some point. Seeds wouldn't be fungible across all seeds. They'd be stop you because a lot of people don't know what seeds are. And actually, if you don't mind, I actually just I want to get you know, we're coming up on the half hour mark here.

I actually want to get to the point where we're talking about the hack and then you guys coming back to life and then bring us up to speed on what's happening now. So tell us a little bit about the hack and then how you rebooted and what's happening now. I like we're jumping all over here. I love. So in April, Bienstock was attacked via an on chain governance exploit.

And at the time it had, as you said earlier in the episode, it seemed like it seemed like that that was it or that that was probably in which did you lose? So the the protocol the protocol had the protocol 77 or so million dollars worth of non bienstock native assets. So Etherium and three Curve and LAUSD stolen from it.

And in practice that meant that it was stolen from the depositors in the system. So $77 million or so was stolen from people. And Bienstock has not had any venture back in. And certainly at the time it was and continues devastating. It's it's hugely devastating. I remember when that happened and just so just for for, you know, full disclosure, I had invested in the silo, so I bought some being and I ran or I bought some liquidity, I think, and I put it in the silo.

And so I was basically, you know, and I was playing with your system in kind of every dimension that could be played with. And I was really impressed by what I saw. And it was like a week later is when the hack happened. So, so I was one of those people like that got money stolen from from them as a depositor.

So but anyway, please, please continue that. So anyone that had exactly and anyone that had assets in the silo had them stolen. And so over the next six weeks, this happened in April, April 17th, over the next six weeks or so, the Dow put together a a an action plan, a plan to proceed, voted on it, approved it.

And on June 6th, the barn raise started, which was a sale of fertilizer or a new type of debt in the system, which was proceeds from the sale of fertilizer were used to recapitalize stock and was just digit. There were three buckets. There was the people who were in the silo. That was me. Then there were the people who are in the pipeline, and that's effectively the debt of the system.

So there was them. And and so you created a third class of of creditors, I guess, who bought the the fertilizer, am I correct. So there's like a third tier now you had to introduce it in order to recapitalize the system and then reboot all three kind of at once and then move all three forward in unison, correct?

Generally, That's exactly right. So now there's a third, a third piece that that is distributed for each of the binmen. So previously it was that half of all being bins went to silo members and half went up pod holders. Now it's a third, a third, a third with a third going to fertilizer token holders. And so Beanstalk was able to sell about a little over $14 million worth of fertilizer prior to replant, which happened on Saturday the sixth and so so four days ago from when we're talking.

Right. Well, to be more specific, the replant actually happened like 36 hours prior to that, but the unpause happened on Saturday the sixth. So this was all in the past week or so. But yeah, actually about a week ago from right now, when we're talking with when the replay happened, Mark, So quite recently and since then being stock has continued to sell some fertilizer.

I think now it's up to like 17 million or something like that has been sold. And uh, since being stock was unpaused on Saturday. So it's been about five days. The maybe four and a half days being stock has returned. The price priced to its peg numerous times crossed it over I think over a dozen times now at this point.

And the the volatility has been pretty low. So generally we saw the price go as high as a dollar 16. That was a function of the slow ramp up to the PEG maintenance model so people could buy and sell beans, but there was no beans to be sold at the time, so there was only buy pressure. Price went up to 116.

But then as the PEG maintenance mechanism ramped up, the price quickly returned to a dollar. We saw a sell off down to $0.97, but that was as low as the price has gotten so far. Yeah, it's going to be some volatility, is it, as the engine fires itself back up, but no big deal ultimately, and not that bad actually, so far as these things go.

So so, you know, so that's really great. So yeah, roughly 70 million lost now roughly with 17 million of recapitalization and. It appears to be working great and it's up and running. If I had put ten K into the silo and I know you had to do you're basically over one in the system previously. So somebody like me who had some money in the system, we ought to take a haircut.

Like there's no other way to reboot the system, right? So we all took a haircut. If I had ten K in the silo, what do I have now? Post haircut is just estimate. So you got two different things. One is that you got old. All of your old assets have been redistributed to you in the form of unripe assets.

So there's a ripening process which is sort of a vesting as the fertilizer is paid back in order to align your incentives as an old holder with the new holders. So there's there's some question of, uh, you have unripe assets that are ripening over time and accruing value, but then you're also continuing to earn being senior edge as a function of the fact that you held stock and seeds and you still are a down member.

So I think as we're talking right now, if you had $10,000 in the silo, you'd probably have a little over $100, maybe maybe $200 at the moment, a little under that. So no one no one has been made whole just yet. But it's only been it's only been a couple of days. And the hope is that over time, it being continues to be credit worthy, that it will be able to make everyone whole and then some.

Yeah, okay. Yeah, I totally get that. And just just to be really clear, I mean, look, you guys, when this happened to you, you could have chickened out. You could. I mean, nobody knew who you were at the time. You guys were still anonymous. You could have just run away and just said, Well, that sucks. I'm sorry you guys all lost money.

But you did not do that. You very bravely unmasked yourselves, came out and talk to everyone, answered everyone's questions. Dude, that was hard to do. That was hard. I know it was. And you're young. You don't have like, that's dude, that was a very brave and I did. I salute you for that. That was awesome. And then on top of that, then you guys got energized about about fixing it and figuring out a way to come back.

And. And you did it. You get you got $17 million of new interest in the system and got it up and running and found a way to make it live and breathe again to the point where it may make everyone whole and it may make everyone more than whole. So just my hat off is I have my hat is off to you.

So thank you for all that. Well, you're giving us far too much credit. The reality is that there was there was an amazing set of contributors that really stepped up to the plate across the the beanstalk Dow. And we're at the point where Beanstalk is so much more than Publius. And so while in that moment, we certainly felt that the the the need to step up and make it clear that that we had nothing to do with the attack and that we continued and continue now to believe in Beanstalk and its potential and the reality is that the response from the the Dow and community was was what made the difference.

Not not so we just feel very grateful to be a part of a growing community, an ecosystem that is, we believe, working on something that's going to hopefully really, really change the game. Thank you for that. Okay. Well, we're we're up to about the 40 minute mark here. So I want to start wrapping this up a little bit.

What what do you want to use or anything you want to add? Is there anything I should have asked you that I didn't? Now's the time. The reality is, Mark, this is still early days and there's a lot that we're going to continue to learn about the system over the next days, weeks, months, God willing, years and two to to your point about and the discussion that hopefully we'll finish at some point one day is is on the stock front and stock becoming liquid at the fact that you and I can and it's not even that we're actively disagreeing but have this discussion and have this debate which which is happening all the time in

the Discord and across the Beanstalk community. The point the point is Beanstalk is very much still an experiment and still in its early days. And there's a lot to the model that can be refined. There's a lot about the model that we all collectively don't, don't understand yet. And there are some some edges that can certainly be sanded down and smoothed out.

And this is this is a work in progress. So in general, we're excited by how the model has demonstrated its efficacy over the past year plus over the past week or so since the replant. And this is this is, as we've written about, this is something that this is a type of system that works until it doesn't work.

And therefore, every day, every hour that the system continues to run as intended or generally as intended, is a huge success in our eyes. And it's hard to Life is too long if you're counting the wins every hour. So perhaps that's not the exact point. But the concept is that as we're still just about a little over 100 hours after the PEG maintenance mechanism being turned back on and therefore it just today reached its full implementation, there was a 100 hour ramp up schedule.

So as of today, it's on functioning 100%. This is it's very early. So we're excited just to see and get to watch this in real time and hopefully have the opportunity to continue to iterate on the model. And we're grateful for community members like yourself that are welcoming us on your platforms and helping share a little bit about Beanstalk, because this is a this is something that is a community first thing.

And the more that that we can all do to have this discussion in different, different forums and welcome new people to come and raise their voices and opinions about some of this because this is all new stuff. It's, you know, perhaps I'm rambling here, but we're excited and, uh, this is all, all an exciting opportunity and time from our perspective.

Well, thank you so much for coming on pool. Yes, I know, I know. It's been a rough day. I know you've had personally a rough day, so I want to thank you for making the time to come on the show. So this has been hash rate. My name is Mark Jeffrey. We'll see you next time. Take him.