Scrib3 Comms Q&A

March 20, 2023

0:00 Introduction • 2:40 What is the Barn and what does the Barn look like when Bean gets back to $1 • 7:38 How do you explain Beanstalk? • 15:37 How do all the mechanisms keep Bean around $1? • 27:37 Beanstalk’s bank run history • 28:53 Is there a mathematical approach to people withdrawing funds from the Silo? • 32:40 Are there parallels between Beanstalk and Frax? • 46:21 What is the ELI5 for Wells? • 52:38 What happens to Bean when a blockchain forks? • 59:40 Could Beanstalk extend to Ethereum L2s? • 1:02:50 Converting and Unripe Assets • 1:18:56 Can you look at the history of the Podline? • 1:26:57 Is there a priority on what should be pushed first on the education front? • 1:33:30 Closing statements



Meeting Notes


One of the big things we found from talking to bunch of people is that a lot of people are looking for more simple analogies for things that fit the way the protocol works. And so we're going to ask for a lot of different ways that people analogize a lot of mechanisms and kind of walk through, you know, especially post exploit like the unripe stuff and different ways that we can, different frameworks we can use to better get an idea and then at the end, better articulate exactly what's happening on the protocol, because we feel like a lot of the issues as far as, you know, where there are holes in the funnel in like the traditional kind of marketing funnel in order to get more people into the buying ecosystem is around maybe the perceived complexity. I don't think it's actually all like, you know, it's impossible to understand. I think it's just, you know, there's a lot of perceived complexity. And so the goal here is for so that we as the scribe team can reduce all of those complexities so that we can go out there and kind of spread the gospel. So I will let Joey kick it off and then we can kind of take it from there, from excuse me. Yeah. So I mean, I guess as you sound like just kind of touched on one of our big things that we want to push at least initially and kind of our the initial part of being stock farmers, Twitter and kind of like the educational entertainment side of that content is going to be really about analogizing a lot of the stuff. So like, I think we have everything kind of figured out in terms of how to best analogize that, but personally where things got a little bit more confusing for me and I think could be helpful just to have a little bit more back and forth is kind of on the recapitalization of being the barn. And if that kind of is a completely separate mechanism that facilitates kind of the sale of the fertilizer and all that, like that is completely separate, just focused on recapitalizing, being recapitalizing the losses. And then, yeah, kind of interested in at least hearing in a little bit more detail like how what the future for that might look like if being gets back to Peg how that might be expedited, like what kind of the focus is if the focus number one is getting been back to $1, then we can get into some more details about converting the unripe three Curv LP tokens to do that and really trying to push that narrative. But yeah, I guess like kind of first question is maybe a little bit more color on the separation of both the barn and getting been back to $1 and really kind of separating those two mechanisms and how we can kind of approach talking about that from the Twitter, I can take a first stab at explaining and anyone's welcome to jump in. But from from my perspective, the barn is a totally separate mechanism from the rest of Bienstock Obviously it was only necessary after being stock was exploited and because beans derive their value entirely from the non bean value trading against beans and liquidity pools, when bean stock was exploited, there were $77 million worth of non bean value that were stolen. And so that's why when someone purchases fertilizer, they have to pay for it in non beans and in the specific implementation of the barn, it's in usdc. And so there are 77 million fertilizer available at the beginning of the barn raise. There's maybe 17 or 18 million purchased since then. And the humidity or the interest rate on that fertilizer is now fixed. So one thing you might expect to happen in the case for being stock grows again is that it is unlikely that anyone purchases fertilizer or until a significant amount of it is paid off. And that's because fertilizer holders are paid back pro-rata essentially. So a third of all being ments go to fertilizer. Fertilizer holders are distributed evenly to fertilizer holders or sprout holders, more so which is determines how many of the amounts you get for your fertilizer. And go ahead. Sorry, you said that people wouldn't be incentivized to purchase fertilizer until some of that until a lot of that starts to get paid back and there's kind of evidence that that will get paid back. How are those is that not kind of a circular thing? How do how does that work with one another? Well, so say that there's 100 sprouts that correspond to all outstanding fertilizer. Once once Beanstalk starts paying back those sprouts, I'll say that there's only ten outstanding sprouts anymore that means every sprout holder is getting more of each new of each new payments every season. So the fewer sprouts there are, the more payments you get each season for holding fertilizer. So even if even even if the interest rate is 0.5% and now it's 20%, which is a little bit different, but theoretically it could be as low as possible. And eventually at some point, you know, at at at maximum once, once all the sprouts are repaid, even if the interest rate is 1%, I can go buy fertilizer and earn all of the one third of new being maintenance, No matter how low the interest rate is. I see. So yeah, so it's it's definitely like relying on the Thin Mints to start kind of ramping up to that. Exactly. Yeah. Okay. And the rationale was that yeah, at the interest rate, you know, the, the rationale behind it being 20% is that, you know, it's kind of arbitrary. It could be any number. And so and, you know, it can be relatively low because once all at once, more and more of the sprouts are paid back. The incentive to buy the fertile as it goes up. One other thing you mentioned, like, what does it look like in practice once it starts being recapitalized as in addition to that process, whenever the bean price is above a dollar, you would expect some number of stock sale members to convert their both beans to being three curve and also unripe beans to unripe bean three for volpi. And because the number of fertilizer is based on the amount of nonbeing value, that being stock needs to recapitalize as people convert from unripe beans to unripe being three curve the number of available fertilizer actually increases. I want to you know, I want to start a little bit higher level before we get into kind of maybe the deeper mechanisms behind the barn raise. You know, I'm curious like, and I would love to hear kind of everybody from from guy all the way like there poops to silo chat as well as like, you know, how do you explain the mechanism to like, like your mom or something, Right. So like, how do you ELI5 this to like the most basic audience? Because I want to hear everybody's different kind of frameworks and analogies and for each of the mechanisms so that we can kind of take these and also like ELI5 it, who like nor me and retail audiences, when you kind of explain to somebody like, okay, we're credit backed, you know, algo stable like and people are like, you know, what does that even mean? You know, how do you kind of go about explaining to them, you know, the kind of process of, you know, minting repair, credit, all of that. I feel like I should start I've heard me explain it a million times, but I'm thinking I mean, one thing I typically start with is describing what the federal Reserve does at a very high level and then explaining that stock is, you know, the on chain deterministic, transparent version of that where in. So yeah, the Fed is you know a bunch of old guys get does decide when to mint new money they are also decide where it goes whenever you know they borrow dollars from the market in order to maintain price stability and that's sort of how bienstock works except one works up on beans documents, new beans. It is transparent and deterministic as to where they're distributed. You know, the interest rate is also autonomously adjusted. Those are some things I try to try to get at. If you're talking about what Like how to explain to my parents personally, I'm very curious what Moji has to say about this country. If you're near a mic or if you want to type this out. But I feel like she's got like the best explainers on this stuff all go so the I think there's two separate things that need to be explained in order for people to understand the value proposition of being stuck. One is what creates a useful currency and then two is how does Bienstock create that useful currency? So in particular on the currency front, there is like a variety of different features that make a currency useful. Uh, in particular would highlight censorship, resistance, liquidity and low volatility and so I, I try to walk through like many examples on like what explaining why those things make a currency useful. And so for the, for the censorship resistance, you know, personally I like to talk about a family anecdote that three generations ago with the Holocaust, we had all of our wealth taken from us for for those family members that were lucky enough to get out alive. And then those that were lucky enough to get out alive ended up in Cuba and set up shop again and then had their own businesses. And then Castro came to power and took everything again. So censorship resistant money and value is very important as a as an idea. And, you know, relatively relevant anecdotes can really help convey that point in very succinct fashion. When it comes to liquidity, I think people tend to generally understand that idea that a more liquid money, the more places people are willing to accept the money, the lower the the slippage. When you're trading with the money, all of those things are pretty intuitive. So typically, just stating that the more people are using the money, the more liquid it is, the more useful it is. People tend to understand that pretty naturally. And then on the volatility front, the the thing that is most helpful because there's like an open question as to whether or not a currency design should prioritize increasing in value like Bitcoin and ether's current monetary policy are or in maintaining a low volatility relative to some value or benchmark and the general like the the punch iest way to get that across is to take the example of if you're a business and if you're a business and you need to borrow money, the question is do you want to borrow your money? And announced at the May ten ax and price over the course of your loan, or do you want to borrow money in a currency that's likely to maintain a relatively stable value over the length of your loan? And the answer for businesses is clearly the latter, because even if you get everything right in the former case, but except for the value of the money, you will be likely unable to pay back the value of your loan if the denomination of your loan increased can x. So for businesses and real economic activity that required debt and loans and low volatility money is preferred for for for businesses. So that's like the 1 to 3 on demonstrate today why there's a need for a censorship resistant very liquid low volatility money and then only then can you really start to shift the conversation around to well, how does being stock actually facilitate that? And if you really want to explain like on five, you know, it's supply and demand. So the price is determined by the supply and demand for beans. And if there is too much demand such that the price is above its peg, beans can very easily mint new money. And the harder case is when there is not enough demand or there's too much supply. How did being stock decrease the supply and or increased demand to return the price to its peg? It does so by borrowing beans from the market. And so if you that that that that's basically the simplest way to explain it or if you assume that being stock will be able to borrow beans from the market over time, then it should be able to lower the volatility of the price of of beans. So that's like it isn't that short of an explanation. At the end of the day, I taught them for at least a couple of minutes, but you can kind of condense each thing into bits by bit and that's like that's where the value proposition ultimately becomes clear. I'm not sure if that was helpful. That's exactly what I want to I want to make the focus around live like I, I think the the, the censorship position is liquidity, low utility. I think those are all incredibly important as far as narrative creation and why we're doing what we're doing. And I think there's a lot of great opportunities there on kind of the go to market side. But I think I want to focus a little more this conversation on the supply demand mechanism and how we're able to either like maintain peg or kind of re peg. So I definitely want to dig in a little more there. Right. So when you talk about mechanisms that allow us to, you know, like what when you talk about the borrowing beans for the market, right, can you kind of go a little bit deeper and give maybe some more analogies on how the different mechanisms, you know, whether it's like, you know, the stock, the seeds, all of that, how those contribute to the ability to kind of like, I guess, kind of decrease the price back down. In this case, it'd be kind of bringing it back to Peg. Well, there's like 80 layers to the mechanism, so maybe it's better to just start like at the highest levels. Then we can go deeper. That's perfect, because it's very layered. At the end of the day, the and I don't say that to make it like it's hard to get to the bottom of what we can get to the bottom of all of it. It's just like to understand where the different incentives play in and you know, it's not so simple. So we'll try our best yet. And if others want it in there, please feel for it. Don't want to just co-opt this. Okay. So I think to be not to not to, you know, dismiss the barn entirely. The barn is generally like a hopefully a one time temporary thing that has been designed to flow as naturally into the normal mechanism as possible. And at least for understanding the system, we should probably put it to the side for now. So it's important that people understand the barn and how it works, but it's not really core to the beanstalk mechanism. So Beanstalk has two sides to the market and I'm going to be talking a little bit on the fly here, trying to think of the metaphor. So apologies of this comes off a little bit of a ramble. The two sides of the market are the silo and the field. The silo you can think of as like the bank where people deposit value into the system and then you can the field is where Beanstalk actually borrows money. So in the field, Beanstalk is the borrower and there are lenders and anybody can lend beans to Beanstalk. So in the silo anyone can become a depositor in the beanstalk system, sort of like a bank. And in the field anyone can lend to be in stock, which is sort of just like the, the, the, the auctions that issue treasuries, for example, the US government, when they borrow money, the value of the US dollar is, you know, if you read on the on a US dollar bill it says backed by the credit of the US government. So what does that mean in practice? It means the ability for the government to issue debt and to borrow money on the market. So Beanstalk place, where it receives credit in practice, where it borrows money from the open market is the field. We can get into the field mechanism, but that's like the high level of the field, the silo, because it's the bank is susceptible to bankruptcy. And when like Beanstalk as an issue of a currency, when that as a system has a bank run or a ding peg or whatever, however you want to think about it, in practice it is the combination ation of the incentives in the silo that are designed to limit the extent of the bank run as much as possible, and the field which is designed to borrow money from the open market to decrease the supply and increase the demand for beans. Because if you assume the system is at some sort of equilibrium, in order to lend beans to beanstalk, people have to buy them. So they buy them, increases demand, they lend them to Beanstalk, and Beanstalk burns them. That decreases supply. So it's the interplay between the silo in the field and the incentives in the to that ultimately create the beanstalk system. But it's probably more helpful to like, other than just understanding at the high level, there's this lending market that is like the fundamental driver of value to beans from a theoretical perspective. And then the, the deposit, the place to deposit, which is like the practical place where the incentives play out at the micro level, if that makes sense. Not too many helpful metaphors there, but that's the starting point. That's the first layer, that's that, that's perfect. Under this is like exactly what we're looking for is like simple analogies that we can take and then run to the public and give them these analogies. Yeah, yeah, I want to keep going, but let's, let's kind of dig in like, let's, let's, let's do the next layer. Yeah, I think would it be kind of stock in seeds or would it kind of be? Yeah, I think so. So, so when you do the, when you deposit your assets in the silo, you receive a really three things. You receive like a deposit slip and then you receive stock and fees associated with that deposit swap. And stock is the governance token. You can, I think you know, the name itself, just highlighting the play on words is probably enough. Like stock stock. The stock where what do you get if you're a stock holder, you get upside in the company. If it's equity in a business, you get dividends potentially and you get voting rights potentially. So it's very intuitive that the stock entitles you to upside in the system in some capacity. And voting rights and feeds grow more stock. So what are the seeds yield? The seeds naturally grow stuff. Where do they grow? They grow stock. So the the next layer is like once you join the silo, what do you get? You get this deposit slip, you get your stock and you get your seeds, which give you more stock. And the question then becomes, well, why do you get all of this stuff? And the the the silo, again, it's an imperfect analogy, but if you think about it as a bank experience is bankrupt and the the stock system where you get stock and seeds related to the value of your deposit and the time over which the deposit has been left in the silo is designed to create opportunity cost for participating in the bank. Right. So let's get a little bit deeper. When you deposit your assets in the silo, you receive stock and seeds based on the value denominated in beans of your deposit and the IT when you withdraw those assets from the silo, you have to forfeit and burn all of your stock and all of your seeds associated with that deposit. So you cannot retain upside and voting rights in the system unless you have a value currently deposited in the system. So the first idea there is that the people that actually hold the value in the system are the people that control the system and earn the upside of the system. So it's very direct and from an incentive perspective, you receive more stock over time in a linear fashion from seeds. And when you combine these two rules that you need to forfeit the stock and the seeds, but mainly the stock, when you withdraw and you receive more stock over time from the seeds, it creates opportunity cost and it specifically creates opportunity cost in the in the form of the grown stock that you would have to forfeit when you withdraw your asset. So if you deposited your asset a year ago and now there's a bank run happening, you are faced with the question of do you participate in the bank, run or not in the system creates the opportunity cost to participating in the in the bank run in the form of all of the grown stock you've received during the year over which your asset was considered in the silo. And so from an incentive perspective, let's think about if you're thinking about participating in the bank from the question you have to answer is, is it worth forfeiting all of this grown stock for the I mean, there's really two cases. Either one, you think the system is actually going to explode, in which case you should obviously get out most likely, or you think it's just a normal bean stock bank run that at some point it will recover from. And then the question is, well, where is the bond or what would be a potential reentry point? So when it comes to potentially participating in the bank run to get out and then potentially get back in once the once the knife has been caught, there's this opportunity cost in the form of growing stock where you have to ask yourself the question is the benefit that I may get from selling now and then buying at a lower price better than the opportunity cost created by the stock. And if if the answer to that is yes, then you probably should participate in the bank, run from an expected value perspective. But again, stock is trying to limit the extent of the bank runs as much as possible. And so what this really does is it creates a time sensitivity to participating in the bank, right. Where if you're going to participate in the bank run because you have this opportunity cost that you're going to realize you are highly incentivized. In addition to just the normal dynamics of a bank run to get out as early as possible. And so what happens in practice is the stock system creates a real stickiness around deposits where if the depositors are going to leave the system, they leave very quickly. So the bank runs tend to be it. I mean, there's only been a couple in buying stocks in history, but they tend to play themselves out relatively quickly in the grand scheme of things. And then the system is has found a new equilibrium, at which point then the field and even the convert mechanism, which we haven't even spoken about at all, and then start to incentivize certain behavior to return the being priced to its peg. So not sure if that was clear or helpful. That was no, that was great. I really did enjoy kind of the bank run discussion about that and I think I kind of want to ask a couple more things. So the you said there like there's only been a couple those are kind of the quick ish flash crashes were being goes off peg where people are then deciding whether they want to remove their liquidity or not. That happened like kind of yeah, there was one at the end of 2021 and then the beginning of 2022. Is that are those the bank runs you're referring to? Yeah. So the first one happened in September of 2021. Then I think there was another one yet. End of 20. I'm trying to remember the exact time because there was like the Thanksgiving 21, the system started to grow again. And then after that gross cycle, then there was another dip. Yeah, there have been a couple. Another was after the replant, there was a little bit of a pump and then an enduring downpour. DPA temporarily, there have been a couple, I think sometime in December through a convert, the system generally repaid at one point that might have been 2021 as well. So yeah, so and these are kind of happening and there's kind of like fear about people that supply this liquidity in the silo. How is it like, as you mentioned, there's it's there's kind of a decision to be made, whether it's going to be more valuable to pull your liquidity out of this just kind of price or have the upside of future minted beans and like and keep the stock that you've grown so far. Like, is there a specific like mathematic approach to that or is a lot of this kind of like scramble based like people getting a lot of fear and just like, oh shit, like maybe it's more profitable to do this? Or is there do you think people are actually like looking at the numbers and deciding based on that? It's hard to know what people are doing in practice. There is definitely like if you you can derive efficient prices for most being stock assets. If you if you make certain assumptions around participation in the silo and you you can do pretty interesting modeling on this stuff. Unclear who has done any of that or is trading based off of it. The mean or just to speak perfectly candidly, we when we were designing this, did not use any sort of formal modeling. And you know, you could make an argument that, you know, could have prevented the exploit. But on the other hand, because being stock is fundamentally a and I think that this is not to dismiss the first point that maybe if the system were totally formally defined, you know, something like, oh, the convert change could have been noticed. But the concept is from a design perspective, the incentives that Beanstalk are creating are fundamentally like behavioral, right? So at the margin, you can you can run the equation for like, here's how much stock you would forfeit and here is like the marginal, like change in being priced between when you sell and when you buy back, you would need in order to break even or make money on the trade and then you can run a simple calculation on, okay, like is this a good is this a good trade to do or not is the point. But the the concept is from creating the incentives. From being stocks perspective. The actual numbers don't matter so much because Bienstock doesn't know the magnitude or the scale of the situation it's going to be dealing with, particularly in its early stages where we don't have a lot of data. So it's like people may be trading off that stuff, but I honestly don't know. Yeah, yeah, that makes sense that it is kind of an emphasis on the behavioral mechanisms behind it and that's kind of what drives it. It's more it's more game theory than kind of like financial engineering, right? That's essentially like it's just all it's just like, can we great game theory in order to create the incentive mechanisms that we want. It's like financial engineering to create the game such that the incentives in the game are to create stability. Man, I wish we could've had like 2 hours to do this. This is, this is all great. I do. So, okay, one thing on this that I wanted to ask is like, how do you see the parallels? I'm trying to think of other ways that we can analogize it, and I think like finding analogies through other protocols is helpful. Like one. Have you guys, like, looked deeply into like fracs and maybe like how that mechanism is like kind of like there's some similarities there. And to like, I think that the thing that Tracks has done very successfully is like the creation of these like arms and like all the different things that they do to kind of, one, create more use cases for FRAX itself and then to also create, you know, more fed like functions that actually are like profitable for the protocol. Have you guys thought about like what one like can you maybe draw some like parallels to FRAX and then to have you guys thought about doing like ammo type function? And is that kind of maybe where the start point of wells is going to be? Right. So a couple of things. One, at least on this end can definitely run at least 90 minutes. So we don't need to cut this too short and maybe can even go a little longer, although I think the engineers may have to hop at some point. Well, let's talk a little bit about FRAX and others can feel free to hop in. FRAX has a I mean, do you want us to talk about where fractures go into their becoming fully collateralized again? Or do you want to talk about like the fractional reserve FRAX or like what's the best way to to give you guys what you want? Probably the former where they're going. We said yes, let's go with that. Let's go with the latter. Right. Let let's talk about like kind of the, the kind of fractional reserve aspect in like how it kind of compares to something. Yeah. So the and it's worth noting that they are moving off of this fractional reserve model. So let's get into a little bit. They the FRAX model was to hold a treasury of USD three and then issue FRAX against that USD and then have a COLLATERALIZATION ratio that was protocol native that would fluctuate up and down whereby the ratio of FRAX that you could redeem FRAX for USD C would fluctuate from 0 to 1. So if the ratio were one, when you would redeem FRAX from the protocol, you would receive 1 USD fee for each FRAX. But if the ratio were point nine, you would receive 0.9 USD and point 1 USD c worth of access. The FRAX Governance token and the the the. The way to think about such a model is that the app access token is like the token in the protocol. So the protocol through these ambos is making money and the and potentially through other ways is making money and app access token is the token that should accrue value in some capacity. If the if the system is growing and making money. And so the the issue with this played out in the Terra Luna collapse where it became clear that if there is equity which is based on revenue in the future accruing to an asset that during a bank run, the bid for that asset goes to zero because there is no native anti-bank run element to a fungible token like Access or like Luna. And again, you have to like, let's now compare that model where the there's a value that can be redeemed in USD C and then some value that can be redeemed in app access according to some protocol native rate that is hard set by the protocol with the way Bienstock works. And it's you know, I'll try to try to keep it succinct, but there's a lot of really key differences. The first big one is that Bienstock doesn't have collateral. So whereas FRAX was holding protocol level USD fee as collateral for the FRAX that it's issued, BIENSTOCK holds no collateral whatsoever. Now you can make an argument that the COLLATERALIZATION ratio of FRAX mapped to the liquidity to supply ratio of BIENSTOCK where there's some rate of liquidity against the being supply such that you can work out how much value is trading against beings. But unlike FRAX, where the USDC can actually be redeemed for FRAX and the supply of FRAX by decree, it's being can only be sold into the liquidity. The supply of beings cannot be decreased through a redemption against collateral. The value of beings can only be realized by selling the beings against liquidity. So the collateral versus liquidity dynamic is very important. The probably next important thing here is that the COLLATERALIZATION ratio is set by FRAX, whereas the liquidity to supply ratio of being stock is set by the market. So there is no there is no way within Bienstock to hard code the liquidity to supply ratio or to guarantee or try to guarantee the redemption value of a B, whereas FRAX is sort of creating a floor price in the redemption value of FRAX in the in the, the USD fee that the protocol hold. Now another thing is that FRAX is if it's 100% collateralized, then it's just a wrapper for USD fee and you really should expect to redeem each FRAX for each USD fee for 1 USD fee. Whereas in Bienstock or at least in the current AMA designs the maximum liquidity, the supply ratio is 100% and that liquidity is again not collateral, it's not owned by the protocol. And therefore if people are selling their beings against that liquidity, they may be realizing value, but in practice they're not. They're not redeeming for collateral. So the system can never make everyone whole, if that makes sense. Whereas FRAX, if it's 100% collateralized and whined down and make everyone whole bienstock doesn't have a way to wine down the entire being supply to zero and you know, give everyone or make sure that everyone gets a dollar of value for each B So there's like fundamental trade offs when you're using beans which are not collateralized as opposed to using trax, which is collateral. Now the, the benefit is that the maybe before we talk about go ahead, Sean, you had, I tell you, unmute, so you're going to kick on the so the there's a couple more maybe just to juxtapose first. So the equity versus credit thing and this is a big one if you guys are interested in the equity versus credit, we publish right after Tara collapsed in a pretty lengthy podcast, I don't know where it is exactly, but I'm sure it's somewhere on the like the dynamics around equity and how that facilitated the bank run and how the stock is different. There'll probably be some overlap with what we talked about today, but it really gets in the weeds. But maybe just to answer it explicitly or succinctly, the equity doesn't scale to infinity. Credit potentially does scale to infinity. So what that means is that if let's take Microsoft, if Microsoft issued a stablecoin where that stablecoin were redeemable for Microsoft stock, but Microsoft, you know, maybe it can issue millions or even billions of stablecoins be relatively okay because of how massive the demand is for their equity. But the equity doesn't scale as a backing like Access or Luna, just like Microsoft stock doesn't scale to billions of dollars of value as collateral. Because if there are trillions of dollars of Microsoft Bucks that can be redeemed for Microsoft stock when the redemptions actually take place, Microsoft stock is a fungible asset. And so even if you want the Microsoft stock, if you recognize that there's a bank run happening imminently, you are incentivized to wait to buy the Microsoft stock until the bank run ends. And this applies to being stock just as well as it does to a microsoft Stablecoin or FRAX or Terra. But the the the difference is that because the equity is fungible, you you cannot really get around the bank run and in particular what it means to get around the bank run, you can never make it economically practical behavior to catch the knife, the falling knife of the bank run. And it's also really hard to make it economically practical behavior not to participate in the bank. Right. So it's really twofold. It's the bank run participation, which we've already talked a little bit about in the stock system, which I mean, we can talk about how like FRAX doesn't it doesn't really have anything like that or then you have the field where the system is trying to borrow from the market and the debt in parts which we haven't really talked about is nonfungible. So one of the big I mean, this is another tangent. I don't know if you want me to go down this rabbit hole, but one of the big problems with all the other attempts at Algo Stables to date that are debt based or credit based in some capacity is that they had fungible debt. And so you still have these same dynamics around catching the knife that you do with an equity based system per se. So it's not just the equity credit dynamic. I guess to wrap up the credit point, it is that credit does scale to infinity. So credit is a network effect where if you have more, the basic idea is that the more that Bienstock pays back, the more that historically Beanstalk builds a track record of paying back its debts, the more willing people will be in the future to lend to the system. And that is a positive feedback loop that in theory can scale infinitely such that the more beanstalk pays back its debt, the more creditworthy it is, and the more creditworthy it is, the more of the market should be willing to lend to the system. Now, obviously, in practice there are some limitations to this whereby the most that beanstalk can borrow from the system, from the market, since it can only borrow beans, is technically limited to the bean supply. But these are edge cases that don't really apply to like a stablecoin model because in the scenario where there was demand to lend all of the beans to bean stock, it's sort of like the you wouldn't really expect the system to ever end up in a case like that. We can get into the weeds on why, but then it's probably not helpful for this discussion. So sorry for the long winded answers here, guys. Hopefully, you know, if I'm getting off track, you'll steer us back in the right direction. Now. That's helpful. Listen, if you wanted to if you had something else to address, I was going to. Yeah, I have to hop at the throw. But. But I think Joey and I think maybe Robert are going to hang back and ask more questions. But one thing I really wanted to hit that I definitely want to know is like, okay, can you give us the the ELI5 on wealth? Because that's kind of the first thing coming up. Then we definitely want to start teasing that and all the different things that are going to come. So one, give me the ELI5 on wells and then to give me like the big impacts for the ecosystem that are going to come out. It. So the ELI5 for Wells is a totally composable dex such that you can piece together a pricing function and an oracle and the like. If you think about how I mean that's like, yeah, we'll try to do the ELI5 here. Uniswap has a cookie cutter pricing function and Oracle that it's built together and it's not very composable. Wells basically makes the two distinct such that you can pick and choose which Oracle you want and which pricing function you want. The wells will deploy with a basic uniswap constant product pricing function, but in theory anyone can implement their own pricing function and then plug that into the architecture. Now the the main reason I mean, the biggest benefit from all of this is a multi block MIB resistant oracle. So that's like the big contribution to Defi in the EVM as it currently exists, which is post merge. There are all these opportunities for multi block MLB and none of the on chain oracles are resistant to it at the moment. And so this is the pump which is the Oracle component of the well that the pump is ultimately be the oracle that provides the ability for MMV multi block amoeba resistant. And when it comes to the impact on the ecosystem, the the wells launch should facilitate the creation of a being if pool that can be whitelisted for the silo for deposit in the silo to start. That'll be like the the first use of a well most likely, but thereafter there can be much easier. Then in the past the deployment of additional wells where beings are trading against other assets, they can be much more easily integrated into bienstock. So if you look at if you've been paying attention to development of Beanstalk since it was originally deployed, one of the trickiest parts of development has been Dex integrations, mainly because of these Oracle issues. And so this concept of a plug and play Oracle solution that can be paired with a constant product or other pricing function is pretty powerful when it comes to scaling beanstalk liquidity going forward. Yeah, that. Yeah. Very helpful there. Yeah. Maybe one other detail. There's not going to be any sort of thing native to the wells in the basic implementation. And so what that means is that if you look at like at the margin, the, the incentives to create price stability for bean, if there is let's say a four basis point fee like in the first pool in practice, if you're buying beans for more than 0.9996, then you're paying more than a dollar for a bean. And so similarly, if you're selling a bean for less than 1.0040404, you're you're selling your beans for less than a dollar after the fee. And so the speak creates a buffer around peg maintenance of the size of the fee on both sides. So the, the fact that bean liquidity should now start to trade in Dexs where there is no fee, should lead to an even tighter peg in the grand scheme of things. Okay, that makes a lot of sense. Okay. Yeah, that's I think that gives us I think I remember you mentioning that the white paper for Wells is kind of relatively close to complete. So I think Wells right now we have is like in May, I want to say right, I don't know the stats on the white paper, but yeah, I think the status for the deployment of wells should be in. I'll have the latest on the dates, but yeah, sounds right. Okay, Michael, let me at this point that that makes a lot of sense. Yeah. Yeah. I don't want to start, like, kind of teasing that stuff. You know, I think everybody gets excited about what's on the roadmap. I think like communicating that and kind of the vision is definitely going to be helpful. Yeah, that's a yeah, this is doubly helpful. I mean, I think like maybe sometime over the next week or two, I think we'll want to do like another one of these. But I think, you know, yeah, Joey, feel free to hop in. I think that's most of what I had. Yeah. Awesome. I the Wells stuff is cool. I definitely like I'm looking forward to reading learning a little bit more about that Oracle but I do kind of want to go back to a little bit more of the credit stuff we were talking about with FRAX and one thing probably so I'd love to hear you of talk about this and I think it kind of would tie in well to that last conversation. We'd love to just kind of maybe hear your rambling and then also poking holes in what I'm about to say. But um, so in terms of like if, like thinking about is proof of work, proof of stake and forking a chain, could we kind of envision I, I couldn't find I was trying to look and see what the been proof of work prices but I'm guessing it's much farther off of the 0.9 to ish that being is on it's proof of stake. So I'm curious like in this situation of forking on protocols, working on blockchain and essentially doubling the supply of being doubling the money on the market is the reason that that money would not be valuable due to the fact that people are not placing value on that, because in theory with the Bienstock code base being sound, having the history of repayments, having the history of all of the credit that it has facilitated and everything like that, people would be able to kind of derive confidence in the ability for being the hold peg regardless of if it's on a brand new chain or not. If it has that history, the being that they've they're new forked being is essentially the same value based on that. But because there is a lot of faith within this, people immediately perceive it as valueless. I don't know if there's either more details or less details or just something, but would love to kind of hear over your take on that and happy to, I guess, provide a little bit more of my thinking if it's not clear as well. This is a fabulous question. And one of the most exciting things about working on something like Beanstalk is we don't know the answers to a lot of these questions because they are fundamentally behavioral, right? You're asking like, how will people react? What will people's believes to be in such a circumstance? Now, the proof of work, proof of stake, split around the merge was probably not the best data point for something like this, because the value of while it does derive socially in theory, it also does derive practically from the liquidity that it trades against. And the fact of the matter is that currently Bean has liquidity exclusively against three curve as it did, you know, as as it had since replant basically. And therefore the proof of work version of Beanstalk, the version of Beanstalk running on the proof of work heap train is trading against assets that have no value at the moment. Yeah, because the centralized issuers of the coins chose the proof of stake trade. And so the concept is you could make an argument that that version of Beanstalk is in like the exact same state as the version of Beanstalk post Exploit, where it like has the state that it had before or the state can be recovered. But the liquidity that we're trading against the beans has disappeared. And so from that perspective, you know, I think it is worth diving a little bit deeper into like the theoretical here. What could happen. So let's say not the, you know, the liquidity against beans is all ether and then you have a chain split. Now the question is what you do now have like the state beanstalk stock has been replicated, but the liquidity that it is trading against has been split. And this is actually like one of the when it comes to designing beanstalk and particularly considering like a an environment where there may be multiple execution environment in which beanstalk related transactions or transactions that involve beanstalk assets are being executed. How to best have the network effect from a beanstalk that is, you know, deployed or initially deployed on a single chain to have that network effect reversed across other chains such that the answer to this question becomes, even if that, you know, there's a version of beanstalk on the the chain that's, you know, the the split or the fork that that beanstalk itself can hopefully, like handle such an underlying execution layer split and you know, the hope would be that Beanstalk would in practice be like agnostic if that makes sense. In an optimally designed beanstalk, it should be agnostic to the underlying chains. What that's occurring independent of like what the chain, the split chain says. So there may be a new version of Beanstalk on the split chain, but the version of Beanstalk on the old chain should be able to integrate. You know, the the the underlying network into its own, the comprehension of its stake. Now, what that looks like in practice is still generally undefined. So hence we're speaking about it pretty ambiguously. But the the real point is that like an optimal handling of forks for Beanstalk is that if the underlying network Forks, you hope that beanstalk doesn't fork, but separately you should have the ability to like Fork Beanstalk and freely exit the beanstalk system. So it's like there's the network underlying fork and then there's the beanstalk layer fork and the like. The way that the on chain governance system is ultimately implemented will have to factor in both of these, you know, layers of forks, if that makes sense, but currently very much undefined. Interesting. Okay. Yeah, it is a it's an interesting thought. Concepts like how that would what exactly would go down and yeah that makes sense with the the three or four like why that ended up the way it was. Does this have any relevance as well to extending beyond just the Etherium layer one into layer two's or is that a little bit more simple of a of a process? But I am curious kind of how that maybe it's the like just more of a simple technical answer, kind of moving that chain to chain, but how like being yeah, it would maybe like extend to arbitrage and beyond. Well, there's two ways to slice it. Go ahead. No, sorry, I didn't I didn't say anything. Sorry. There's two ways to slice it. One is that if you think about these, roll up environments as a separate execution environment, there's nothing to say that you can't like for to be in stock on to one of those execution environments or deploy a new being stock on those execution environments. The that's like that's a separate question from trying to integrate Beanstalk into the other execution environments, if that makes sense, or have the assets issued by a single beanstalk be used across multiple execution environments and then maybe settle back to a single layer like if you remain that. But the the, the, the real goal would be to have like the beanstalk native assets be used on other and in other execution environments. But on the one hand it's it's not so simple because beanstalk assets, you have beans which are 20 tokens but then basically everything else is either over in 1155 or doesn't adhere to a standard. Yet in particular, deposits and pods don't adhere to a token standard and so currently, like bridging customer sets on two other chains is very simple. Bridging the ERC 20 token is very simple, but you don't actually accrue the yield on top of the beans. If you just move the beans over, you have to have them in the silo and currently you can only deposit into the silo on main net. So there's there's a couple of ways that this can potentially be fixed. The current fix is that Root has developed an ERC 20 wrapper for silo deposit such that that can be bridged over and I think there actually is an implementation of root on arbitrage at the moment. But the, the, the bigger point is that there is an open question as to the best way to get all of the beanstalk assets freely moving on other execution environments, but probably step one or almost certainly step one, and that will be implementing deposits in pods. There's 1155 and then hopefully being able to get them over to, you know, arbitrage or other roll ups through, you know, a roll up native bridge or something for 1155 tokens. That would be the likely the simplest way to do it. Yeah. Interesting. Yeah. I mean, I think it is more technical than my know how, but I was just curious because some I pertain to that discussion. Okay. So I mean, I know we're kind of just I mean, I could talk about this for a while, but I do want to be mindful of time. So one thing that I think is really for us to cover today is conversions. And because that's obviously at least the clearest path in my eyes to getting Bean back to Peg. And I think that that's like the biggest thing that we're going to be focusing on as a team, that scribe. So I'll just rattle off kind of a couple of points and a couple of questions and then take it however. But so from what I know, the like the way to get one of the quickest way to get me back to Peg is to convert the Three Curve LP back to being this essentially by being under a dollar at the current price that it's at with the non being assets in the three curve pool. So that's construct of to getting the peg back to $1, which is great. And there's the certain amount, a very low amount of outstanding three curve LP So a couple of thoughts that I have with this is like one or all unripe holders aware of this because if I know and I know that the seed stock distribution plays some incentive in that, I know that that's planning on being changed I think sometime April or possibly May as well. But is that probably the only reason that people are holding out and not converting because they want to make sure that they continue to accrue their seeds and stock and then in addition to this, in terms of being peg like not converting your three curve LP is kind of like not constructive to the peg. Does it actually that you could take that would help being get back to Peg. Is there anything else in the beanstalk ecosystem where this is a case where people can take action A or B and either action or B would help get been back to Peg or it wouldn't? And because? Because that's like I said, this is kind of like priority number one for us in my eyes. And if it's not, if it shouldn't be, we'd love to hear some pushback. But I think that this is kind of most important to being able to get being use cases rolled out and everything. It all kind of stems from this at one dollars. So, yeah, I mean, I just would love to like kind of dive into the unripe conversions and everything that I touched on around that and happy to go back over some points if I wasn't clear enough. Okay. So first, I at least personally do want to push back on the importance of a dollar bill. Recognize that in the grand scheme of things like the will much prefer beans to be at a dollar. But the idea that beans will always be at a dollar is not a notion that anyone should subscribe to because like Beanstalk makes a fundamental trade off where it accepts some downside volatility to get infinite scale where it because it's not going to have 100% collateral, you are almost guaranteed guaranteed to have bank runs where there's deep eggs. And at this point where we're at is not really in a bank run. It's in like a low, slow bleed where there is no demand coming in or more supply leaving the demand coming in. But nothing's really happening. And at this point in time, the system is raising the temperature of the interest rate. Try to find a price point at which people will lend to the system, but generally it's hanging out and you're sorry, something really quick. Yeah, please. I yeah, I guess I yeah, I totally understand what you're saying in regards to like being is not something that people should come in. We're not and we won't convey that message that people come in and buying stock is this $1 stablecoin and you should have faith in that. Like we're going to make it clear that there are mechanisms that like that are in place that mean that there is going to be a supply and demand balance where it goes off pegging, it goes above whatever that's like inherent, we get that. But like you said, I mean this situation is I feel like different than a deviation from Peg. This is kind of a life away from peg and like yes what let me, let me just make the point, which is that the stock has an explicit tradeoff to make here around liquidity to supply ratio and price, like the bank run is over, right? The bank run is over. There's no bank running in at the moment. It's a low, slow bleed. So being stock from from a, let's say, bean stock refracts and the the protocol can just control the liquidity being stock could say you know convert all of the the necessary three curve to beans such that it respects. But in practice if the system is making the explicit trade off now you actually like price in how much sell pressure you need to dry up the entire liquidity in the system. Right. Because now, oh there's $10 million of liquidity trading against beans. You just need to sell $10 million of beans and all the liquidity will go away. So that in practice, would we be in stock committing to, you know, redeem or sell each each, i.e. each being from the market for a dollar. Now, the current way that this works is is imperfect as well because Beanstalk has hardcoded a ratio of seeds for being three curve deposits and for normal deposits both unripe and regular. And then when I say normal, I mean bean deposit. And the the issue is that there is some difference in the ground stock incentive for which assets you deposit. And maybe the answer your first question around do people know what the incentive are or like, do they just not know the opportunity? Are they holding out? This is again, one of those things we don't know, and maybe you can go do a market survey and ask people in the discord. People may be willing to answer, but like we don't like and from from the perspective of Beanstalk, it's almost impossible to really know. Right? So the the plan, as we are aware of it as of now is that there will be a bit to recount the seeds for the unripe assets to be at or very to parity if the seeds per BTV are changed to be equal at that point, that would remove any incentive to hold or not any. But the vast majority of economic incentive from a beanstalk perspective to hold deposited three or three over deposit of beans. So you may get great market data at that point as to like what the market knowledge was, this inefficient market that people weren't moving on because of a pricing issue, or is this a knowledge issue that people don't know what's out there? And therefore we have a very inefficient market and we just don't know at this point. But the point I was making before is that beanstalk, from a system perspective has this trade off around liquidity to supply ratio and length and duration of these longer deviations from that are generally unrelated to bank runs. And so in the future you could hope and one might even expect that a system would be designed to have Beanstalk naturally fluctuate the seed per BTV ratio for being deposits, non bean deposits such that there is a you know, more of a protocol, native incentive to read peg and these types of circumstances, if that makes sense. So it's like what you're really asking is there like is there a way to communicate to people what's going on, that this is the D peg right now? It's harmful to the social of Beanstalk, and if everyone converted, that would help Beanstalk and be positive. So there's this tragedy of the commons and that's okay. But the point is like Beanstalk, what it fundamentally does, again, going back to the game theory conversation is the goal is to create rules that create a game such that the game theoretical optimum move is to contribute to peg maintenance. So changing feed per diem ratio is going to make it such that likely the incentives to convert change enough at the margin to facilitate conversions to pat. Now that may not be the case. That would then probably point to answering your first question in the negative that it's people people don't know what's going on because at that point the economics are probably such that you would expect convert activity, but that's, you know, that's the high and the low. What was the second question? I don't think I got to it. Yeah, and really quick, I just want to recap and make sure that we're on the same page so I'm kind of like maybe I phrased it a little bit more poorly or I guess. No, I mean, I phrased it the way I did, and you responded to the way I phrased it, but The message shouldn't be, Hey everyone, like convert your LP token, your unripe LP is because that's going to bring being back to Peg like it is. They're doing that because it is the most optimal, the most economically optimal thing for them to do in order to hold on to their valuable seeds and stock, and once that is changed, then optimize their long term return from the system. Yeah. Because if they think it's going to grow in the future, they want more stock. So want more seeds right now. So that's where that's where the incentive, why all of it is based around people making decisions, making their own decisions around that. Not like here. Yeah. Here's this path to one. Okay, cool. And then the second close to it is just to get into it a little bit more because this is this is like fabulous. The at the margin, once people start to convert in size, there is sort of a to a point at which then other people start to convert as well. Because to your point it's sort of like buying beans below peg and so there is still even within the silo participants, even though they're not participating in the bank run by leaving, there is still this marginal question of when to buy the beans. Right. Well, where is the bottom? Yeah. So at some point if someone declares, here's the bottom big convert, that may then at the margin change people's understanding of the circumstances in the market and their willingness to convert. But it's all fundamentally like a behavioral system that is here's the bigger point, right? If this system grows based on people like not understanding their incentives, yeah, that is way worse than the system growing through and understanding of the incentives That's a great sentence. Yeah, well, okay, that's phenomenal that I was just writing down on a couple of things because as you're speaking there, a lot of stuff was clicking for me. But yeah, okay, cool. And then the second part of that question is with these two sides of the peg or sorry, with the two sides of like underwrite conversion, not conversion, is there anything else that is kind of that has that like dual optionality. Yeah. Contributes to PEG or not. So the big thing here is whether or not it requires new demand for banks, meaning money to flow into the system, if that makes sense. So if people are buying, if you think of Beanstalk as like a closed loop, then the only way to repay no money coming in, no money coming out is convert, because then you're changing the liquidity, the supply ratio and changing the price. But if you know, if you if you take away that assumption that no money's coming in, no money's coming out, then people can buy and deposit bills, they can add liquidity and deposit the liquidity, which is similar to buying into plastic beans, or they can buy and sell the beans. They can lend their beans to be in stock. I mean, more that's like the base layer ways to interact with the protocol, to repack it another way that would like be money flowing through the system it's a little harder to follow is to buy pods on the secondary market. So if you buy beans to buy pods now, the person that sold you to pods has beans they made then. So the beans deposit the beans or sell the beans in which case you know, in every case but the selling of the beans, there's a net increase in demand for beef. So the idea is that people buying debt from being stocked or depositing new value in the silo, those would also lead to change in the demand for beans, such that the price would probably go up. But the that that would require new money to come in. Whereas if no new money coming in, then conversions are the only way to repay the system. And do you just want to sort of highlight or use this as an opportunity to highlight because in this context it becomes so like apparent how meaningful convert is That convert was not a part of beanstalk originally. The convert was only added in like December five after being stock was deployed. So it's worth saying like this is very much an experiment and you know what? What mechanisms may be implemented in the future, like talking about the balancing of the liquidity, the supply ratio and the length of these deep eggs. Yeah, you know, it can be made much better and it can be made much worse. But the convert addition has been something that probably fits both bills, right? Because it repaid the system in December, led to much tighter peg maintenance thereafter, but was also the thing that led to the dramatic increase in liquidity. The supply ratio that call facilitated the the flash loan exploit in April. So all of these modifications to the system, you know, are come with come with potential benefits, come with a lot of potential risk. So they just all need to be really thought through in practice. But at the same time it's like, you know, these are the you know, these are the things that the margin will make buying stock either like an issuer of amazing new money or not so great. Yeah, cool. I guess in terms of like the pod part of that discussion is so I mean, obviously the the pipeline is quite massive right now. Has it is there's no history. Is there a way to historically look at the pipeline? Yeah, I'm sure on the website you can look at like the pod rate which is the ratio of beans to odds and look at like the historical there. Yes, the system is relatively indebted right now in the grand scheme of things, but has has been in similar spots before would also I mean, there's a lot to be said about the pods. Currently pods don't expire and that's one of the fundamental value propositions that bean stock makes as a borrower that it will you know, your debt doesn't expire, it won't default on the debt. You just don't know when you're going to get paid back. And so as a as a lender, you know, your rate of return, you can calculate explicitly the bean supply by at which point you will get paid back. And then what you have to do is discount from there the like time over which or the likelihood over which you expect those to reach that bean supply. And so currently there's like I think an implied valuation on being stock of like 1.8 billion or something. If you're lending beanstalk stock at the end of the pod line now. And so the you know on the one hand it's a massive amount of pots, hundreds of millions of pods, but on the other hand if you ask well, Ken Beanstalk wrote a 2 billion beans that seems very reasonable. And then you say, well, is the time horizon over which over which beanstalk may grow to 2 billion beans? That's a little bit harder to estimate, but it's it's you know, beanstalk is either to fail in the next decade and never get to 2 billion beans or get to 2 billion beans you know probably in the next couple of years if we're just trying to take best guess. And so it's years not decades certainly. And then you you try to analyze, well, what is the return being stock is willing to offer for lending to the protocol and getting in line on this call option of 2 million bean supply, let's call it. And it's offering, you know, an ATX or a 90 X. I don't know what the temperature is right now, but in the wind farm. So it's like, well, if you say, well, there's a 1.3% chance or higher that one point yeah, 1.25 1.2% chance that that beanstalk reaches 2 billion bean supply in the next couple of years. You a you know your analysis on that math, it's like, oh, all right. Interesting. Now the scarier question becomes, well, how many will be in stock have to issue to get there, Right. So it's like the runaway death spiral comes from well, Beanstalk is paying 100 acts on you know right now it's even a 90 X right now it's like 1.2 million beans below peg. If it's going to do over 100 million pods. Now, you know, you go from what is it like a 1.8 billion valuation to now 2 billion bean valuation? How many of those can Beanstalk handle, if that makes sense? So there's an open question as to how much debt is too much debt, how much debt, where a beanstalk issues, you know, another billion pods and only grows another 30 million beans in the meantime or doesn't grow at all, Is that sustainable? Right. So there are open questions as to how whether or not TAB downward temperature reflexivity where once beanstalk re pegs the interest rate it's willing to pay, the lenders resets dramatically or resets somewhat. There's also an open question as to whether to put some sort of like decay on the redemption value of pods time such that the debt does go to zero over time. But but that would like fundamentally change the incentives around, you know, lending to being stock in the calculation of the risk reward for sowing. And so it's like some of these are open that beanstalk may experiment with some of these are questions that Beanstalk may not experiment with because it's too risky. And then the you may have a fork that says, hey, but we you know, a group says, hey, we think this really needs to happen in order for Beanstalk to fulfill its potential. And then you may have a disagreement in the community on what to do. So these are worst. Fortunately, we're still at the point where there's enough low hanging fruit that for the most part, people agree on and there's a lot to agree on relative to what there is to disagree on. But you can imagine getting Beanstalk ending to a point where it is pretty damn efficient and at the margin it's like, well, would it be more efficient under this version? A more efficient under that version? And the answer from a theoretical perspective will really be based on the assumptions you make on human behavior that are interacting in the system. Right? So it's not it's very unclear. I mean, and then you get into like, well, the assumptions you make may be wrong. Even if your logic is right and like the like the because it's a behavioral system, the state of beanstalk, like, could be the same thing. But the participants different and then you have different outcomes. Yeah, it's all this is a very open ended experiment if you even want to give it the rigor of an experiment. Definitely. Yeah. No, that's all helpful commentary. Yeah. For some reason I don't know why I didn't really understand the pod rate, even though that's a super and simple thing to look at. And yeah, I mean to that drastically increased at the Padres or after the exploit and then kind of been hovering slowly drifting down since then. So that's interesting. Oh yeah. Because the beef supply was cut right there was like 180. Yeah. 107 million beans or something before the exploit and then you know, now there's, I don't know, 30 something million beans and similar amount of pods. Yeah. It guys at least myself and Chad have to hop over to an end call. But you know, don't let me stop you guys and you know, if there's a variation from more, I feel like we can can set up another one of these next week or so. Cool. Thanks. Yeah, thanks. Go. Appreciate it. But yeah, I mean, I'm. I think I'm pretty good on my questions. Honestly, nothing else is coming to mind for the time being. But, yeah, I mean, this was all super helpful. I think it definitely what you mentioned and what I touched on like making sure that people know kind of what the system, how the system operates before they enter into the system, making sure that people who are participating are well educated on like what the different functions are is super important. That's all kind of like based around our education that we're going to be pushing forward, analogizing different parts of being stock and everything. So, yeah, I mean, this was all really helpful commentary. You answered a lot of the questions that I have and gave me a little bit more to go off of for sure. So yeah, I guess is there like any sort of ranking you would apply? And my based on what I know, I believe I'm just asking this because I had it in my notes but now I think my idea on this has kind of changed and the answer would be kind of no. And just education is the number one priority. But like, is there a difference in what what would be kind of preferred in terms of pushing education and trying to incentivize people to both recapitalize losses and getting getting being back to $1 and obviously getting back to $1 is going to be emphasizing the points that we discussed about. Now. The seed and stock issuance is changing for three curve. And kind of just explaining those mechanisms in a better way. But pushing that is there is those are kind of let's do both. Let's just educate and whatever happens, happens. But yeah, curious about that. So couple of things. One, with the recapitalization, the economics are such that they designed such that you expected high participation before the re plan and maybe immediately thereafter, but almost none after the interest rates started to come down, which is exactly what happened. So now that the interest rate is at its floor, you don't really expect until the like the marginal API for first holders to for new for holders getting 20% that like no one's going to recapitalize further. And so the point is until beanstalk is much larger, no one's buying more for it. So is that kind of the discussion? I don't know if you were on I think you were when Guy mentioned that like once kind of some of the sprouts get repaid out. Yeah, that's another angle of saying the same thing, which is that until, until Beanstalk has grown to pay back a lot of sprouts, it's not gonna be economically reasonable to buy more. So like the current fertilizer has a market price, but the current fertilizer is almost all paying like 500%, whereas the new fertilizer is paying 20%. So no one's going to the 20% until the 500% has been almost all paid back. So the recap is going to take a long time, or at least until Beanstalk has grown significantly from here. So then this gets to your larger question of like, is education the most important? Is the goal to grow Beanstalk as soon as possible? Is the goal to repack Beanstalk as soon as possible. I think a lot of people disagree on. So don't take this as like, whereas the other stuff we've been explaining, you know we we stand behind this is just our opinion. It is it is highly, highly. I mean, me it's very hard to believe that if people understand what is going on here, that will not be enough to get the system repaired, to get it growing again, and to get it chugging along both within the DEFI and crypto community to be more widely acknowledged as existing and being doing meaningful things. And for users that may want to participate in the system in some capacity from from this angle, like if we look at what else is happening in the crypto space and in particular in Defi, we think is some of the most exciting development happening, particularly in the EVM, right? This is state of the wealth, state of the art, EVM, tech, the beanstalk story. It's like a really compelling open discussion about money that no one is really participating and everyone's all on. That's hard money narrative. Ether is hard money, Bitcoin is hard money. No one wants to talk about stable money, but everyone knows. Everyone knows stable money is really important in this community. And this DAO were the only people working on it at this point. So from that perspective, you know, we've, I think collectively done a pretty bad job of getting, getting, getting included in the discussion and forcing stocks way into the discussion. And I think just getting getting the quality and the integrity of the work that is being done on people's radar and educating them about it, that's a problem. I, I pray that that is enough. You Know, like if that's not enough, you know, that sucks. But it's like, what more can you do? And I think in the current regulatory environment, you want to do more than either separate from like maybe you get there faster. It's like, what's the point? Mm hmm. Awesome. Yeah. No, I mean, I completely agree. I think, like, just my time in my obviously short time and participating in the Discord and just seeing kind of what everyone's talking about and updates and things of that nature that are going on. It's super exciting. And I yeah, I mean, there's obviously like a ton of updates and it's this problem that's continuing to be iterated on and whatnot. So I completely agree. I think like getting that message out there and emphasizing like how it is this, this problem that is continuing to be worked on and trying to be solved rather than here's a solution, but here's this problem. Here's the current approach. Here's how you can participate. I agree. I think that's a great what it is so cool. I mean, all my questions are answered. I know Asians back in here. If you have anything you want to go over, but I'll send over like a full thing. These channels kind of internal notes that I took, but this was super helpful. I really enjoyed being able to pick your brain. I mean, I personally have enough to go off of for a while in terms of like getting content out and getting things going. But definitely these will be helpful in the future. I'm sure that we can find time to be able to schedule these, but as obviously like wells and new things comes out, it'll definitely be needed, I'm guessing. But yeah, again, thank you a ton for all the conversation and answers to the question and everything. Our pleasure. And like I said, we can do this again next week if you guys would find it. Yeah, we'll talk you around. I don't know if you're in this or not, but we can figure out if we do want more of that. I know that Madison has no pressure. It's like it's like, you know, we don't want to waste time. We don't spend any kind of doesn't need to be spent. But you guys are, like, coming in, you know, gung ho. And we want to just be as much risk to those wheels as possible. So help us help you. Yeah. Yeah. We'll coordinate with guy. Like, we'll probably have, like, you know, we'll come back, we'll have a little internal chat about this and then, and then if we and then, and we'll talk internally and then you know, what you guys can expect on Wednesday is we'll have pretty good planning out of content over the next month and that will be kind of social longform will throw ideas out. So we'll have a larger discussion about what content you guys can expect on Wednesday. And then if we still feel like we need more than than we, then I'll talk to Guy or maybe schedule something again like this the following week. But yeah, this should give us enough fodder to kind of put together the plan and finalize all the plans and and all the content going to be going out on Wednesday. We can kind of plan that out. And then, you know, from then you guys will see, you know, all the content start coming out and you'll see all the socials being run really efficiently, you know, blog posting. I think there's a big focus on the educational content on the top half of this. And so this definitely helps us in that. So pumped about about, you know, things that are going to start getting kicked off and going. So yeah, appreciate everybody's time and and yeah, I know you guys are super busy with everything going on, so it means a lot that you guys took the time to kind of walk us through everything. Our pleasure. Really excited. You guys have joined the Join the fold. I'm loving it. I'm I'm really enjoying it so far. And yeah, excited to keep going on this journey. So yeah, thanks again. And we will potentially talk soon. Okay. Turn around. All right, Bye.