Transcript+
It all comes down. To computers, communicating the information superhighway can be a confusing mix of on ramps and off ramps. Bitcoin is worthless artificial gold. Is it still rat poison? Probably rat poison squared. We need to get into the world of OK, this is actually foundational technology. What the Internet of Money does is it creates a single network which can do a microtransaction to a giga transaction. The Internet is going to be one of the major forces for reducing. The role of gun the. One thing that's missing that that will soon be developed is a reliable E cash. All righty boys, welcome back to another episode of Final Settlement. Today is Monday, March 24th, 2025 and with me today we've got a a big cast of characters. We've got my Co host Liam Nelson and Michael Tanguma. We're also joined by Mitch Kochman, Chief Revenue Officer at On Ramp and very special guest Ben Davis, CEO and Co founder of Native Insurance. Very excited to have him on the show. If you've been following On Ramp for everything we do. Big announcement with Native from last week, a partnership with them to secure an insurance policy for multi institution custody from Lloyd's of London. So very excited to to dig into that and unpack everything related to, you know how insurance has worked in the digital asset and Bitcoin space for sort of the 1st 16 years of its history and and what we're building today on top of this foundation of of multi institution custody. We'll get to all of that, but maybe just to start things off then it would be great for the audience to learn a bit more about yourself, your professional background, and native as well. Yeah, Before jumping in, super excited to have you on the pod. And I think the past 6 plus months, I think as the price has gone up, the industry has gotten very interested in insurance for this precious asset. And so after meeting your team and your backgrounds, really excited to have you talk about and dispel and demystify a lot of the insurance industry where the gaps are and how Lloyd's is actually frankly pretty sophisticated and understanding the asset class and where to price risk. It's just been necessarily not the easiest to price it in a cost effective manner. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I think there's some great points and happy to kind of go in that. So I guess for me, so I'm originally from Canada, I live in the UK for for 10 years now. I've been in insurance for 13 years and I would say the last eight years has been dedicated to digital assets and, and advancing the, the insurance community within, within the digital asset sphere. I think it's been very apparent to me that there's been no more excluded asset class in history than Bitcoin and, and digital assets when it comes to insurance. And so as my kind of journey and ensuring these, this emerging technology started and kind of progressed, I realized that there really needed to be a, a dedicated insurance broker for the the community that could kind of lead companies by the hand into, into a world basically where there is less risk than than where it is now. I think when Bitcoin first kind of came out and the whole idea of, of having this decentralized currency, we had this, we had a whole lot of innovation that kind of came out of it. But what actually happened was in a lot of instances, we were actually just finding new ways to put risk in, in, in different ways. And actually instead of de risking a lot of things in a, in a number of areas, risks started increasing. So like relying on, you know, centralized institutions to custody everything with very little risk management practices. As we found out with FTX collapsing or Celsius or the Terra Luna stable coin disaster right there, a lot of things started coming out where actually, you know, risk wasn't being handled the way I think maybe Satoshi envisioned when he first kind of wrote the white paper. And so a couple of years ago, myself and my Co founder, Dan Ross, we looked at the entire ecosystem and we could name 5 different companies that were born out of the digital asset ecosystem that focused on specific problems, whether it be custody, hedge funds, VC, exchange, whatever it is, they're all these verticals. And there were companies that had started the digital assets sector that were born to solve those problems unique to that industry, except when you got to insurance and there was no regulated insurance broker that could actually kind of navigate those those two worlds, kind of the traditional insurance finance world. And then, you know, the new decentralized economy of of today. And so that's why native was started. We started because we think that there's a massive chronic underinsurance problem in, in the Bitcoin industry. And in order for there to be mass adoption for consumers and institutions to feel safe and engaging in this world, there needs to be good risk management. And insurance is is a big part of that. And so that's why we started native and it's gone fortunately better than we had anticipated. I think we've had a lot of a really good kind of early successes in our in our, in our life cycle. And yeah, really excited about the future and working with you guys and, and bringing, you know, the, the vision of multi institutional custody to to more businesses. Yeah, No, thanks for that, that overview. I think, you know, it's, it's probably worth taking a bit of a step back and just talking more generally about, you know, insurance, the industry, why it exists, why people want it, why it hasn't been super applicable at least to date in the digital asset and Bitcoin ecosystem. So, so maybe we can touch on that, Ben and and whoever else wants to jump in on just like sort of how we got here in terms of the ecosystem and they're not being a lot of solutions for what we're describing. Brilliant. Yeah, I think there's there's a lot to bite off there. So I think whenever I'm kind of having these discussions, I like to kind of zoom out and actually just talk about insurance as a whole. Insurance is a capital market like anything else, right? You know, there's supply, demand. It is a financial service instead of trading equities, we trade risk in, in companies. And so back when I first started this, this journey in 2017, there was an incredibly limited appetite for, for digital asset risk. I would probably say, you know, now we're probably working with, you know, 30-40 companies back then. It was like 2 that, that could really write this. And I think why it was so limited was that it was in order to understand Bitcoin, you had to understand the problem, which is, you know, the Fiat money system, you know, is broken. And so when you walk into a boardroom of this big financial institution and you say, look, there's a Bitcoin thing, that's going to really kind of change things when you start under understanding this, getting our heads wrapped around it, because this is going to change pretty much everything we do. Everyone at that point was looking like you're about to deal with drugs or, you know, send money to who wherever. They didn't. The problem wasn't big enough for those people, the people sitting in the ivory tower to really like care that much. And so instead of walking into a boardroom where you're starting at like Ground Zero, where you can kind of build up the education you're starting at -2 because they already had all these preconceptions about what Bitcoin was even before you walked into the room. And so most of the education sessions I was doing back then was just trying to demystify a lot of the, the misconceptions. I mean, Bitcoin had a very bad PR problem back then. It was, it was just tons of fun, kind of constantly hitting the news cycles and on these new newspapers. And so when you walked into these boardrooms, people already kind of labeled you as the, the crazy guy. But ultimately what kind of started happening was more and more businesses started waking up to the fact that this was going to happen. There was going to be digital assets being put on the balance sheets of these big corporate companies, big publicly traded commercial companies. And if the insurance industry didn't wake up to it, there's two things that are going to happen. One, they were going to lose business to the client, to the companies that did understand it. 2 The, you know, the digital asset guys are going to figure out a way to do it better than them and leave them behind. And then, yeah, three, they wouldn't be able to kind of defend or acquire new, new, new customers because if more people are touching this technology and as soon as they touch it they can't underwrite it, then they can't grow as quickly or and hit the business targets. And so it's actually a big kind of fundamental problem for these companies. And so that's kind of like how how it started and how it started developing. It hasn't, you know, when when we really started going up this thing, probably six years ago, more and more companies started waking up to it, but there was still a big underinsurance problem. And then as the value started kind of rising and, and more serious companies started getting into the space, that's when, you know, we jump from like, you know, 10 companies to 40 because people started realizing, OK, this is actually here for the long haul, right? Back when? Back in 2017, I don't know if you guys remember, but people are calling it the the Tulip bubble, Tulip mania. And referring to some of that, yeah, exactly right, somehow. But but it stuck around and people are realizing that it's not just this flash in a pan, this bubble that people thought it was. It's actually something more. And so I think the the education is certainly much better now. I think companies are taking it much more seriously. We have a lot more serious players, big limits, you know, as you guys know with 100 million facility coming out, it's a serious space and and and it's now being taken as seriously as it needed to be. Ben, can you break down go a little deeper on because I'm always fascinated with entrepreneurs that have backgrounds, you know, specific to maybe it's not exactly what they're, they were previously doing, but it's adjacent. So they have deep market knowledge coupled with understanding the consumer or the client sentiment. So you can start to really commercialize. I think a lot of people come in a digital asset space. ID 8 on an idea, maybe raise some capital because there's a lot of money out there, but may not necessarily have the taste for what the market wants. And so curious like I'm not actually super familiar with Super scripts, but I know it's a larger firm. Here's what you did there. And then how it ties in a native and we're native, like really found a gap in them or a perceived gap that I think you found, you know, in where the market was lacking between the digital asset firm and Lloyd's and these other underwriters. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So I joined Suscript about 5 1/2 years ago and kind of then sort of as an underwriter and then kind of morphed my role into heading up the digital asset team. We grew up from zero to I think it was 19,000,000 GWP when we when we left. But as we kind of grew that book and started interacting more with the ecosystem, we really realized that there was this boundary, this limit, this threshold that you couldn't cross unless you went all in. Because the culture, the technology isn't something you can really just like bolt on. It's something you have to, you have to be immersed in and build it from the ground up. And so there was we could never and we had very ambitious vision of where we wanted to grow this thing as being the risk management center of the digital asset ecosystem. And we couldn't really get there unless we dove head first into it, raise that money and then built the foundations with that technology as as the underlying core. And so it didn't matter if it was superscript, if it was, you know, another big insurance broker, there's always this threshold that you can't quite get AT. And so my, my Co founder and I, I think there's actually three years ago now, we put our heads together and said, OK, where do we see the space going? Where do we see our solution come into play here? And we kind of iterated on it over the years. And then it basically just coincided with a lot of our clients and investor contacts just said, look, you guys got to go do this yourself. You know, we'll back you just go do this because the market needs something like this. And we were only really competing against the big financial institutions of the world that could never be agile and nimble and kind of move and, and go through the, the very big gaps that were kind of that have emerged in, in the digital asset insurance industry. And so that was kind of the, the impetus from it. It was we knew that we had to do it or else we'd never be able to kind of realize the vision. And it coincided with access to capital, access to to clients and having relationships in that entrenched distribution that we've worked with for the last eight years. So we've got great contacts all over the world with on all the big major digital asset hubs. So that once we got going, they all just kind of brought U.S. business and we would get up and running very, very quickly. And so yeah, it just kind of really all came together really nicely. That kind of preceded the the opening of Native. And it is it a over oversimplified version saying that the gap in the market you guys feel is that there's all these digital asset native firms that need to price and underwrite the, the, the custody or risk that they are engaging in. And they don't have the means, the market knowledge to go to the large syndicates and the Lloyds of the world to be able to articulate that and then get favorable pricing to make it economic. And that's what native steps in to fill. Or is there anything else that I'm missing there? Yeah. So that's, that's definitely the beginning of it. We just from the traditional insurance side of things, a lot of people were having a lot of very confusing discussions around insurance and they didn't really know what's insurable. You know, what do you have to take on your own balance sheet where you put onto a third party's, how to make it cost effective, how to segregate it, all that kind of stuff. And so we had a really great proposition where because we've been doing this for eight years, we knew exactly how to do it. We also have the relationships with the syndicates like you mentioned, Michael, so that we could introduce those, those clients and place them in the traditional into the traditional markets. However, the, the, the real kind of innovation we're bringing to market is now we're able to do all of that, but on chain. So we're actually able to build Bitcoin denominated insurance policies and other, you know, using stable coins as well and actually offset that risk onto a balance sheet denominated in digital assets. And so what's really cool and why I think 2025 is going to be a really big year for digital asset insurance is we have got now a few insurers that actually have balance sheets in Bitcoin and in Ethan some and USD where they can actually offset the liability onto digital assets. And if you're a broker and you don't have our capabilities, you can't even you can't engage because you have to have that Fiat, your systems all Fiat. So you'd have to work out a way where you don't get exposed to any digital assets where with us, because we have that tech in the background and we know how to do it it we're able to take advantage of this new wave of insurance that is coming out that is denominating digital assets. And so that's the big innovation. You know, no brokerage has ever done that before. And so we're really excited that we're the 1st that can kind of go in and, and, and bridge that gap. Yeah, it makes a ton of sense in terms of really needing the domain expertise to execute on this properly. And I think, you know, this is sort of a corollary to to what we talked a lot about on the custody side. It's just like Bitcoin is so unique. It's so different from custodial perspective. How you know where these risks actually manifest in the sense of like securing private key material is just very different than any other assets. So obviously the insurance of said asset is going to be very different. And so you do need that that fundamental expertise. Curious, you know, if we could dig into a little bit more around, you know, what's existed in the market to date. So like in terms of, you know, the coin bases of the world that have quote UN quote insurance policies, what are the pitfalls of that? Why is that, you know, really more or less marketing or or window dressing on and and not a really robust solution. And then how does that tie into, you know, what we're trying to build in terms of having more resilient foundations in terms of the custody itself and then having basically a more clear path to ensuring something that's more risk mitigated at the foundation? So insurance really started for, for custody by adapting forms, specie forms. So specie is, is the insurance that is used for things of value in vaults. So that's normally fine art, gold, silver, things like that jewelry that you know, you store in a vault, you lock it away, you forget it and you can insure it. When when the glasses came along, the the very first kind of iteration of a new policy basically envisioned a way where you know you could lock up some Bitcoin and Ledger, throw it in the bowl and you basically have the same kind of thing. And that. Believe it or not, that mentality is still the prevailing kind of mentality when you're insuring large amounts of digital assets. Because as soon as you start getting into that, you know, 200, three, 104 hundred, $500 million range, which you need if you're insuring, you know, however many billions or if if not more, right, you, you compromise on the coverage. So you have to, you have to have a bit more of a narrow policy because if you have a claim, the entire thing can, can, can go up. And so it's this kind of, it's been this dance in the insurance market really to kind of balance the limits that are being provided with how broad the wording is and how much it actually covers. Because you can't have these different levers. If you have a broader wording, you can't offer as much coverage because if you have it, then you can have a really, really bad day. For example, you know, like the buy bit hack is a great example of, you know, if they had $1.4 billion insurance policy, that would be, you know, potentially an entire insurance company that's just gone under or multiple insurance companies that have just gone under, right? So there has to be some I guess bars or limit fact limiting factors when you're offering that kind of that kind of coverage. What's coming along now is more we're now broadening out that wording to offer more like a crime style of wording, which is actually offering coverage for funds transfer fraud or. Hacking, more hacking style attacks where an external actor can kind of come in and hack the the underlying infrastructure. And so there's this, there is this kind of 22 mindsets and insurance. You can kind of go the, the tall and the, the narrow or you can go the broad and the short with kind of coverage and limitations. And So what a lot of the custodians have had predominantly is that kind of tall narrow coverage because that's the thing that has kind of been the thing that's attracted new users into the space. Ultimately insurance is a great vote of confidence for the underlying company. And I think that's why it's so cool that and so important that on Ramp has under underwritten the multi institutional custody model through Lloyds and we're now able to kind of offer this out to to your clients as well. Yeah, Maybe we can go a little broader there with the group. I know there's a lot of experience and expertise on this pan or on this this podcast specifically for Mitch, who is our Chief Revenue Officer here at On Ramp, but spent a few years working directly with leadership at Betco and and selling, you know, custody insurance. And there's this just notion and sentiment and it's not necessarily fair, but it's true that it's felt that insurance is more of window dressing than anything and that you have these large pools of assets that have billions of dollars, but then the policies are 110th to one 100th of that. And it's always understood if there's some risk there that the under the individual will not be made whole. And, and I think that there's an underlying component to that of just to the point that we talked about, it's the overlaying of traditional finance on top of this industry. I like to joke and say it's like, it's almost like if you were trying to build Instagram and you went to Kodak, like it's completely nonsense. It's alien, except for this is everyone's money. So it really make no sense if you're trying to build, if Instagram was a financial service firm to go to Kodak. And I think it ties back to, you know, the uniformity and the physical nature of like bank vaults and the, the reversal of transactions in the Fiat system or ledgers versus a digital bearer asset. And the thing that really would like stuck out to me was the Buybit hack because we're looking into some like just research on other theft or losses. And from a physical perspective, it was 20 times larger than the the previous biggest, which I think was there was two that were in the 50 to $60 million range. One was gold in Iraq and the other one was I think a painting in in Paris. But it's just this point if like underwriting insurance is fundamentally, it's like alien when you think of a digital bearer asset because you put it all in this wallet that's omnibus aggregated together. And the insurance is just kind of window dressing. And that's where most Bitcoin holders have ended up saying the best insurance for their Bitcoin is the way the cryptographic keys are secured, how the private keys. That's why they take them offline because the only way you can credibly make sure they're safe is by segregating them. You, you sever that Internet connection. So I knew I threw a lot out there, but that's just like setting the stage of like how we're here and that there's ways to inspire confidence, but it's basically like a check, check box for compliance on an institutional level. And then the individual is if they're educated, they know they're not really going to be made whole. God forbid there's a hack And the other side of that, people are hacked all day long on their personal accounts and they're never made whole from like their Coinbase and bit go wallets. You nailed it there. You know, we've got the we've got the first, you know, asset digitally native that that you can actually just lose. And it's not a checking account, it's not, you know, where you can just replace a row in a database. This is just a better asset. So you solve for it, you know, realistically with, with your infrastructure set up with, you know, keeping these the, the funds actually in cold storage on segregated addresses. So, you know, one incident doesn't tear down the whole system. But that said, you know, the you, you mentioned the compliance teams and you know, everybody. I, I've spoken to the largest Bitcoin treasuries there are and you know, and I did so at bit go and that's what I remember too. The first thing or one of the first things you get asked for is the insurance policy. And it's, it's a check mark. You know, it's, it's important to these firms, but it's also a sign, you know, on, on more than just a window dressing. It's a it's a sign that, you know, the, the infrastructure's been inspected and by by a firm that, you know, like a Lloyds that ultimately has stake in the game of, you know, they if they're signing off and blessing the infrastructure, you know, it's going to something happens. It's ultimately, you know, the policy was followed if it, it falls on them. So you know, they're looking to, you know, As for, for that signal to, you know, to make sure that the that's the first sort of speed bump of, you know, this is a firm I want to work with. And then, you know, they they get into the details of, you know, key management and you know, the finer details that a bit go or an on ramp, you know, where you know, progress through and you know, we we continue that discussion. But yeah, for insurance for sure is is the first speed bump and and very much was one of the first questions I got with talking to any of these firms. Yeah, it's it's a great way to show that you take risks seriously. So it's a sign of maturity. It also is a great kind of maybe call it like business liquidity provider where if you have it, it's a lot easier to transact and to contract with other businesses that that are requesting it, right? Like I would say probably one of the biggest sources of growth for us is from companies who either needed to get regulated or need it for big contracts, right? Like you won't probably get even a seat at the table unless you have some sort of insurance there to to show that you're mature, you've you've done your due diligence, you're got risk on your mind. You know, I'm just going to blow up. And if anything did happen, at least you'd be able to make those people whole. So again, it's it's, it's big. I think like Mike, Michael, what you were saying about the kind of those big, big limits and those big omnibus wallets. I think what is going to be probably the next big trend in digital asset insurance is insuring on a per wallet basis and really having that segregation between accounts. Because at that point, if you can show, you know, proper segregation, you'll be able to have those dedicated limits kind of on a per wallet basis. And I know you guys have done a lot of work on on that in terms of, you know, having segregated client accounts. I think you call it vaults, is that right? Yeah, Yeah, Michael. I was just going to say maybe you want to give like a, a brief overview of, you know, multi institution vaults, why that is, you know, a more robust trust, minimized trust distributed structure and why that was able to effectively get underwriters more comfortable with. There can't be a omnibus style Black Swan event because the underlying infrastructure of our custody model is segregated on chain and very transparent. Yeah, Ben's the experts all let him dive into what his initial inclination or, or where he thought we had something and then going to the underwriters because I think there's a lot there and their understanding. But maybe before that, I think there's, it's really important to contextualize like what we're talking about here, because there's a few, I don't want to call them fallacies, but things that are embedded in the industry that are looked at as improved, like improvements that aren't actually improvements And and when you really like maybe their improvements incrementally. If there was no such thing as multi institution custody, but there is. And the one that you just referenced, Ben, that reminds me of another one is like the notion of diversification of of custody, right? Diversification of custody in general, diversification of anything is, is is implied. This is a cynical take, but it's true. It's implied that you don't actually know the future. So you're making a bet that you're, you're diversifying the fact it goes to, if you're an investor, everyone knows you, you, you place your bets, you double down on your winners. But generally when somebody doesn't know what they're necessarily doing, you see this across the FDIC insurance people park assets across banks or you see this right now, it's the institutional theme of segregating across institutional custodians because ultimately you're saying, I don't know which one's going to go up. So I'm, I'm insinuating that if I split it across 3 institutions, I lose 33% of my assets or five institutions. It's similar with an individual in their custody. If you're diversifying your custody, you know, there's a natural version that we spent, you know, hundreds, if not thousands of years of walking around money and then safeguarding money. But if you're thinking of custody and splitting around 2530% of a total stack of Bitcoin across four different entities, you're basically saying, I don't know which one is going to like have that Black Swan. So I need to like make sure I don't have that happen. And I think that's similar. It's similar vein to what you're describing and segregating the wallets from an institutional level because ultimately generally those are the same private keys that are securing the omnibus as the individual wallet. So you can do it per wallet, but there's a full, there's a fundamental reason why these policies haven't gotten past 203 hundred, 400 million at the highest level is because I'd be curious, Ben, is there a what's the reason for that? Because that ties into this like what I'm describing. For securing the higher limits or. Yeah, where you generally run into this threshold of my understanding it's like anywhere between 3:00 to 400 million at the highest end that any exchange or custodian has been insured from a like a loss. Yeah. I mean there there's a lot of factors that that determine that. A lot of it is well, some of it's right regulations saying you have to ensure up to a certain limit. So if you have a billion, you have to sharpen sure up to let's call it 30% of your your cold storage or hot wallet or its budget. Just people can't afford to purchase full limit or it's for a contract. But also like when you start getting up to that amount of coverage, the amount of companies you have available that can provide that amount of coverage starts declining. So you, you, there's only, you know, it's, it's kind of a seller's market at this point where they can kind of figure, they set the rules, they deploy as much as they want and then they don't really need to deploy anymore. They can get a good rate for it. They can set the terms. And so they can say, look, on this risk, we only want to do, you know, 100,000,200 million, whatever it is, because at the back they're also working with other syndicates and reinsurers that kind of spread out that risk. So there's a few different reasons for that. Yeah, that's that's what I've kind of started seeing as the I guess the common kind of point for some reason, I don't know why if it's it just converges there, but yeah, it does. In the way my perception of it is, is that it's a there's an economic reality that I call like the barbell problem of on that side, the market has formed around that number from an economic perspective of custody can only be charged so much to be competitive. So you have to be, whether it's the liquidity from the institutional side to being able to sell it, you everyone's come to that agreement. It's roughly 3 to 500 million. If there's a existential hack or some problem at that custodian, most likely you're not being made whole. And then there's the other side of the barbell, which is a little different in the sense when it's physical assets, it's easier to underwrite, you know, a Rolex watch or a diamond ring or even like the art because you can start to like understand the physical world. And there's a lot of friction between the bad actor and that and, and the premiums. And even that starts to get not economically feasible. But when it becomes the digital assets, if somebody's trying to secure their own setup, their own multi sig setup, it turns into this like snowflake problem where everyone's fundamentally going to be a little bit different. How do you underwrite it, how the keys are stored? And so then it becomes very economically on the other side, not feasible because you end up paying, you know, 1 to 2%, if not higher. And then on the premium side, you have to pay 10 to 50%. So you're basically stuck on both sides. And this is just a, a fundamental like point of how early we are to this asset class. And so this notion of what multi institution brings is it's this unique opportunity where you can put it on chain segregated, you can have a vault or address title to that person's name. But then the institutions and the underwriters already have done the qualified custodians, they already know how to underwrite the risk, how they secure that cryptographic material. And so it turns into orders of magnitude higher or de risking while also being able to have it on the client side on chain segregated. And so if there is some kind of whether it's negligence, malfeasance, collusion, it's at a policy level or at a wallet level, not at the entire aggregate of all the assets secured. And so independent of the insurance, it's just it's a game changer as we're realizing for all the way from individuals to the pensions we work with. But then now you can layer on insurance. And I think where this naturally progresses is you start to make it more bulletproof for institutions just to hold spot custody and we're spot Bitcoin in this type of custody as that comes in. It's a natural progression. If those institutions are holding in that way, then they can actually start to provide liquidity dollars to underwrite the insurance in the same way that somebody's underwriting the insurance to provide that liquidity now can feel more comfortable in the spot custody. And I don't know which ones I don't think it's a chicken or egg from. I think they just happened simultaneously as we go up the market and now you can get hundreds and hundreds, if not billions of dollars in these policies. And so that's kind of how I the my layman version of like how I think this goes because I don't know the insurance industry. I just know that when you look at a market and it's just mispriced on both sides incorrectly, you have to naturally standardize that process to really grow the industry forward. And I think that's what gets us excited about merging insurance with multi institution custody. And I think if you look at, sorry, the single party custodians out there, it's a race to 0 right now on, on custody fees. And you know, when you've got revenues decreasing on the custody side, you on, you know, the insurance, which is an expense for them. You know, it's, it's ultimately how much is enough that that I can get by. And I think that drives some of this is, you know, at a certain point, you know, 3400 million, you can go tell your clients to go break up, you know, if they're comfortable with how the keys are held. And you know, it isn't true cold storage, you break up into different wallets. And that's, that's how the problem is addressed today. But that said, you know, we all know price can change very quickly. And also as price changes very quickly, the risks, you know, with single party customers can also change very quickly. So it's, it's gotten us by this far. And I, you know, I would say it actually hasn't because you've got incidents all over the place, you know, across this industry of that scream, you need something better. It's the reason why I'm here. The reason why I wanted to work on multi institutions is this is the better way. You know, you start primarily with the infrastructure, building resilience systems that can handle an incident. You know that, you know, an incident would, would, would hit one of the, you know, the institutions that hold an asset rather than the the majority. But that said, it does unlock, you know, like Michael said, that the chicken or egg, it unlocks sort of the, the art of the possible on the insurance side of, you know, how can we do this differently? And then the testament to to working with you is, you know, this is this was step one here. There were so many ways and we have talked about so many ways of, of how we grow this partnership and, and the art of the possible to, you know, it's really changed the way that the, the asset is insured. And I'm, I'm excited to see what's, you know, what in the years to come, you know, more announcements in this space. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Sorry, Leyton, did you want to add something? One thing that I thought is interesting too and Mitch, you mentioned custody going to 0 in terms of the cost for and consumers. And you know you still are kind of paying for it one way or another. They're going to pass that along in terms of higher fees for trading or XY and Z, but also you're also paying for it either with fees or with just a horrible custodial setup from the actual custodian. And that's been fine in the past because a lot of these custodians are really large and they've always thought, OK, the end user can always just go hold their own private keys because that's how they were brought up and kind of the the cypherpunk era. And but like there are more people that just continually want Bitcoin price exposure that, you know, don't necessarily want to hold the private keys, especially as a first step. And so it's just necessarily going to either 'cause their customers to move elsewhere if they aren't charging for that custody. Or they're just. Not upgrading it or the customers really get to pay for it in the end. Run by just, you know, losing all their Bitcoin if something happens to the exchange. Yeah. The way I think about that dynamic, Liam, that you just described is it feels like you're paying zero if you're holding your, your coins on Coinbase, but there's some tail risk that, that could go to 0. Whether you get socially engineered or there's an internal hack at the entity, there's some tail risk associated with that. So while you think you're paying 0 today, you're potentially paying 100% of your balance at some point in time. And there's some, you know, percentage probability associated with that. And that's what's just baked into what you know, you, you seeing yourself as paying zero fees. It's it's not actually on a risk adjusted basis 0. Yeah, and the same goes with completely self custody too, right? Yeah, I think like the way I look at that this I look at it from multiple angles. I think, you know, just talking about the risk side of things when I was learning about on ramp and I we had our original conversation with with Michael and Mitch, however many months ago at this point, I was starting to think about my own kind of setup actually. And it really got me thinking about security and actually weirdly like the most effect, some of the most effective hacks are the ones that are just done with a wrench, right, like a wrench attack style hacks. And that was something that I was really kind of getting more worried about as the value kind of accrued. And I thought, you know, what if something happened to me? What if I was in danger? You know, how can I safeguard my family and and? Value and so actually, you know, speaking with Michael and learning more about the on ramp solution, I love the multi redundancy side of things. So you can only spread the keys in the organization, but you work with other organizations who do that as well. So there's multiple steps of redundancy and then you have inheritance built in the platform, which is something that I had really struggled with because I was interested about it, but I never really found a good kind of provider. And so you guys had that as standard. And so, you know, me being an insurance person, always kind of thinking about risk, actually de risked my personal life as well, which which was really cool. And then just talking about like multi institution custody in general. The way I kind of looked at it when I was kind of going through the onboarding process and you know, becoming a client of on Ramp and then working with you guys on the insurance, I kind of looked at on ramp as the protocol of how companies in Bitcoin work together. And actually as you grow the multi institutional custody model, they'll you'll start having these amazing network effects could already be happening now. But the more companies and you know, very credible institutions you bring on into the model, the bigger it grows and the more safe it is and it becomes this kind of reinforcing or self fulfilling kind of cycle where you have individuals that want better custody that ask their custodians or the custodians are aware that they need to have more redundancy in place, that there are probably some single points of failure. You know, even with even with NPC technology, there's been a ton of hacks just on API cosigners, right, that just come in, they hack them and they're able to get it without having to really compromise much. And so with what you guys are building and doing, I really see that the future can be built with the community in mind because what you guys are really building is a community minded security solution, right? You're working with other companies, you're not taking the onus all on yourself to to be, you know, the single point of failure ultimately. And so having that mindset allows, you know, insurance and insurance loves that because when we are doing the underwriter or we're working with the underwriters and looking at the risk profile, the number one thing we're constantly asking ourselves is what's the single point of failure? Where does this all go wrong? And the more redundancy you build in the, the more safe it is. The risk comes down for, you know, people, just normal people like myself. Also risk comes down for the entities working together because they all understand the custody and, and the architecture and how they're cooperating in this multi institutional custody model. And then premiums get cheaper because everybody's more safer. And so that's why I think it's so cool. And then when you start building in that Bitcoin denominated insurance stuff that hopefully will be much more prevalent this year, you start having, you know, a solution that can't be beat because it's all it all starts getting entwined And you have people covering each other. You have it denominated in a Bitcoin so you don't have to go out into the Fiat system and it's safer. So that it's it's much more cost effective for everyone. So I really see that kind of as the the, the linchpin or the key that kind of unlocks better capacity, better pricing in the future. Yeah, there's a lot of, there's a lot of secrets in this space that we share, but they're just not widely known. And you touched on a few like one of the main ones is the most sophisticated people use us like at the largest firms you can think of. And Ben just referenced, he's been in the space, understands it and understands what we're trying to do. And so the problem in this market is we're still so early and it's maybe sophistication, education, whatever it is, it's like time and market. You realize where the risk lies and what the most optimal product solution for for the market and individual all the way to an institution and a few other secrets that are true, but they sound like completely antithetical to Bitcoin or what most people have been educated on is most people actually don't want to be their own bank. There's a reason why we don't take all of our money out of the equity equity market and bonds and put it in a duffel bag and walk around with it or all the gold and bury it around. Like Bitcoin and gold are actually much more and dollars are like much more similar than different in the sense that like it's, it's a it's a bear instrument. You can hold it, it could sort value. Now it stores value better. But the reality is the reason why we don't do all these things is because once the price gets to a certain level, we've already played this out when it comes to the risks associated. And it's the thing that people are just generally not ready for is 250,750 thousand, 1.2 million. The amount of physical risk that will will be, will be embedded in that. But then also just on the institutional or I'm sorry, on the custody side, just like single party custody. And it's a similar relationship to the financial crisis that occur because ultimately you let you just keep her pay, you keep papering over bad debt. And so eventually the system tries to deleveraging to get these cycles where we see this accelerated in crypto because it's like accelerated deleveraging events when you get the finances or not finance, but FTX block by Celsius. And so similar to this, which you described as like Daisy Cheney resilience. So if somebody goes down or goes away, you're not knocked out of the game. So we just generally came into the space individuals educated about being romanticized about holding your own keys and being your own bank, but you have to go back and embed. Well, why was that? And it's because you couldn't trust a single custodian because there's no insurance. They didn't have all this risk. But once you like, start on the premise that a, most people don't want to control all their wealth underneath their mattress or if they get hit by a bus because they want their family to get it. And that there's now newer solutions that you can reduce trust, trust minimize. Nothing's really trustless because even if you hold your own keys, you have to trust yourself not to mess it up. You can just start to see how this market forms. And, and the, the sad part about all this is it's literally the reason why this asset class is in a $10 trillion asset. Like it's not that hard to understand. There's only 21 million. Maybe it'll become valuable if other people agree that there's some value to that. It's just that people can't put material wealth in an asset that can just keep going up in smoke, which is the common tropes that get lauded and thrown around in the media. It's like by bit FTX, they just keep happening. So when we go talk to the large institutions and clients, when they come on, it's like, you don't need MIC, you don't need multi institution. If there's not going to be any more hacks, there's not going to be any more bad actors, you know, all that goes away. But if that's not happening, then the reality is this, this solution ends up being the end state as bitcoins, millions and millions of dollars. And it's not for all the assets. It's just to keep the system credible and safer versus having to trust yourself for a single third party. Yeah, it's, it's probably worth just double clicking on one thing that that you reference in there and it's really, you know, what is multi institution custody. It's adding fault tolerance and redundancy. It's a Bitcoin custody really for the first time in its in its history of 16 years. Because whether you're managing keys in self custody or trusting a single entity, there's some single point of failure that to your point, Michael, you can get knocked out of the game. You can be totally right on Bitcoin. It's appreciation. You know your thesis for its value and wake up one day and your allocation is 0. And that is untenable for folks who are looking to allocate material size to the asset. And I think that I think you're spot on in like, yeah, we're probably a $10 trillion asset already. If we had figured this out a little bit sooner, a way to add fault tolerance to a setup because you're exactly right. Like if you can't have that conviction and confidence that you know, the assets going to be there into the future, whether that's tomorrow, 5-10, fifty years from now, you, you just, you're not going to allocate as much as you otherwise would, right? It, it's a one or 2% fire allocation as opposed to a ten 2550% allocation of portfolio. And you know, the, the people that have been here for years have just been putting up with basically sub optimal solutions where the burden is on them, particularly on the self custody side. It's, you know, the, there's a realization that I can't just keep this on Coinbase. I can't keep it on a single entity. I can't live with myself if that were to happen. So I'm going to take on the burden of, of managing the keys myself so that that, you know, that alternative doesn't happen. But now there's a hybrid approach. There's a, there's a middle ground way where you're not seeding. This is the key to me. You're not seeding unilateral control of the asset because none of the, the entities in the quorum have unilateral control. So that allows the end client to retain control because nothing can move without the express express, you know, express direction of of the end client. And so that's really what's unique at the core of of multi institution custody is fault tolerance, redundancy and allowing the client to retain control without having the burden of the private key management. One of the things on top of that, Brian and I say particularly Ben, what you said that that resonated with me and what we see across, you know, a lot of the calls we have with clients and resonates with me personally is, is the wrench attack. And there's products that can insure against the wrench attack today. But the fact of the matter is you still get wrench attacked and you know, sure, yes, you, you get, you get backstop for the funds. But like I've got two young kids. There's there's no way I'm going to do anything that that puts them at that more risk for, for an incident like that where, you know, even if they're safe, they're still the, the, the emotional damage. And, you know, let's see you get back stuff with the funds. Like it doesn't matter. You know, at the end of the day, Michael says, you know, you're going to die for a trade or, you know, I'm not putting my like, I have no keys on my person because I I can't put them at risk. And I think we're going to start seeing, and we start seeing from our clients that, you know, the end of the day, it's about growing up and you know, this becomes a material portion of your wealth. Then you've got to, you got to treat that seriously because there's risks that come with that. So, you know, I applaud you for making that decision. It's what we see every day from our clients. But, and you know, one of the reasons why it was so important to me, Michael, and you know, our team that, that we provide this product for the individual first because we've got a, we've got a safeguard against these risks for people. Yeah, there's also like an important thing to call out here There, it's just a sign of like true broken market structure when you can target people to kidnap them because you can't. You don't do that for like if you have a big equity position or bond position, like there's just controls and processes in place to get that money through the system. But the other side of that is on the institutional space because a lot of the things we're doing here, similar to yourself, Ben, from the superscript days, you learned right what the market wants, where the gaps are. And I wouldn't have the confidence and conviction to say these things, let alone like us execute on them, unless I saw what happened in 21 and 22 with all the big players that people thought were too big to fail go under. And so right now, like there's a there's a trope understood in Bitcoin is most Bitcoin is lost by a false sense of security more than anything. Like people just naively go into a custodial relationship or they think that their private keys are secured when they're not all, all that. And I think what's what's coming and what we see is the risk is getting offset to the black rocks and the big institutions of the world because it's like they can't go under, they can't get lost, right. And and the reality is, I thought that too, even though we positioned against it, it just didn't. You don't believe it until it happens. And block fight was the one to pick on because they were Peter Thielbach, that billions of dollars, big valuation. You're like, you know, if something happens, it'll they'll get bailed out, they'll figure it out. The investors will come in, the equity will offset it. But the reality is the maths, the math and that everyone's offsetting this risk to these big ETF holders because that's a proxy for part of this. It's like one they talk about access to spot, but it's really like, Hey, it's somebody else's problem. And I think of like Stan Druckenmiller is a great example because I think he has like half a billion dollar or no, Paul Tudor Jones has half a billion dollar position. He has to know all of this. But the reality is like, what is he going to do? You go figure all this stuff out? It's like, no, it's, it's, it's Blackrock's problem. But really it's actually his problem because the whole trope of like, if they lose a dollar, it's their problem, you know, or whatever, If like 500 million goes lost out of his assets, it's really his problem. It's not Blackrock's problem anymore. He's going to maybe get dollars at best back. Yeah, absolutely. There's there's still just not enough. I think I probably had the worst call in human history when all the problem with FTX is happening. I think on the Tuesday I said these guys are too big to fail. No way they go under, right? Two days later they were gone. And it was just, you know, being in this industry with how fast things move and the fact that we aren't really backstopped by a government, right? If a company loses 100 million Bitcoin, government's not going to care, not going to step in. But you know, with the whole in 2008 financial costs, obviously it's more than 100 million. But the Fiat system is backed up all the time, right? They get bailed out all the time. We don't. And so because we don't, we should be even more I guess risk conscious than the Fiat system because, you know, it's all it's on all of us. It's on the retail investors ultimately they're the ones that really lost out with all of these blow UPS over the last however many years. And so, yeah, I think, you know, there's a very good case to to make that we need to be even better than the Fiat system if we are to survive for, you know, the years to come. Yeah, 100% maybe. Would it be worth, you know, giving folks just an overview of the partnership, what it means for on ramp clients, sort of what's included if we could do a brief overview of that and then sort of, you know, what's next? Where is it headed? What's on natives road map for for future developments and services? Yeah, great. So for the on ramp stuff, so we were really pleased to collaborate with on Ramp. We've been doing it for a number of months and doing the underwriting submission and review with Boyd's of London. So we presented to a number of boys of London carriers who it was actually really cool because you can see them have the questions, the underwriting questions that they would normally be used for for traditional custodians. And then the answers that we're coming back with, you can see that they realize that this is something different. And so that was kind of cool to see almost like in a real time realization that OK, actually a number of the problems that we kind of normally look for aren't really apparent in the multi institutional custody model. So seeing that happen and you know, seeing it with very knowledgeable underwriters who've seen pretty much every custodian under the sun, they were, you know, it was very, it was a really cool point in, in our, in our careers. So we worked with on ramp. And I think this is again, one of the beauty, one of the points of beauty that we were able to collaborate on is because the, the infrastructure and the model is robust and has these redundancies and different mechanisms built in. We didn't have to have a, a very large kind of policy that covered everything under the sun because it was already mitigated a lot with the with the solution. So what we could do is get really targeted with what we covered and really made sure that the policy did what we wanted it to do and cover the the gaps that the this the system didn't 100% cover, namely humans, right? You can't have brain chips in humans walking around, right? So for all that technical security risks, that was something that the system and the the the infrastructure covered really well. The stuff that we wanted to cover and offset onto an insurer was the people risk. And so that was something that was was really exciting and and then that was what we really built onto for the client program. And So what we're offering now through the underwriting that we've done with on ramp is the ability for their clients to now come on and have dedicated policy limits on for their vaults in in the in the multi institutional custody model, which is super exciting. We think that's going to be a really big kind of driver for again de risking in this industry and that serves as the baseline for what we hope to kind of bring about maybe this year, hopefully this year, which is more insurance solutions being underpinned by the multi institutional custody model, hopefully denominated in Bitcoin. And that's the ultimate goal, right? Ultimately we want this to be denominated in Bitcoin built on a very solid foundation that has already been underwritten, like the on ramp multi institutional custody model. Yeah, I think there's two really interesting things embedded in there. 1 is it's just a notion of maybe even on, on this discussion might disagree with the market may a bit, but it's reality that most people don't want to pay much for insurance like they want it, but they don't want to pay much for it. And so to do it effectively, you and to do it effectively, meaning for the underlying individuals policy to be paid out, you have to bake it into your structure, your business model. That's like the cherry on top. But it's not why they just go to a provider because if you think about having again to that pain, 100 to 200 basis points in the premiums you're just going to deal with, you'll take the easy route and just leave it in self custody or or third party custody, which you highlighted really well in explaining the risk and why you can drive those costs down and why the underwriters. But the other one, which you referenced around Bitcoin denominated and just anything that can be done here is that it gets lost that multi sig is native to the protocol, no pun intended. It's native to the protocol. So there is, it's interoperable, it's scales beautifully. And what it allows you to do is scale in proportion to the amount of assets sitting in a wallet. So people generally get tied to two of three and they get tied to the existing key holders that we have today. And it's like, think of the largest banks and the largest financial institutions. They will participate in our model and you just, you actually don't, it's kind of counterintuitive. You don't really want them today. I kind of joke. It's like the best key holders tomorrow aren't the best key holders today and the best key holders today won't be the best key holders tomorrow. Meaning sometimes we have to explain who coin cover is or who Bitco is and these other firms. But the realities, they're digitally native. They're the best at doing what they do, but people haven't heard of them because they're busy with their lives and managing their everything else that they have. In the same way that maybe somebody wants B&Y or Bank of America because they're familiar with them. But the rallies, they have no idea about any of this stuff. So you really don't want them protecting the keys. And so you can see how as this asset class grows and they get educated and we help them and we talked to one of the ETF providers that called this Bulletproof the solution multi institution. The problem is that it melts brains because imagine going to the SEC and explaining that no single party holds the Bitcoin and having to go through all of that. But you can see we're one cycle away from this having to be a standard. And being a standard, it's less from the like regulatory side, just from the market requiring it from the third party custodians. Because if we see anywhere near what we saw, and I believe we will, that happened in 21 and 22. The market just starts to look at the different firms, whether it's Coinbase, Fidelity, whoever it is and say hey, like I'm actually need to move my assets off because I can't risk. The price goes to 500 K And now you're 4% position is now you know, 16 or whatever the number is and you're like, I can't risk you going out. I love you. But your balance sheet, you know, you have more assets than your balance sheet, your equity position. And so that's the idea is like this scales really nicely where if you have a policy and it needs to be a billion dollars, you need five key holders. Now you can start to underwrite that risk because three can go or two can go away in a three O 5 and you've lost 0 assets. And I think most people don't recognize this scales very nicely with the market as a whole. I'd say we, we, we, we constantly and I'm guilty of the two that we talk about the issues from 20212223 that the industry faced and you know, we sort of gloss over the fact that that we're not seeing this right now. I've had a $1.5 billion hack. We stuff. It like, and as the price goes up, you're going to start seeing more of it just because you know, even if you're, you know, you're, you're trying to be careful covering risk factors, you know, the, the incentive only grows larger. So, you know, this was, this was the first one. They just had bags and like they were able to backstop it and they were able to do stuff with the loan. But like they this was I mean, let's say there was another wallet, let's say, you know, yeah, they they took the Ethereum and the Solana. Like would we be in a different this would look a lot different. So it obviously the when you think like the the attack surface, you know, Ethereum, Solana, something that was a more you know, we we don't have the the same ability to go check addresses as as you do with Bitcoin. You know the reason why I mentioned it, But like these, these attacks are coming in 2025. I still seeing it. Then the one that I, I think happens the soonest for this adoption that's like becomes required is it's the one that's the most talked about right now is corporate adoption in corporate treasuries. Because if you think about it, all it's going to take, it doesn't have to be a big one. It just has to rumble through that industry, which is small, that you lost your corporate, you know, treasury with this asset. And then everyone else looks around and it's always like the big elephant MicroStrategy. Everyone loves talking about it. But you have all this, all these individual shareholders that there's embedded in the execution. Like people think that the risk is on the capital markets and all the things they're doing there. And there is risk there. But I mostly always look at like, how's the custody? And if somebody gets knocked out of the game there, that equity value collapses. And I think that's Hap that that like 1 instance will really spark I think on the corporate side because you're just managing others capital at that point and they'll be the fastest to move. I think the fiduciaries will still be a little slower, but I don't know. Ben, are you any thoughts on that from the corporate side? Yeah, it's interesting. I think like it's a bit funny. Like every time something like the buy that happens or the FTX happens, I always think, all right, this is the turning point. We're never having this again, right? Like I always think we're, we're going to learn from the mistakes and kind of move on. But I think sometimes I think sometimes memories are too short. And I think like we, I think there is a lot of risk baked into that the, the system. And like you said, Michael, like with all these corporate treasuries coming online, they really need to partner. These corporates really need to partner with somebody who knows what they're doing. Because if they don't and they just lost 30% of the balance sheet because they didn't do the due diligence or someone got hacked or someone signed a malicious transaction or whatever it is. Yeah, it's, it's a massive risk. And I think like, I think this is the biggest thing I, I wrote an article on would insurance have paid out for buyback? And my analysis was, yes, there would have been a policy that could have paid out, but the most they could have probably insured was 100 million, which is a drop like would have done nothing, right. And so the big thing is insurance is not enough. Insurance won't solve this problem. It's not enough. It's not even the solution. What is the solution is companies and individuals demanding better banding together, having security standards that first mitigate the risk and then you can transfer the risk that you can't mitigate to a balance sheet. Basically what on ramp did right? Looked at what, what are the risks, what needs to be transferred and we did that, that that approach needs to be replicated across the industry because what you're having right now is people that are either spending too little on risk. So they're not, they're not even thinking about it at all or too much. And they're, and what Brian said earlier, which is that kind of, you know, you're paying 100% for custody because you've got hat. And so you're having this like big disparity between the people that are paying too little, getting hacked, people are paying too much because they are getting hacked again. And then this middle where we're trying to thoughtfully manage the risk and balance it from the balance sheet of the corporate and then the balance sheet to the insurer or the third party who's taking on that risk. And so that's kind of how I see the space moving forward is there's got to be this interplay between the industry that's getting better from, you know, less risky, so better, better risk profile and the insurance industry that can then go and lower the premiums, get better products and transfer that risk onto the balance sheet. Yeah. Ben, do you want to talk about a little bit tying into as much as you want to share? I know we've had discussions on like what is a, a better model, maybe breaking down a little bit of like mutuals. I know it's a it's a it gets pretty, you know, the the history of them, but describing how you can do this because you referenced on chain. And I think there's something elegant that can be solved for Bitcoin denominated pulling together assets from under under the individuals that hold Bitcoin that understand the risk can make some annual premium on that while also securing and growing that pie to offset any of the losses that you're describing at a more. I don't know if a gala Terian is the right way, but in a more like a mutual what they were intended to do, not having to go to a third party that may not even be solvent, because that's the reality of most people look at insurers and they don't even know necessarily if somebody's fully solvent. If you'll ever even be paid out is a bit. It goes back to the most bitcoins loss from a false sense of security and going back to the best security of your Bitcoin is the way or best insurance. Your Bitcoin is the way the private keys are stored because the insurance is not the the the Holy Grail. To your point, it's the fall back plan. God forbid something happens. Yeah, absolutely. I think like what's funny about insurance is you know insurers aren't 1 to one backed either, right. So insurers have financial strength ratings and you don't need to financial strength rating when you're not holding 1:00 to 1:00. So they have solvency ratios. So they insure, you know, they'll map out what how likely they are to have a loss and then they'll hold stuff on the money on the balance sheet and financial instruments on the balance sheet to then offset that risk. What's really interesting is, is I really believe the mutual model of companies and individuals coming together to pool their assets and to kind of pay each other out if something bad goes wrong is actually very native to Bitcoin. I think that's actually like, if you look what Bitcoin is, it's community money all over the world that doesn't need a financial intermediary to regulate it. And so I actually think that form of insurance where you have companies that are underinsured or not finding the right products in the traditional market banding together and creating a new type of insurance for Bitcoin community. And so when I was looking into this and doing some research for it, I looked at actually there was, I think it's in the 80s or the 90s where 100 of the top 500 companies in the, I think it was in the Footsie 500 banded together and created their own mutual. And so they're all publicly traded companies. They didn't really have anything connecting them other than that they were publicly traded companies. And what they did is they banded together and created a mutual called Excel. And they created this mutual to ensure their own risk. Because at that point, there was liquidity crunches, insurance premiums were rocketing up. There was global unrest, nothing like today at all, of course. And what these companies did is they banded together and insured each other and it worked out so well that they established an insurance company called Excel that grew. That insurance company then acquired Excel Catlin. So Catlin was a syndicate and Lloyd's very well known. They acquired that. And then Excel Catlin got acquired by AXA, which is one of the biggest insurance companies in the world. And so this is an amazing story of how a community banded together because of a pressing need that they weren't having the right insurance solutions that they wanted and actually grew to be one of the biggest kind of insurance companies in the world today. And I think if we look at that with Bitcoin, where you've got companies that need more capacity, they need better products banding together to create Bitcoin denominated native solutions, you'll be able to imagine a future where again, kind of following on what we've been talking about, where risk is, you know, kept within that community because ultimately they're the ones that understand it the best, right. Like if, if I gave you, if I gave on ramp, you know, pool of capital to underwrite, you'd be able to underwrite your solution way better than anybody else because you built it. You guys know it right? And so imagine having pooling that knowledge with other great builders in the space and ensuring other Bitcoin denominated risks. I think it's, you know, it's a beautiful way to manage this community going forward and, and making it all a safer space. Yeah, it's really well said. I mean, we, we talked about similar dynamics just on the pure custody side of, you know, you have this decentralized asset Bitcoin like that is core to its value prop, its distributed nature. And then, you know, a large swath of the market is kind of just OK with the asset centralizing in, in, you know, a few entities coffers. It's just antithetical. And so, you know, not only should custody be distributed, but, you know, even potentially insurance policy should be distributed. And the protocol itself gives us the ability to do this. And that's the unique nature of it relative to any other asset and why you don't see these sort of collaborative solutions with other assets and why, you know, historically in traditional finance and financial services, you just own it all yourself. You build the, the, you know, you build your castle with a Moat around it and you just try to try to protect it as best you can. I think we're fundamentally flipping that with this new asset because there are just different capabilities at the protocol level that allows you to distribute trust, distribute risk in really unique ways. It all kind of ties. It's part of where the foundation of why we have early riders and invest in this ecosystem is because we have a background in not only building but investing. But most of the time you look at this industry, people are investing in 2D versions of the world. They're looking at the existing models and then just building that version. You think of exchanges as the best example. It's like we've exchanged capital for goods for thousands of years and that's effectively what an exchange is. Well, there should be a 3D version of that where you can not only do that, but provide an underlying custodial relationship and then build the financial products on top of that. And then insurance is very similar. Individuals are investing in insurance, but they go back to the premise of well, you're holding the underlying asset and you still open up all that risk versus this is a 3D version and it ties really nicely to your point been around ties directly to Bitcoin because Bitcoin all relies on game theory. When you have nodes, individual participants and then the minors and it's very similar when you embed the holders managing the governance of the asset. Maybe they have to participate in the underwriting or whatever kind of financial instrument they're doing or the others have embedded risk associated. And so that's how you can know they can be all coordinate to do the most game theoretical optimal version of the next step, which is like signing the transaction or doing it is we saw this on my previous firm on the lending side, where if you get to the way to lend against the asset, where the dollars are being lent out, the bitcoins being held, you can start to make sure you manage that risk on margin calls, liquidations, transferring back that BTC. And so it's just a blind spot the industry hasn't fully adopted because you ultimately have people building the old financial way, which is, you know, the coin basis of the world, or you have people managing these plastic devices where ultimately it ends up with the individual participant. And you can't really manage risk that way because if you give a loan to somebody holding the devices, well, they can have the money and the dollars. And if you give the keys to the person, well, then it goes back to you can't really economically make it feasible for them to take the insurance out. So it's just a, it's an exciting time and to be working with you guys and have that pulse and on the mutual and just other things that we'll either be able to build here at On Ramp or invest in excited to work with you. And then anybody else interested in building in that sector? Yeah, absolutely. Maybe Before we wrap any, any final thoughts on partnership, where things are headed? Any final questions for Ben? I think we covered a lot. I don't know Liam or Mitch, if you have any, anything else. We went through the whole digital asset ecosystem and. Insurance All righty. Well, thank you very much for joining us, Ben. This is a a great discussion and if folks want to learn more about on Ramp or anything we're doing on the insurance side of things, please reach out to any member of our team or or visit the website to to learn more. We're going to let Ben plug where. Where do we find? Where do they find you, Ben? On socials or if they're interested in figuring out how to work with Native for their own firm. Yeah. So we're our websites www.native.inc. You can find us, find us there. Go to contact form there if you're interested in in insurance. And we've also got LinkedIn, Ben Davis on on LinkedIn. I don't really do much Twitter these days, so kind of stay in my own lane. But yeah, find us on our website. We've got a ton of information on the services we provide. We'd love to help you guys further. Awesome. All right, Thank you. Thanks, chance. Take care. Thanks for listening to this week's episode of the show. If you found the information valuable, please share the episode with a friend or leave a rating on your favorite podcast app. All the links we discussed in today's show will be in the show notes inside your podcast app. Before we finish, a quick reminder that On Rat Media is for informational and entertainment purposes only, and nothing should be construed as investment or legal advice. Regardless of where you are on your Bitcoin journey, we'd love to hear from you. Visit onrampbitcoin.com contact to schedule a consultation with one of our private client advisors.
Transcript source: fountain