Ivan on Tech analyzes Bitcoin's position at the 200-week moving average and covers market news
Ivan on Tech presents a solo live stream covering Bitcoin's technical position, Michael Saylor's recent statements, SpaceX's IPO, and various crypto and stock market topics.
Summary
Ivan on Tech (Ivan) presents a solo live stream in which he argues that Bitcoin is currently in a buy zone, holding the 200-week moving average, and that the bear market bottom is likely approaching in Q4. He discusses Michael Saylor's contradictory statements about never selling Bitcoin, presenting audio evidence that Saylor previously promised not to sell while now claiming he never made that promise about the company. Ivan also covers the SpaceX IPO, raising the question of whether it marks the top of the AI bubble, and discusses Tom Lee's Ethereum strategy as structurally sounder than Saylor's perpetual-raising model. He closes with a Q&A covering AMD, Intel, XRP, Zcash's shielded pool vulnerability, memecoins, and a hypothetical scenario about fixing Ethereum's development direction.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Bitcoin at the 200-Week Moving Average
Ivan: Guys, welcome to another episode. As you can see right now, Bitcoin is doing something very interesting. Bitcoin is holding the 200-week moving average like a chad. We are still within the buy zone. The buy zone means that it's smart to buy. Within the green box, it's smart to buy. Can you repeat that in the comment section? Within the green box, it's smart to buy.
The reason I'm repeating that is I see sometimes people ask me, "Ivan, is it good to buy here, or should we wait longer, or what should we do?" Within the green box, it's smart to buy. Now, we're still in the bear trend, meaning that we could go lower — we could go lower into the green box. The green box is still quite big. We could go here to the 40s, to the 50s. But here is where being extra greedy doesn't give too much return, because overall, you look at the timeline — we're now towards the middle of the year. In Q4 we will likely see the bottom. So a few months here, a few months there, we're now getting closer to the end of the bear.
People say, "But the cycle doesn't listen." I look at the chart. The chart confirms that the cycle works quite exactly. We became bearish in October. Since then, it's been down only. And now that we see the 200-week moving average being reached — it's fantastic. This is the Valhalla zone for the next bull market. Just keep it in mind. So all in all, we are in quite a good position.
Stock Market Volatility and Trump's Iran Statements
Ivan: The stock market — the interesting thing is, if you look here at the stock market yesterday, it actually recovered quite nicely because Trump said yet again that Iran is not going to be attacked. He said before that they're going to attack, then he said it's not going to be attacked. So another pump and dump by the president. Probably his friends made a lot of money, because we did see this dump all the way here on the S&P to 7,200, then it recovered to 7,400. And this volatility, guys — money is being made left and right. This is not random, that there is an imminent attack, and then — great guys, great guys, Iran, great guys. We've seen it now maybe five or six times that it's almost an attack, and then great guys, Iran. The leader of Iran — what he said, "Praise Allah." When did he say it? He also had it in his Truth Social — "Praise Allah." This is the kind of stuff we're dealing with.
And this is why in the stock market, the best thing is to just look at the trend. If you look at the trend, it's bullish. All this volatility here and there — it's okay. Nothing has really changed for us. But many people get concerned. Many people got super concerned when we dumped a bit based on the pump and dump from Trump, and they said the AI bubble is popping. Many people said the AI bubble is popping. And at some point, maybe it will pop. We just don't know. So we're bullish until it's bearish.
SpaceX IPO and the AI Bubble Question
Ivan: Now, guys, in terms of the news, we have SpaceX. SpaceX is IPOing today. So maybe this is the day when the AI bubble pops — just like when Coinbase IPOed back in 2022, and that was the top of the crypto bubble back then. Maybe SpaceX is the top of the AI bubble.
Now, why are we saying AI when it's space? Because a big portion of the SpaceX IPO has to do with Grok. When you look at Elon Musk's companies, he's consolidating them more or less into SpaceX. So some of the biggest revenues here are actually from the AI business, xAI. It's called SpaceX, but space itself is a lesser part of the revenues. So it is more or less an AI IPO. Then of course you have the story about space — that's the extra valuation. So let's see what's going to happen here.
The retail attention to this is quite massive. SpaceX is now 2.4 times larger than the total amount raised in the previous largest IPO in history. So we have the biggest IPO in history. Retail is piling in. Could it be the top of the bubble with AI? Who the hell knows — it's bullish. So we're bullish overall. We will see how the stock starts trading. We're not piling in at the very start. Very likely we will see big discounts in the coming months. But the initial days — today, Monday, the initial week — probably going to be super volatile, super crazy.
Michael Saylor's Contradiction on Selling Bitcoin
Ivan: Now, guys, we need to speak about Michael Saylor. Holy crap. I think for Bitcoin, it's very good that Michael Saylor is being revealed as not fully — how do I say — I don't want to say dishonest. He's not fully honest, but I don't want to say that he's dishonest. It's just business. I actually blame more of the fanatics and the maxis who take each and every word he says as gospel and think that they live in La La Land. I feel sorry for them also, because imagine going through life where you listen to what people tell you and you take it at face value. You need to be using your brain a bit also.
And I think now many people are realizing — okay, with Saylor, he said many things, and most people did not use their brain at all. And now he's saying, "Hey, I sold Bitcoin and actually didn't tell you that I would never sell," which is not true, by the way. And they're so surprised. I feel sorry for the people. They're so surprised. Did you get born yesterday? And what I never liked was that the whole Bitcoin thesis for the past years has been hanging on this one guy — on Michael Saylor. I love Saylor. He's done a lot for Bitcoin, but the way that he's perceived by the industry is bad. So I want to change that. That's why we're a bit bearish on Saylor. Not because I dislike Saylor — I just don't like that everything hangs on him. Anyway, listen to this. When someone asked him, "Why did you sell Bitcoin? You said you would never sell Bitcoin," listen to this.
Michael Saylor: And I refuse to do it because a troll on Twitter said, "Hey, you said you never sell your Bitcoin." Okay, fine, and I'll destroy a hundred-billion-dollar company so that I don't sell my Bitcoin. The point is — I said to you, never sell your Bitcoin. I never said that the company wouldn't sell its Bitcoin. And anybody that's been listening to our earnings calls or reading our disclosures or has half a brain knows, for the last five years, we've been very clear that of course we sell the Bitcoin if we have to.
Ivan: But the thing is, the internet remembers. This is the problem. The internet remembers everything. Did he really say that the company will never sell Bitcoin? Did he really say that? Because we have proof.
Michael Saylor: "And I promise not to sell the Bitcoin. And so we're in the business of not selling Bitcoin."
Ivan: "I never said that the company wouldn't sell its Bitcoin." And: "I promise not to sell the Bitcoin." "I never said that the company wouldn't sell its Bitcoin." "I promise not to sell the Bitcoin."
Listen, guys — why? And people are surprised. To me, it's not a surprise. Of course — if he has to go bankrupt or whatever, cannot meet some debt obligation, is illiquid to pay — of course he's going to sell Bitcoin. But people said no. People in this industry, man — it's so gullible. That's why most people lose money in crypto. It's crazy. They believe everything. They're like freaking Snow White. They believe anything. You can tell them anything. It's insane.
So when people are now understanding the world for what it is, I like it. Was it dumb to say that he would never sell his Bitcoin? It was not fully honest. But what blows my mind more is that people take everything at face value. This whole industry hangs on what one guy said.
I feel it's very good that Saylor is busted a bit as the Wizard of Oz, because what he's doing is not unique. What he's doing is not unique. It's been done in many other industries — you take leverage to go heavy on an asset. It's very popular in real estate. The real estate developer takes big fat leverage, borrows a lot of money, builds new development, develops a new city. In many cases, it's very profitable. Sometimes not. Sometimes you build and there's no demand, and maybe for five or ten years it's a very hard market and you go bankrupt. It can happen. So with Saylor it's very similar. There's no magic. There is no magical money glitch. It's very good that the industry is understanding that.
Tom Lee's Ethereum Strategy vs. Saylor's Model
Ivan: Tom Lee — our other treasurer. What is he saying? He's saying that he's likely going to stop buying ETH soon. Bitcoin has single-handedly become Ethereum's most important institutional buyer, snapping up more than five million ETH since mid-2025, now with holdings at 4.6% of total supply. Tom Lee is signaling that the company may not need to go beyond 5%. There you go.
And by the way, this makes sense. I think it's good. This is smarter than just endlessly raising, like Saylor has been doing — inventing new ways to raise. Because this is very hard to do. You cannot have a business model that depends on you always raising. That's the problem with Saylor. It seems that he always has to raise, always has to get new money in order to be liquid, to pay dividends, et cetera. Tom Lee said, "Listen, here we have a cap, and we're going to be okay even if we don't have to buy more." That actually makes me more comfortable — that he's not in a position where he always has to raise ad infinitum.
And remember, he has yield. He's always liquid. This is the difference between Saylor and Tom Lee. Tom Lee more or less is always liquid because he has yield — he has a 3% yield from ETH, as long as he doesn't promise more than that. Which, by the way, he kind of did when he offered that 9% preferred stock — I don't know if that happened, but he was speaking about it. But as long as he does not offer anything more than ETH yield provides, fantastic. Of course, ETH yield is denominated in ETH — it could also go up if ETH pumps. Anyway, we're going to see what's going to happen. But Tom Lee more or less is in a better position. It would be crazy if Tom Lee survives longer than Saylor. He has a better fundamental because of staking.
STRIFE Preferred Stock and Saylor's Fundraising
Ivan: Let's check STRIFE. What's happening with STRIFE? Today is the last day for Saylor to raise money via STRIFE for this month. And he will fail. He will fail raising money because it is the last day before the ex-dividend day, which is on Monday. So today is Friday — the last day to raise — but he can only raise above 100, and it is still at 96. So he will not be able to raise.
I also think it's good. Not because I'm against MicroStrategy, but because we need to remove the magic. It's not like it's an infinite money machine that always sells. STRIFE is more or less a debt offering — it's not technically that, it's preferred stock, I know — but more or less kind of like that, because if he stops paying the dividend, this thing is going to collapse very fast. And if it collapses, it's going to be very bad for MicroStrategy. All of the retail plebs that bought it thinking it's like a pension — because Michael Saylor has been doing ads saying you just put your money here and get 10% — man, if they stop paying 10%, not only is the 10% going to stop coming, you will also not get your money back.
A lot of money is at stake here, because it's not like redeemable debt where you redeem your principal. It's a stock, meaning that someone has to buy it from you for the 100 bucks you paid for it, and it's just supply and demand. And why would someone buy it from you for 100 when they can't even get it to 100 now when it's paying a dividend? So it's going to be — I'm just fascinated. It's kind of like being in a circus, watching some acrobat doing crazy things on the ceiling. You're like, how the hell is he going to get out of here? That's how I see Saylor — like an acrobat. And all of the plebs who've given him money for the yield, they're also kind of part of it. They're being divided in half like a magic trick. Your net worth is kind of getting divided in half, because if he stops paying the dividend, it wouldn't surprise me if STRIFE falls to maybe 60, maybe 50 — who the hell knows. It needs to fall to the value without the dividend, which is like the MicroStrategy stock. So you can try to calculate how much that would be. Anyway, it's a big magic show. Very interesting magic show. Maybe this has to unravel before the next bull. Maybe. Let's see what's going to happen.
Q&A: Memecoins and the Murad Thesis
Ivan: On this note, let's go to Q&A — questions, answers, debates, discussions. Big shout out to Guzman for time-slapping us today.
Do you think there will be a new meme cycle? Very possible. The answer is I don't know. It's not relevant to the analysis for me. I don't care if it happens or if it doesn't happen. If it happens, we will see it on the trends. We're going to see all these memes pop up everywhere. We're going to see on the money line if it's bull or bear.
It depends on why you ask. If you ask because you have something that Murad told you to buy and you're still hodling — like Popcat or something that Murad told you to buy — man, you have to be careful with that. If you have all of these wrecked memes from last cycle, the chance of them coming back is quite low. Not impossible, but let's say Popcat — it's kind of going to all-time low now. Be super careful. I wouldn't touch it at all.
Now, if you ask because you're interested in getting and buying new stuff, that's a way better position. But don't rush it, because we have no signals that memes are going to come back. There's no signal yet, and we're going to see the signal. When we see the signal, we're going to let you know. To try and guess — will they come back, will they not — it's a waste of time.
And remember what Murad said? He said this is going to be like the new S&P. His highest conviction was SPX6900 because it's like S&P but it's 69. But also, if you've been around, you know that joke is fun today and not fun tomorrow. The joke your parent makes is not fun, man. Gen Z — they're 16, they have their own thing, their own slang. For us boomers to come in with the 69 thing — it's also creepy as hell. A new generation of crypto investors is coming.
Now looking back at this insanity — it's crazy. They were so confident this thing was going to go to billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions. You remember? He was saying, "I have the highest conviction." And now look at the chart. It's in a bare trend and it's more likely to break the low than go up. But if it goes bull trend, then okay, then it's a different story. You want to enter when it's bull. That's why you have the money scanner — you can set an alert for all of the assets, all of the cryptos, and get an email when it goes into bull trend.
That's the problem with memes in general. They're fun. But then — is it the new S&P? I mean, come on. You're a grown 40 or 50-year-old dude holding your pathetic memecoin while AI stocks have been mooning and Sandis did a 30x. You could have been in those. You're here instead. That's the problem with memes. They're fun, but they're disconnected from making money.
Coinbase AI Agent Integration
Ivan: Coinbase is now connecting your account to AI. This one is quite interesting. For the average pleb, it's very dangerous. Let me show you this clip of Brian Armstrong doing an AI demo.
Brian Armstrong: You'll know it's working when you can, for instance, get the Bitcoin price right on the command line — 62,000. So let's see what this looks like inside Claude. I'm going to fire up Claude Code, which is our wrapper around Claude, and let's give it a more difficult task here. So let's say: look up the top three protocols on Base by TVL that have a network token, create a buy order for $10 for each of them, and set a take-profit of plus 7%. I'll just say "use Coinbase CLI" to make sure it knows what I'm talking about. It's going to go think about that for a little bit. While it's doing that, I'll just show you some other features of the CLI itself. For instance, you can spin up this products and tickers view with the watch command and just keep an eye on whatever assets you want to track. And if you want to look up a specific order book, there's a nice command line interface for that too, which rapidly updates. All right, so let's go back and check on Claude Code. See how it did. It went for Aerodrome and Morpho. Those will be the top three on Base, and it added a take-profit as well at plus 7%. And you can actually see these show up in the order list over here — these sell orders. So pretty cool. Give it a shot. Let us know what you think, and try connecting to your account with your favorite AI agent.
Ivan: All in all, if you are tech-savvy and you know the limitations of AI, this could be pretty cool. Now the problem is — most people, what's going to happen? They're going to give their key to Claude Code. Then they're going to click some kind of link or install some kind of command that basically takes their key. Because with CLI, you know how non-technical people use AI — they just copy-paste a bunch of stuff online. They follow some guide: "Paste this into your AI agent, it's going to do magic for you." They paste it, it steals their freaking key. Okay? It steals the key that you gave to AI from Coinbase, or via prompt injections. It can happen easily.
So be a bit careful here with this AI agent stuff. Obviously it's very nice if you're technical and you use Claude every day — this can be quite fantastic. You know, just chat with it and say, "Hey, set up a buy order with take-profit." Obviously it's very nice. But for the average person who doesn't know the limitations, it's going to be very dangerous.
BNB Chain's Tokenized Stocks (BTOS)
Ivan: BNB and CZ — they also want to be part of this on-chain stock trading. They now do BTOS — 24/7 trading of tokenized US securities. It's always becoming funny now. You know, there was Hyperliquid, they did Aster — I don't know what happened to Aster, it went to zero. Now with Backpack, everything is happening on Solana with stocks. Hyperliquid also has stocks now. They do BTOS. Okay, 24/7 trading of tokenized US securities. It's like Temu, you know — you get Hyperliquid, and then you have the Temu version from Binance Chain. You have Solana Backpack, you have Hyperliquid, and then you have the Temu one from Binance Chain.
Anyway, BTOS — let me know if you have used it. I love CZ. I love Binance as a story — what they've been doing from zero, they became so big and really enabled a lot of the altcoin seasons in the past. Obviously many dark sides also. But at the same time — who is the strategy person of BNB? Because something is lacking here. Something is lacking. They're not innovating. They're not doing stuff that they did with Binance. Binance exchange was quite innovative when they did that with only having stablecoins so they don't need to deal with fiat, which enabled them to run very fast and not be super regulated in the beginning. They actually used their brain a lot. With BNB Chain, it feels like they gave it to some mid guy to manage it — to just maintain it or something — and he's just copying what he sees. Stocks? Let's do BTOS. Hyperliquid? Let's do Aster. Now they do BTOS. Why not do it in Aster? I don't know. It's a bit weird to me. But good luck.
STRIFE Fundraising Update
Ivan: Let's check STRIFE. What's happening with STRIFE? Today is the last day for Saylor to raise money via STRIFE for this month. Let's see — and he will fail. He will fail raising money because it is the last day before the ex-dividend day, and the ex-dividend day is on Monday. So today is Friday, the last day to raise, but he can only raise above 100, and it is still at 96. So he will not be able to raise. There you go.
Q&A: AMD and Intel Stock Analysis
Ivan: Ivan, can you check the AMD stock? Let's check AMD stock. It's bullish. Yeah, it's very bullish. Nothing more to say. Meaning that if you have it, you can still have it. If you don't have it, you can add a bit. The problem is you're not in a new bull trend. That's also why, with the money scanner, you get an alert when it's a new bull trend. This is not a new trend. So it's not the best possible scenario. But if you have to choose — do I hoddle Avalanche, which is going to all-time lows in a bear trend, or AMD? In this case, you want to be in bullish things. So this can easily continue further. But if it goes here, stop loss at 420.
Let's also look at the daily. The daily now starts to enter a new bear trend. What you could do — if this enters a bear trend on the daily, just wait for the new bull trend on the daily. Now, likely today it will open bear, it will open with a confirmed bear trend on the daily. So what you could do to optimize your entry, if you don't have AMD, is to just wait for this thing to enter a new bull trend. When is the new bull trend? We don't see it yet because we need to see this thing start trading. But this thing is going to open in bear trend.
So the conclusion here is: bull trend on the weekly, likely going to continue up — likely doesn't mean certainty. Daily starts to become bearish — wait for it to become bullish again, and that would be quite a good setup for AMD.
In terms of fundamentals — who the hell knows? It's AI Fugazi. They give loans, they invest in each other, they give loans to each other. There is probably some revenue happening somewhere. They're building stuff out. But I don't even try to understand all of the money flows. I just look at the charts. It's way easier. Everything is compressed into the chart.
Intel is the same. It's a bear trend. For Intel, don't touch it until it goes to bull trend on the daily. If you don't have Intel, don't touch it yet, because your risk-reward here is a bit bad — it's bear trend on the daily. Just wait for the bull flip, because likely Valhalla will resume. If you have Intel, don't worry, be happy. If you don't have Intel, don't touch it yet.
Q&A: Zcash Shielded Pool Vulnerability
Ivan: Please discuss Zcash post-exploit. Think any was printed in the shielded pool? It could be, but it's also not necessarily an issue. Let me bring up the chart.
So if you look fundamentally at what happened — the Zcash shielded pool potentially got inflated, new Zcash got created. But the Zcash team is actually handling that quite well from the perspective of ensuring that everyone in the world can double-count all the money.
The way it's going to work — the plan, at least, I don't know if they've started executing it — is that this shielded pool that potentially got wrongly inflated is going to be frozen. It's going to be stopped. If you have money in that pool, you can move it to the new version — they create a new pool, and you can just move over. No problem. Anyone can take their money and just move over to the new pool.
For those who don't know what a pool is in Zcash — it's basically where you have confidential transactions. So just think that you have one version of Zcash, potentially hyperinflated, and then you can migrate your coins to the new version. You still keep all of the secrecy. When you migrate, secrecy is kept, but the math is checked. So you don't transfer any hyperinflated coins — any coins created as a result of the bug. So I think it's a good solution. The world knows that no fake coins are able to move. Privacy is protected. You have a clear path from point A to point B, and it's checked that no inflated coins are passing.
With this situation, I think it's the best possible solution. I don't know any other solution. Obviously it would be better if there was no vulnerability, but by the way — there is likely no hack. It is a vulnerability that the Zcash team themselves found, disclosed themselves, and created the migration themselves. Likely there was no exploit — but likely is not 100%. That's why they still do the migration.
What would be bad — and what many many projects do — is say, "Oh, it's fine. It likely didn't happen. Don't ask questions. If you ask questions, if you dig into it, you're spreading FUD." Many projects do that. Instead, the Zcash team said, "Listen, we have a problem. Maybe something got minted, maybe not. Who the hell knows? Let's have a migration. We double-check everything." Good. I don't know what else you want.
Some people say that Zcash is from a specific religion. If you want to discuss that, you can, but we don't do that here. In terms of the chart — still bullish. If it goes bear, be careful. We're close to bear, but we're not there yet.
Q&A: Ethereum's Problems
Ivan: ETH solves all problems. No. The problem with ETH is that if you tell them something is bad, they tell you that you are spreading FUD. When I was saying that Zcash actually just fixed something very quickly — other coins don't do that. ETH is kind of like that. ETH doesn't scale. They have many reasons why it should be like that. They scale with Fugazi L2s — you tell them it's centralized, the Fugazi L2 is centralized. All of them are centralized. They say no, you're spreading FUD. You say it's centralized, they can take the coins, it's a multi-sig setup. They say no, you're spreading FUD. What has ETH done? Nothing. This is the problem when you have a team that doesn't want to hear feedback, doesn't want to hear good information from engineers. It's a big problem.
Q&A: Would Ivan Accept a Role at a Major Chain Foundation?
Ivan: Ivan, would you accept the position of co-director of a large chain foundation like ETH? What would you fix?
Would I accept? Likely not. Likely not. We have a fantastic thing with trading, with the markets, with what we do here. To go into foundation politics — I mean, okay, everything is okay, it depends on the price. The more correct answer is: it depends on the price. Let's say Vitalik comes to me and says, "I give you a trillion dollars." Obviously, man, I would be CEO of a foundation. I would deal with all the politics. Give me a trillion, I'm going to do it. See, this is what I don't like when people say never. Everything has a price. A trillion is not reasonable — no one's going to give it. 500 billion — still unreasonable. 100 billion — still unreasonable. Where is the line where it's reasonable and you would do it? I need to do that calculation. But everything has a price, man.
And based on what I've seen, they don't pay too much for people that actually do work. They pay a lot for people that do some Fugazi. Historically, ETH has been like that. They have so much in grants. Then you see who is receiving them and what are they doing — they don't deliver anything. The grant receivers, I don't know what they've been doing. The actual people who built the protocol receive pennies. Actual brainiacs who are building — as far as I've seen, they receive pennies. But if you have some kind of gender study on-chain or something, you can get a lot. Obviously I'm over-exaggerating, but not too much.
And what would I fix? I think in many cases — something like ETH — one person can't fix too much. There are so many interests. You come in there, what can you do? You need to be a credible leader that everyone unites around. And with ETH, they've been brainwashed into their own view of things. It's like you're the CEO of BlackBerry before it got fully wrecked. It's not just someone coming in and waving a magic wand. You have to reprogram the brains of people — to see how you compete. I'm not even sure it's possible to really turn it around quickly.
Also, the foundation doesn't even have a lot of money. How are they going to pay you? It's hard. Very hard. With their mindset, with how they see the world, competition, other chains, how they see themselves on the high horse — it's very hard.
Anyway, let's say everyone is aligned. They love me as leader. They do everything I tell them. Okay, then what we would do — we would focus on the product. We would speak with all the DeFi teams. We would invite Uniswap, get all the DeFi teams, get them into my office. I would put them here. We have to speak. What do you need to freaking crush it?
Because this is the problem they made with L2s. They did all the L2s and they never even asked a developer. Uniswap, for example — hey, do you want L2? Because what's going to happen is that you have a nice DEX. You have such a nice DEX. Wouldn't it be a shame if your liquidity is fully split across 100 L2s? Because the number one product of an exchange is liquidity — that you have good execution price. Wouldn't it be a shame if we just split it up so you have a bit of your liquidity on L1, a bit on L2 Base, a bit on L2 Optimism — we just split it. The people want to trade, they're going to have crap execution. How do they not use their brain? The brain — the on/off switch is permanently off.
So that's the first thing — just speak with the DeFi guys. How do you need cheap fees? Get a dev, fix the cheap fees. Don't give me excuses — code fast. Another dev checks the security so the fee guy doesn't mess up some security. Got to move fast. Got to figure it out. Hopefully not blow up the chain. But the thing is, it's going to die anyway soon. It's going to be Internet Explorer. So you need to use your brain here. Something has to happen.
Start with speaking to the DeFi founders and fix it. That's it. And if someone complains and doesn't want to fix it — get out. Who can fix it? You also need to manage all of these high priests with their ideas. If they're not aligned, you need to align the developers. Can you steal devs from Solana or something? So they have this mindset of execution — bam bam bam bam, get things going. But as you can see, if you tell that to ETH, they would say, "We never want to do anything like that. We have our own vision, our own mission." That's why it's better to just invest in what you like the most. That's way better.