EP. 13 Scaling Bitcoin - How @eCashOfficial Optimizes for Planetary Scale with Amaury Sechet from eCash

None of the following should be taken as business, investment, legal or tax advice. Enjoy the podcast. Hello and welcome back to the Swapspace Huddled podcast. I can see a lot of people gathering around and yeah, we're ready to get this show on road. So yeah, let's just give it a start with a quick how you feel and what you're doing vibe. So how's it going for you, Mari? What's been on the news for you lately? If we're talking about the crypto market in general, it's not been so good over the past couple of weeks, but people to zoom out. If you zoom out, you're going to realize that it's not so bad. Even for us, you know, even for us that have not done us wedding, that side college is not so bad. In terms of the cash, you know, we still are developing the stuff we are checking along on the roadmap and, you know, dropping money in time, what after another. So, you know, it's still doing fine. The perception doesn't really change what we are doing on that front. So yeah, I mean, I agree. The zoom out is actually a very good advice because you realize that, you know, if anything is going wrong for one market, it's usually the same for other markets too. And that's how it is with the stock market of the US and all the latest news that we've seen because of it. But, you know, times like these are necessary for the better times. And you can't have winners if there are no losers. So, I guess we can go off on that. So yeah, we're going to get into the topic of our discussion. We're going to discuss how eCache is going to be the next big competitor or I guess the next big replacement for Bitcoin because there is a certain need for a certain someone who's going to be that next big thing. And I think eCache has all the necessary tools for that. But we'll have to see, of course, in terms of the development for it. So I'd like to begin with a quick intro about you, Murray. So we have a recurring theme here on our podcast as in how our guest got into crypto, what made them stay, what you liked the most about it. And yeah, you're overall five that you get from crypto. I actually learn about Bitcoin fairly early on because I was following not crypto necessarily because that was not really a thing at the time, but the cypherpunk space where people were trying to use technology to improve freedom and stuff like that. And I did not look to closely at Bitcoin originally to be honest because people have to understand that at the time there was someone coming up with a new idea for the digital cashier regular basis and they were all wrong in some way, right? They could have worked. But what drove me to look into Bitcoin a bit more was late, I think late 2009, there was this article. So someone I follow posted this article about Bitcoin and I was like, oh, you know, like I heard that name around and it's been a few months already and contrary to all our attempts, it has not died down. So I should look into that. So I looked into it and I realized that it was not busted like previous attempt. At the same time, I was still a bit skeptical. Like everybody was at the time, I guess, it was not an established asset like it is right now, right? Like one thing changed up to they were super sketchy. Like most people were still wondering what is that thing. But really what still the deal for me was around 2012, there was this crisis, there's banking crisis in Cyprus where, you know, people could not access their money essentially at the bank. And at the same time, the price of Bitcoin went up. So obviously, one thing that is funny is that people at the time they were saying, well, people in Cyprus are going to use Bitcoin instead of bank because the bank did not work, but really the price was not going up because of those people because they didn't have access to their money. So they could not buy Bitcoin, right? Yeah. But what that told me is that a lot of people were looking at this and were like, okay, you know, like this thing actually it can happen in my country. Maybe you know, I should be thinking about it and maybe you know, take steps to protect myself against it. And the fact that this moved the price of Bitcoin was a sign for me that it was not just me looking at that thing and be like, okay, this is like an interesting tech project, but it's actually like something. Those are people we're seeing value in. And you know, from them, that was kind of like the event meant for me that told me this is going to get big. Oh, yeah, I can just doesn't make sense. Yeah, of course, absolutely. That makes sense because the exact situation that you described happened to John Lillick, the creator of Tezos, who was a guest on our podcast and he actually told me in the situation where he was visiting a foreign country and his bank account got blocked. And that was also back in 2010 and 2011. And he thought to himself, okay, so this is not going well. I need an alternative. I need to have a decentralized alternative. And I think it's always a good idea to have that alternative and diversify your assets into multiple different accounts and you know, multiple different ways of accessing your money. And that's what happened. That's how people got into crypto because you realize that you're so limited by the traditional financial systems that you can't help but search for that alternative. And that alternative is what brings us here. Yeah. And more than just limited because like a lot of people are going to look at that and if they have like fairly instant or use of their bank account or what not, they are going to think maybe, oh, I'm not limited. But you also are at the mercy with like, you know, if they don't want you next week, they can close your account and then what do you like, you cannot pay rent, you cannot buy food. Right. So it's going to be, it's going to get like really bad really quickly and hopefully you can find another bank account somewhere. But in the meantime, it's going to get really bad really quickly. And then another aspect of that is that cash is disappearing over time. Right. And so right now you may think that it's not so bad because, you know, I can get back with cash for a while if I have some cash. But the reality is like in some country, there is almost no cash already. Like if you go to Sweden, for instance, you have to the restaurant or whatever the supermarket, but not like, yeah, you know, to sort of them, they're just not going to not going to take cash at all. So they have bank notes and coins and stuff, but I don't know what they used them for because like most places they don't accept them anymore. And you know, those are the countries that are in the forefront of that. But it's the general direction that always their country are taking. Yeah, I remember I was doing market research for a Fintech company and I stumbled upon the graphs of a lot of these, you know, biggest payment service providers in Europe and also the Nordics. And I was and part of that research involved, you know, statistics on cash usage. This is also like two years ago, but still I was looking at the reports of ADN, Revolut, all these biggest players in the and the companies in Europe. And they noted a significant drop in cash usage. Somewhere it was around 6% after a year and then it was like 20% in Netherlands for some reason. It seems like they they made some strides in terms of taxes for all the small businesses to not accept cash. And maybe that's what that was the point of the that was the reason why cash usage drop, but you're absolutely right. And I can support it. Yeah, it's not forbidden per se, but exactly, you know, like they they might ate some kind of reporting that, you know, electronic payment application is going to do automatically for you. And if you do cash, you have to do a bunch of paperwork and stuff like that. So at some point, it's just stop accepting it for practical reason as a business. Yeah, this is what happened. Yeah, they don't bet it out right, but you know, it's just like year after year, make it more inconvenient than the year before. And people drop it by themselves. Yeah, I also want to note another reason for why cash usage is dropping in some other regions like the Latin, for instance, because I was also doing some research on Argentina. And this was for our video that we were doing on Liebertoken. There is a rug pool that happened with the president of Argentina, have your money. And I noticed a very interesting statistic for the crypto adoption in Argentina because, yeah, you can use cash there anywhere, but because of all the hindrances, both economically and politically and all the things that are happening inside Argentina with in terms of inflation and stuff like that, they actually resorted to using a lot more crypto than they use, you know, like traditional financial systems, as in banks, getting loans and stuff like that and also cash, they're also using crypto more. And that's why cash usage is also dropping there. So there are a lot, there are a lot of different reasons for why cash usage is dropping. Yeah, Latin America is a bit special in the sense that they're banking system there. Yeah, you know, it most country there is not being very reliable. And like almost all the country in South America have had some kind of economic collapse over the past 20 years. So yeah, people there are very different mindset and they are very much aware. of the impact of that. Yeah. You're absolutely right. But yeah, with that being said, I think we can actually set the foundation for the listeners who are unfamiliar with eCache and its purpose, especially from our side. And I want to help distinguish eCache from Bitcoin and other forks, showing how it is unique in its technological path and anything else. And so some of the facts that I managed to gather while I was doing research for the podcast is that eCache is a fork of Bitcoin Cash, but introducing a lot of significant upgrades. And I'm going to allow you to see what those upgrades are. It does retain Bitcoin's proof of work security, but it also integrates avalanche for finality and governance. Is that correct? Yeah, exactly. And unlike BTS, so unlike Bitcoin, which focuses on this digital coin and Bitcoin Cash, which I guess lacks like this clear scaling plan, eCache actually sticks to the original version of peer-to-peer electronic cash. Is that correct? Yeah, the spirit of trying to cash is really the plan here. Because so here is the deal. And let's talk about a bit the direction that Bitcoin to because if you don't understand that, you don't really understand why we're doing eCache. So at some point in its history, Bitcoin or like Bitcoin is not really a person, but the majority of stakeholder in the Bitcoin ecosystem, which is going to say Bitcoin, as a shortcut. Bitcoin decided that it wanted to be some sort of digital gold, not care very much about the media of eviction property. And at the time, the prediction, which unfortunately turned out to be right, was that if you do that, most people are going to end up using the coins through custodial solutions, because using it directly is going to become like a very poor experience, very low-quality experience and expensive as well. And somewhat in variables, slow all of that, right? Not good adjectives. What people are going to do to work on that is use custodial solution that works their problem for them, like those problems with the base layer. They are going to provide the service that allow you to work around those issues and charge you as a small fee for it. But here is the deal. Once you do that, you're back to square one. Those intermediaries, they are the new banks in some way. And so you are still at the mercy. And when people are like, well, with your Bitcoin, you are independent government. You can move across border with it and stuff like that. But here is the deal, though. I got some point. You're going to have to cash out through some kind of sort party. Yes. And there are more and more surveillance that is done at that level, more and more requirement, to prove that your money is clean and what the social it is and that it's all traceable and all of that. Yes. And so at the end of the day, you end up back to where you were before. And so the fact that the price went up and all of that is very good. And I appreciate that because I have some. But in terms of redone delivering tool, I think people are fooling themselves. It's lacking. It has the ability to be used at scale without third parties in the loop. And so from-- you know, if-- Yeah, once you understand that, and the issue care about the freedom aspect of it, which is what really got me into it to begin with, then you want to know the solution. And this is why we went for e-cache. So essentially, it's a fork of Bitcoin. And so many of the basic principles are similar to Bitcoin. But we've treated a few things to allow it to scale much better. And as you mentioned, we also added the avalanche consensus algorithm, so not like the AVAX coin or whatever, but it uses a similar algorithm called a balance. So that consensus algorithm comes with a few trade-offs that are different from NACA moto, the one that Bitcoin uses, or so like Coin and BCH and Boneser. And so the downside is that it doesn't leave a trade. It doesn't leave a blockchain behind itself if you join the network. The technical term is live-ness. It doesn't have live-ness. But the good aspect of it is that it can make decision very, very quickly. And so what we are doing is that we make decision with that avalanche algorithm. We make some of the decisions, the one that are time sensitive. But then we keep the NACA moto consensus that is historically existing into Bitcoin. We have not removed it. It's still there so that we still create the blockchain and the trail. And we have those nice property that is protocol provided. And so what do we get out of that? We get more regular blogs with an implement that we call hard bit. We get stronger finality. So essentially, once a blog is emitted, we run an avalanche consensus so that all the blogs, all the nodes in the network decide that, hey, this is the new tip of the chain. And what's the node I've decided that essentially, it's going to be very, very, very, very difficult. It practice never happened to reorg that block. So what happens is that if you deposit coins on the next chain, for instance, after one confirmation, plus the time to run a avalanche, which takes about two seconds. So once confirmation plus two seconds, and your transaction is final, then it's good. Except so. So we've been proved quite a bit the confirmation time, based on Bitcoin. We've improved the scaling of it. We've made the blog delivery more constant. It's not quite constant. It's not one block every 10 minutes. This is not technically possible as far as we know. There is no technology to do that at the moment. But it's more regular. And so obviously, the next big step would be to do what we're currently doing on blogs. But we want to do it on transaction so that when you submit a transaction in two seconds, we can tell you this is a final transaction or not. And when we release that, we're going to have two second confirmation time, effectively. Wow. It's the same technology as for blog. So we proved that it works. Though it's a bit more difficult to do it on transaction, just because the volume of transaction is higher. And there are more conflicts happening naturally. Like people can submit double spend much easier. And because submitting a new blog is expensive, you actually have to work in it. So there are very, very few conflicts that you need to resolve for blogs. And there are few blogs that are being produced. So there is a question of volume. But the algorithm themselves they do work. So it's a matter of time to release that thing. I see. Yeah. You actually got me beat there because I was actually going to ask the question about the standout feature of eCache. And of course, scalability is one of the things that you go there. But-- Yeah, I can go a bit into the detail of what feature we use for scalability. But I think it's-- I don't know if that interests audience, but it's going to get a bit technical if we do that. Yeah, yeah, not so much. But yeah. So the main topic of that question was supposed to be how-- as you mentioned, Bitcoin struggles with transaction throughput because that leads to congestion and high fees. And of course, that reliance on layer two solutions like Lightning Network. But yeah, the adoption has, of course, also been slowed due to liquidity issues around the world. Yeah, but Lightning Network is not going to solve it. Or for quite a fundamental reason, the thing is, if you want to be able to do large payments reliably on Lightning Network, and you do back to the development calculation of how many coins it has to be looked in the Lightning Network, you very quickly get to absolute number, like really, really large number. And so Lightning Network is-- and this is what I've always said. It's going to work for some specific applications, specific use case, but it's not going to be a general pop-up skin solution. But it's actually quite funny because it's the past that Bitcoin is taking right now. It's a bit of a speedrun of the banking system because the story of the banking system is pretty much the same. It's like-- Yeah. OK, you do your transaction with gold. It's very inconvenient putting the gold into like folds. And people are going to give you notes, reading the gold. And then you can trade the note instead of the gold itself, which is basically the idea of the Lightning Network. And what happened when you do that is that you have to lock an absurd amount of gold in those folds. For the same reason as you have to lock an absurd amount of Bitcoin in the Lightning Network. And the solution for that is to go fractional. This is why the bank are going fractional. They're going to be like, OK, we estimate that people are going to withdraw no more than this much, would have each vault. And therefore, we can emit more. notes so that we don't need to lock an absurd amount of gold in all those vaults. I don't know if Bitcoin is going to do that but I think it's likely that it will. If it doesn't though it's going to get stuck with the liquidity problem that you need to lock an absurd amount of coins in the lightning network. So I don't think it's a choice of the solution. Yeah, yeah, but it's been there from the one and it's going to, you know, it was predicted from the one. And actually quite interesting if you look at the original presentation from Joseph Poon about the lightning network and Daschria but this is a point raised by Joseph Poon. Joseph Poon estimated at the time that to whiz the lightning network you would still need 300 megabyte blocks on Bitcoin to really scale it. He was estimated that without you would need maybe two gigabyte blocks and really 300 megs blocks. I think it's estimate our a bit optimistic but at least, you know, those are, you know, you cannot predict the future, right? So the assumption that you make are always going to be different and you can debate the exact number but those that, you know, the kind of number you get with, you know, like relatively reasonable assumptions and, you know, it's not my number, it's from one of the creator of the lightning network. So you can hardly accuse those assumptions of being very biased against the lightning network. Wow. This is this is true experience coming from someone who has a decade that it who has a decade in crypto and I couldn't have been more happy to have this discussion with you here. Maria, yeah, a spitting fire is what they say but yeah, I really want to keep this going. And one thing I wanted to mention on top of everything that you've said so far is if we take into account everything that you've said with you know, the focus on high throughput and all these transaction speeds, many of the next gen like layer one blockchains that focus on, again, this high throughput and programmability. But what would make eCache's approach unique compared to competitors like Solana or Ethereum because they focus on the same thing because Solana achieves high throughput but sacrifices decentralization and there's also almost always the network outages that happen there. Ethereum is scale of true layer two roll ups for instance. And so the problem with you know stuff like Ethereum and Solana is that they use a very different model internally to represent the coin. They use what we call an account model. An account model is actually very similar to at least in principle the technology is obviously very different but in principle is very similar to a bank account work. So you have an account that is you know associated to your address and the network maintain information about that account like Omini Ethereum you have in the software mini Solana you have on the Solana blockchain. But EGache has the UTXO model right? Yeah exactly and so the problem with the account model is that it's very very difficult to scale. Obviously the upside of it is that you can do better stuff with smart contract and stuff like that but the downside is that it's very very difficult to scale and so what you see is that it's a bit unfortunate but you know Ethereum decided to go to L2 road. Yeah. Effectively saying like we don't know to scale that thing and we're gonna scale somewhere else right? And Solana when the bit the road like okay we don't give her shit we're gonna increase the number anyway. But now you need like abstract resources to run the node it's not decentralized at all and you have network outages on the real basis and all of that right because effectively you know when you have like a one megabyte block block size limit for instance on piconis it's it's kind of like a speed limit and you could say well you know we removed that limit and that doesn't mean you solve all the technical issue right? But it's like on the road you know like on the highway you're gonna be limited to I don't know like 60, 70 miles an hour or 120, 130 kilometers per hour for freedom units and you could remove that limit and everybody could drive faster but it doesn't mean that you know people are gonna be driving safely at 1,000 km per hour or you know like at absolute speed right? Like you have other technical challenges to solve and what Solana did essentially was like okay we're gonna remove the limit and see what happens and so what happens as a first order is that yes you can go much faster than you would an Ethereum but that comes at the cost of absurd versus consumption and and reliability and you know they are so used on site. The good thing with the UTXO model is actually it's much more scalable you can take Bitcoin and change like very little about it you can you have to change a few things but you have to change very little about it to allow it to scale to really really huge sizes without all those issues that you see in technology like Solana and so this is why you know and you know I think the basic assumption that we make behind that is that we think that the scale is more important than the very good smart contract capabilities I think it's there is more upside in freedom on that front that doesn't mean that we say okay smart contract is not important at all but with the UTXO model it's unlikely that we are going to have smart contract as rich as you can do on Solana Ritaria right but in terms of scale we can do way way better because of the UTXO model. I'm very surprised to hear that because the UTXO is considered something like like an artifact from the past but to have all the it's like you're taking the best from both worlds you're integrating a technology that worked for so long he's taking to it and actually implementing the the better things from the new ones. It's quite bizarre but the the fact that Bitcoin is not scaling is more of a social issue than a technical one. Yeah right there is like people stakeholder in Bitcoin I've decided not to scale this is why Bitcoin is not scaling this is not a technical issue. Yes and actually so I don't know what can happen but the last proposal for CBDC for for the USDA it's called project Hamilton there is a paper about it where you can read out the technical details. Absolutely. Yeah in the US for the US for the CBDC for the US dollar and the structure of transaction actually uses the UTXO model and in a way that is very close to what Bitcoin is doing and actually it's integrating many of the change that we have done for scale so in a way that's a good endorsement that our change are good but at the same time it's a bit disappointed to see them use that way but you know it's like a good tool can be used for good or evil right I guess. Wow. I'm surprised I did not know that they're using the UTXO model but hey I guess you can't I mean not recognize something that works well and I've been working so well for a very long time. It's a very good interesting remark that you made there a marie but you know I kind of want to ask another question and this is going to be around the avalanches integration because avalanche allowed you for free for free upgrades awarding network spills awarding network splits and governance deadlocks for instance and with everything else that we have managed to discuss so far there's also the ability that governance decisions happen through avalanche consensus rather than off-chain debates so yeah you're not going to have the problems that you usually see in another blockchains and of course this also means that developers benefit from stability and adaptability without the risk of these disruptive for expansion. Yeah it's really much easier to upgrade things through avalanche. Yeah so here's the like when you use Nakamoto style consensus you have what we call the consensus rules and all the nodes need to agree 100% on what those will are and if there is the tiny bit of difference anywhere it can create a fork in the blockchain that happened a few times in the past I don't know if people remember the level DB fork that happened in Bitcoin some time ago but at some point Bitcoin switched from Berkeley DB to level DB as you know a database to store it's internal data structure and there was a different number of locks in that database could take so essentially level DB could take more locks and so when using level DB you would accept some blocks that you would implicitly reject with Berkeley DB because the database would not accept them and it brought it up creating a fork in Bitcoin I don't remember what time that was but if you look for the Berkeley DB fork or the level DB fork in Bitcoin you're not fine maybe two cents per cent. and sort in something like that, or 2012, around that time, but I'm not exactly sure of the exact date. But anyway, if you have the smallest different, it can lead to two blockchain, right? Because they're not going to agree. And the thing that is particularly pernicious about it is that anyone, if, for instance, there is a difference in acceptance or transaction, well, anyone can submit a transaction to the network that's some not going to accept and some not going to reject and boom, you're going to create a fork in the chain. So it's very, very difficult to change those consensus rules in practice, right? From an engineering standpoint, because you have to think about every single detail in UMES1 and consequences can be very dire. And it's also very difficult to activate those new rules, because everybody has to start-- if you want to change the rule, everybody has to go for the new rule at the exact same time in the exact same way, right? Because if some change rules, not exactly at the same time, but we have a window of time where you're going to fork the network. So you have a problem of writing those rules and activating them that is very tricky and very difficult to require a lot of coordination between the different actors and the network and so on. So that is not good. Yeah, obviously. The advantage consensus is much more is much more forgiving on that fault, which means that if some of the nodes start on forcing a rule that is slightly different, as long as they are not the majority, they are going to fall back in line with the majority. Oh, I'll do that. Interesting. So what you can do there is start deploying new rules in the governance network. And what's a majority of actors decide they want to use a version of the node that has that new rules if the majority of the network does that. And the new rule is stopping unforced. But before that, it's not going to be unforced. Oh, you look at all these differences. You look at all the ways of not letting your blockchain fork. And you would think that, OK, so there's that decision right there. Of course, it's very hard to implement changes, as you said, to the rules. But when you're coming up with it, you probably would have thought about it, just like a Stochenic emote did with Bitcoin. I mean, the unscrupalability of it is another issue, but still, regardless of what happens, you would think you have so many examples and you're able to launch something very good. And I think that's what E-caches achieved, right? So as I said, again, taking the best from both worlds and without a doubt from what I'm hearing right now, I'm thinking-- Like, honestly, I think we're a bit unknown in this space. We have not big VC-making or whatever. Yeah, exactly. But from a text standpoint-- I mean, obviously, I'm biased, but from a text standpoint, I think we have one of the best projects of theirs, not the best. Yeah, I'm ready to agree with you here, because from what I'm hearing, you've managed to do the due diligence and credit where I get to give credit where it is due. If on paper what you have said is fully implemented and correct and a lot of people get to adopt it, then we're going to have the next breakthrough. Because when I was just doing research for this podcast and I was researching E-cache, and I'm hearing from first hand, the answers to these questions that I came up with, I'm thinking, wow, how is this not happened before? I mean, the space has been going on for such a long time. You would think that, oh, if you're building a car, you take an engine from an Audi, and then you put the suspension from a Honda in there, and then you have the perfect car, like an Formula One. But that's not how it goes. Everyone's going to salvage parts. Not as simple as this. Yeah, I understand it. But here's the experience. There is a large portion of the Bitcoin ecosystem. I was like, this is digital gold, and you're not going to buy ridden stuff with gold. This is really cool. So it doesn't matter if it doesn't scale and so on. And it was a litigation where whether it is was a good idea or not at the time. But there was the fork with BCH. And I think BCH did not do well for reason that our-- I don't know if we want to-- we could do a full podcast about that. But the reason why I think it did not go well is more or less social as well, very not technical. But while a lot of people have learned of that, I think it's the wrong list. And they have learned that, oh, you don't want to create a version of Bitcoin that is more scalable than what not. Because clearly, the market have rejected that idea. I think that's the wrong conclusion. But I think that's the conclusion that a lot of people in the space have made. Yeah, I mean, a lot of people come to it. But-- But actually, I have this exact discussion on that extra point with Greg Maxwell, which is next Bitcoin developer, who is very much-- we very much don't agree on those topics. He's very much for not scaling and keeping Bitcoin as a kind of digital gold. But one thing that we could agree on is that we have not settled that question. It's very unfortunate because there were many bad decisions that were made in the BCHC consistent that cause it to not work. Like not full feed is put on shows essentially. And as a result, we never got very-- the answer as to whether scaling was the right person or not. I mean, a lot of people consider Bitcoin cash dead for some reason. And it's kind of easy to understand why. I mean, yeah, with regards to all the bad decisions being made, you couldn't tell. And you can't really tell now what's going to happen before. Because if Bitcoin were to be scaled, would it have gone to $100,000 as it did just not so long ago? And how would that have that scaling of Bitcoin affected the entire crypto space altogether and all the altcoins? Because I love to-- But we can answer some of those questions, but many of them are going to be left unanswered. But on the altcoin space, it's pretty much guaranteed that there would be much less altcoin today. Because if you look historically, the dominance of Bitcoin was-- especially before Bitcoin running to scaling issue, there was no crypto. There was Bitcoin and some science project. But crypto was Bitcoin. The dominance index was 90%, or 95% to all the time constantly. Rest of the space was at least the rest of the space combined was less than a number of magnitude smaller than Bitcoin was. So effectively, at the time, there was Bitcoin. And that's it. As Bitcoin started running into scaling issue, it's where the altcoin space exploded. So that was really a catalyst for that. So I think we can safely say that the dominance index of Bitcoin would be much higher if it had scale. But when it comes to price and stuff like that, well, your guess is as good as mine. My guess would be, but obviously I cannot prove that. But my guess would be that we would have seen roughly the same growth, but less volatility. That's what I would predict would have happened. But who knows? So less volatility would have meant that-- So lower highs and higher lows. That same growth could have been achieved instead of everything that happened with Bitcoin right now. Because there was no scaling. And if there were-- So it was really implemented. Here is the reason-- I think it come from the use case. Here is the reason I think we see so much volatility on Bitcoin specifically. Most of the company in the space, they have revenue in crypto, but they have expenses in fiat. Yeah. So the biggest businesses are going to be minor exchanges, stuff like that. So exchange, they take a fee on your crypto transaction, then the higher the price of crypto is and the higher the fee is, at least in fiat terms. But then they need to pay employee, pay the electricity, the rent, the taxes, whatever. Every expense is that business has to pay. And those expenses, they are in fiat. And so what happens is that let's take the example of minors because they are simpler, but exchange is roughly exhibit the same pattern. If you have a minor, if you are minor, you're mining and you get some amount of coins. And then you need to pay the electricity. You need to pay the minor, the assets. I mean, you need to pay the rent for the place or maybe a loan if you bought the place, whatever. All of that is in fiat. So when the price of Bitcoin goes up, you're even you go up. But the amount of Bitcoin that you need to sell, pay your expenses is less. And so if you are a believer in Bitcoin, like most people in the space are, you're going to set less. And so, go for it to every single author as said, oh, there, you know, for every single asset, when the price go up, the supply of the market go up and you find a equilibrium in the price that way, right? And when the price go down, similarly, things move in the inverse direction. And you converge towards some kind of equilibrium. But in Bitcoin, you do not, because when the price go up, the supply on the market goes down. And so more supply on the, because of supply on them and they're still pushing the price even higher, which pushed this, the, you know, the price higher, which puts the supply even lower, which puts the price even higher, you know, and so on. So you have like a feedback loop that goes the price to go up even more when it starts going up. And similarly, in the other direction, right, it got both way. So those use cases that exist on the Bitcoin blockchain right now, they tend to increase volatility rather than decrease it. Right. If you had usage that are more as a payment, those would act as a as a stabilizing factor. And this is why I would expect the volatility to be lower because just use case would be more prevalent. Right. Because when you spend your money, you're going to, you know, if your Bitcoin goes up quite a bit, you're going to be like, okay, you know, I did, I don't know, 10X on my money or whatever, no, I can buy like a fancy car or an app up meant or whatever with it that I couldn't buy before I increase my quality of life. And not everybody's going to do that, but some people are going to do that. And so those type of use case they increase the supply when the price go up and they decrease the supply when the price go down because obviously you don't want to spend your Bitcoin when the price go down because you're going to have to spend more of them. So if you add more of this type of use age, you would see more stability in the price. Okay. I think that brings me to an understanding of the overall situation with actually it's very funny how we can go from the highest fees in Bitcoin because of what you said. You have all these conditions. You have this very high transaction fee. And it's also unpredictable due to this congestion. But if we compare that to E-cache and correct me from wrong, but you're keeping everything at sub-cent levels, is that right? Yeah, the goal is to keep the transaction fee sub-cent. Yeah. And right now they are. And you know, it's one of the goals. Yeah. And that is what makes it practical for micro-payments. But micro-payments is not something that even exists, not even close in Bitcoin. But you cannot do not even micro-payment, but just small payment. You go to the bar and you spend a few euros, a few dollars to buy a drink or whatever. Like a small expenditure on the daily basis. They are just not really stick with Bitcoin. Because like first, settlement time is unpredictable and potentially very long. Like in multiple hours, 10 minutes, right? Yeah. In the best situation, it's going to take like 20, 30 minutes, but it can take hours as well. And you're going to pay, like, you know, the transaction fee are going to double the price of what's just failing if it's TV, right? So it makes zero sense. It's not 10x. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. But it depends when. And that's another issue. So one of the one of the stories that was sold, you know, for for the keeping the blocks small is that when as the block reward diminishes, you need transaction fee to pay for minor. Also, why you don't have minor mining and the whole thing doesn't work anymore. But the problem is like the way it's done with a hard cap in this way doesn't create a nickel equilibrium to find fee because what happens is that as long as the demand for transaction is less than the cap, well, you're good, right? Like fee are not going to raise very high. They're going to stay as low as possible because if you pay the minimum fee, you're going to get in the next block and you're fine. But once there is more demand for transaction then can fit in the block. So then there is no fee that people can pay for all the transaction to go in the block, right? Because the supply is completely in the last decades. One megabyte done. Yeah. And so and so you also laid between modes where the price is very low, the you know, the fee is very low and not enough to subsidize the mining to situation where the price gets so high that the only way you're going to find an equilibrium actually is the price gets so high that some people give up. Right, that enough people give up so that the demand goes back within the one megabyte. So so you oscillate between those two modes, right? Where fee are very low and fee are like simply the high that people give up and there is no in between. Because the supply is fixed, right? The supply is not going to go up and down. It's the one megabyte limit. So you are either above the limit or below the limit. There's only two modes of functioning. That makes me wonder what that Bitcoin scaling would have been like. Because you have to think about there is many solutions to that problem. Like for instance, what Monero is doing is that it so it look at historically what the size of the block are. And if you want as a miner to submit blocks that are, you know, too high above that limit, you need to pay a penalty in terms of proof of work. So it's harder to find a block. But you know, if you have more transaction in it with more fee, it might be worth it. And and this way the supply is actually elastic in some way. So you can find an equilibrium. But if you say the limit is one megabyte, then you create a situation where there is no way to adjust the supply to the demand. And so there is no equilibrium that can be found. Chase. Well, that makes me wonder about the theorem a little bit more because the fork happened after the after the hack. Ethereum classic Ethereum 2.0 and Ethereum 2.0 became that, you know, future for all the people that were in crypto and are thinking, oh, Ethereum is the next big thing. It's how the return is doing the right thing. But with all the advancements and all the things that happened to Ethereum, it still has not managed to break like 4k, I think, for the longest time. And there was like a very funny post about Ethereum staying at the $3,100 mark for more than like a few years at least. And so what happens with Ethereum then? What's the, what's, how does Ethereum fit into all of this? So, I think, essentially, Ethereum is more of a commodity if you want to think about it. It's more like gas in your car or something like that. So you have smart contract and token and all of that on the Ethereum blockchain. And especially you want Ethereum because you want to interact with the ecosystem. Yeah. Right. And if you're not scaling, effectively you creating like a constant demand for fuel in the ecosystem. Right. Like once the ecosystem cannot grow, there is no need for more fuel. Yeah. Okay. So, so when the demand for fuel is more or less stabilized, you should expect a price to more or less stabilized. That's actually a very good example. I mean, I think I think of Bitcoin as the engine, think of Ethereum as the gas and everything else in the car is all these little alls and all the projects. That's a very funny example there. All right. So I guess that can take us to the next topic, which is the digital payments. I wanted to touch on this because I need to highlight for the for the listeners why crypto should be more than just like a store of value. And it should be usable as actual money as the example we set with Bitcoin, you know, all the high transaction speeds and everything like that. And I want to show how eCash competes with stable coins and traditional banking solutions. So from what I managed to gather, the digital payments right now are rapidly shifting towards blockchain, mostly that that is with stable coins, of course. But most of the crypto assets like Bitcoin are treated as we have managed to touch on this topic many times as like a commodity or as investment rather than just the spendable money. And Ecosh, Ecosh is trying to change that. But right now we have a dominance of stable coins in digital transactions. I'm pretty sure that more than 99% of the people that are working in crypto are getting paid in stable coins. And of course they rely on centralized issuers like banks for instance, which is a, you know, I think that a lot of people overlook. But from a broader perspective, What trends do you see shaping the future of digital payments? and how does E-cache position itself within this like evolving landscape? - Yeah, so here's what I see, what I'm gonna talk about this, it's probably not for next year, right? It's long term view, but what we see is that it's not really, you know, so, okay, something I already talked about is like Bitcoin, it's kind of like speedrunning the legacy bank system. - Yeah. - Right, and the reason this is happening is, for the same reason this happened for gold, it's because gold is not a good medium of exchange, right? That's the point, this is why you want to start trading, IOUs or notes, you know, and you put the gold involved and so on and so forth. And you know, you do that a few steps, you solve the next logical problem with that chain and you end up with more or less the current banking system that we have. And Bitcoin is speedrunning that same thing and for the same reason, right? You know, originally it's not a good medium of exchange and therefore you need to do lightning network and know you have liquidity issue and you know, like the same, you have the same series of problem and the details look different, but the general, the general, because the implementation detail are different, right? But the general problem, the economic problem is the same. And what this whole thing lead to is that you end up shifting from a monetary system that you are, that's said, like gold, to a monetary system that trade IOUs that can be inflated. And at some point the temptation to inflate them become too great and you do inflate them and the value of them goes to zero and the whole economy collapses and you get back to square one where you trade wheeze gold. Right? And this happened, it's quite funny because this general happened, but this general pattern happens to every single human civilization that we know of, like every single one. Yeah. Even in movies with all the science fiction stuff there too. Well, it would depend on the movie, but yeah, it happens in some movie as well. But like that's a general trend. And why is this trend happening? It's happening because the medium of exchange capabilities and the store of value capabilities, like we have no technology that is good at both. Right? We have no technology that is a good medium of exchange that have good guarantee in terms of scarcity. And we don't have good technology that is scarce and all of that, that is a good medium of exchange. And I think where the transformative thing, where you have something quite transformative is when you have a technology that both. It's something that never existed in human history. It's why I got very, very interested in Bitcoin to begin with. It's why I was very disappointed when the community decided not to scale and this is why I'm working on the cash today. So obviously, like, when does that pan out? Well, that pan out when the currency with which the stablecoin are baked don't work as well as they do now. Oh, right. So right now, that's going to be more or less the US dollar. So I don't know where that's going to be a big US dollar crisis. Could be next year, could be 10 year, could be 100 year. Right? Like it's very, very difficult to predict. But historically, the average lifespan of fiat currency is 27 years. So the USD is very old ramp up by those standards like compared to those of fiat currencies. And so it's over to you for something. I don't want to be a donor though. It's not like I'm predicting that it's going to happen in the next year or the next six months or whatever. But it's pretty much guaranteed that it's going to happen because some people go to the US sprinting money like crazy. Right now, there is a lot of them and worldwide for USD because a lot of the good that are necessary worldwide, like oil are typically traded in USD. And so the demand for USD is very, very high. And that allows the US to print like crazy. But if something comes to disturb that, it would be a big shift in the international order. So it's not going to happen next Tuesday. But you know, even to the pores are shifting in the word that happens this day, you're going to see an inflation in US data is crazy, crazy high. I mean, so some people believe it's happening now, right? Because Trump. Yeah, to some extent, but he could decide to stop what he's doing with the tariffs and whatnot. And you know, things would get back to normal fairly quickly. We are not that we're not at the dollar crisis. But it could come, right? Like, you know, the whole thing, like if people could predict the crisis all the time, they probably would not happen, right? Because we do what is necessary for them to happen. So they tend to be fairly unpredictable. That brings me to-- OK. Yeah, we know that they happen. Here's the deal though. Right now, if you are, let's say, some Mary Cav with Discuss on the situation there before people are perfectly happy using USD there. Because, you know, it's already so much better than the local currency. So this is why you see the use of stablecoin that are indexed in USD in those places. OK, so that brings me to one of the things that I wanted to mention over your monologue. I want to reinforce it. I want to let the audience know that crypto should remain spendable. Because cryptocurrency, you know, it's a currency. You have to spend it. It should not just be a speculative asset. And I think we've managed to clear the ground on the fact that big coin, of course, started as a peer-to-peer cash system. But it then shifted towards being an investment asset or the digital goal or whatever people want to call it now. And because of that high price, the high fees and the slow transactions came around. It had made it impractical for these sort of everyday payments. But again, coming back to E-cash, which sticks to the original Bitcoin vision, prioritizing usability, and also, of course, maintaining the decentralized factor. I want to ask you a question of how exactly did Bitcoin pivot towards this digital gold narrative while E-cash, for instance, remains committed to peer-to-peer cash? And why is this distinction important? And I guess why should mass-scale P2P cash remain as a big priority in the crypto space? OK, so first, I'm going to re-qualify the question a bit. Because the way you state it is, it's like you're like Bitcoin originally was peer-to-peer electronic cash. And no, it's like digital gold and whatnot. But really, if you look at the early writings, notably of Satoshi, but also people that were involved since the beginning, originally, the idea is that it's kind of both. Right? Evan, if you look in the white paper, at some point, the issuance is described where the new supply that is emitted is going to divide by two over four years and stuff like that. And Satoshi explained that it did it that way to-- so that it reasonable the emission of gold. So originally, there is this notion that it's in hard set in the beginning. But where the technology's groundbreaking is that it's both. It has good property on both fronts. Because where the gold, where the fiat currencies-- Yeah. --and both are very good at what they're doing. But now we have a technology that is good at both. And at some point, people decided, you know what? It's not so important that it's good at both. It's important that it's good at the digital gold aspect of it and the digital cash we don't really care about. That's more what happened rather than there is a pivot we did care about digital cash and then we care about digital gold doesn't make sense. Yeah, of course, because-- So yeah. OK. So just so that we agree because I'm reposifying your questions. I want to make sure that it's good for you the way I described it. A lot better. And so if we're going that way, well, the reason I think it's very important is because you see this cycle of civilization happen because we have no technology that is good at both. Right? So it's really like it's one of those groundbreaking inventions that's going to change what humanity look like going forward. In a way that are so profound that it are probably very difficult to predict. Like the printing press or even the internet, I would say, like the live that we have right now with the internet, reasonable nothing like the live of people in the 80s and before. It changes. For people to act, it changes the balance of power. It changes things are done. It changes things very, very profoundly. And-- And we see historically that you have this cycle of civilization that is tied to the property of their money. And so if you change the property of the money, you change the course of civilization, like quite literally. And so it's so profound that it's actually quite difficult to predict what's going to come out of that. But it's also why it's so interesting and so fascinating. And it's also why I'm very interested in doing something that is good at both. Because if you only care about the digital cash aspect of it, as you mentioned, the next double coin are good at this. But something that is good digital cash that also has art money properties is somewhat unique. And I think this is where the unique technology is. Okay, so that could actually bring me to my next question because as we've established while eCache is, of course, designed as peer-to-peer cash first. There's also a lot of additional functionality. And I wanted to ask, I mean, I wanted to show that eCache is just more than like a Bitcoin fork. It's actually an evolving blockchain with real world applications, first of all, being a peer-to-peer cash system. Of course, from what I managed to read about the eCache, you're supporting covenants. So smart contracts that are natively within its scripting language, is that correct? I wanted to learn more about that. Yes, yeah, so we have smart contract capabilities. So I want to also be, I don't want to sell something that's wrong. They are better than Bitcoin, but they're not as good as Ethereum and stuff like that. And the reason is because of the UTX model, right? Like skins better, but it's also not as good as doing smart contracts. So at some point, you get a, you get to make the trade-off. So we are trying to make them as good as possible. We have more of code than Bitcoin, so we can do a bunch of stuff that Bitcoin cannot, but we cannot do as much as Ethereum can. And also, of course, the interoperability, which is like a huge issue in crypto. And I want to shine light on eCache solution, making it, making eCache a major contender among others. I mean, as we know, most blockchains lack these trustless interoperability, for instance, Ethereum and Salana, they rely on these centralized bridges. But because eCache is leveraging avalanches architecture for trustless cross-chain interactions, and there's also the subnet that allow independent blockchain environments without, of course, sacrificing security on it. And I want to ask, with interoperability, being a key factor for blockchain adoption, how do you integrate with other ecosystems? And what role does avalanche consensus play in that? So it's difficult to give a general solution, because each ecosystem has different technology and there are going to be like different points of details that are relevant for each. And so it's very, very difficult to give a general solution. But the fact that we have avalanche, or also now, so avalanche allows you to do stuff with these weak subjectivities, the technical term, which is essentially what you. If you want to synchronize two systems, you need something that is weakly subjective, because the strong reference. OK, it's quite difficult to explain in a way that is easy to understand. But let's say you have a blockchain, like Bitcoin, and you have another one, like, Litecoin, that are not connected in any way. And you would want to interact in between the two. The problem that you're going to have is that the consensus mechanism for Bitcoin knows only of Bitcoin and use point of reference that are Bitcoin-centric. And the one from Litecoin is going to be the same. So when you do something that interact with both networks, they don't really have a way to agree with each other in any significant way. And like, this has been a problem in the space for quite some time, and there are many solutions. But the most of the solution, they work one way, but they don't work the other way. So for instance, you have DriveChain, which I think is the most promising example of that on Bitcoin. Where you can move your Bitcoin to a DriveChain very easily, but to get them back on the main chain, it takes several months for the consensus to be able to do that. Because the two consensus-secularism, they don't have any common point of reference. So it's very, very complicated and time consuming to get the coin back. And it's not as big of a problem as you would think, because you could always like sell the coins to liquidity provider on the other chain that provide you fresh coin on the chain you are interested in and is willing to sit on them for six months to bring them back. But generally, it's a bit of an issue. But you have technology like a balance that allows you to do that very quickly. That's the one that's still in it. And in one of these, yeah. On Bitcoin, you mean? I mean, in general, I was talking about making use of all these technological advancements that help you out. A balance is a much more recent invention than Bitcoin is. Right? I don't know when the average paper came out better. When many of those discussions we had at the time, Avalanche did not exist, right? So that was not on the table as simple as this, right? Like if it's not invented. I mean, I guess someone invented it at some point, but before that, you know, it was just not a tool that was available. That being said, no worries. You could slap an Avalanche layer on top of, you could do it on top of Bitcoin, on top of like on like on top of any Bitcoin like chains, certainly it would work. On top of chain like Ethereum and so on, I'm not sure, but I've included the specific, but I think it would be possible. I don't want to. Maybe not, right? But my first impression is that it should be possible. But it certainly is possible on all Bitcoin like GTXL based chain. But I don't think it's going to happen. Yeah, I don't think it's going to happen. You know, just like it's possible to increase the block size on Bitcoin, right? There is no. It's not a technically difficult thing to do, but people just don't want to do it, right? Yeah. So I think you're going to run into the same problems you wanted to deploy at Avalanche. Because fundamentally, you're probably going to run into even more problems than the block size because it changes, changes a lot of stuff, right? And it's so sad. It didn't have to be that complicated, but then again, it was not something like a collaborative effort that made us get to RER. It was the effort of a certain group of people trying to build something, then not having the exact knowledge on how to build it perfectly. But from these imperfections actually come out like newer blockchains and newer projects that actually provide these solutions. And I think Eacheche is definitely one of them. And I was very keen to show the audience some real world adoption, like beyond speculation for Eacheche, of course. And I kind of want to provide a vision for Eacheche's future for all the listeners that we have here. And so Eacheche is already used in government-backed projects like Mordzansi in Honduras. Is that correct? I think I saw that on your website. Yes, though, you would have to ask those people for all the details because I'm not involved in the project. I know that they do use it, but if you want to know all the details of that, I'm going to defer to you. If you want, I can put you in touch with them. No, no, no, no. I was just mentioning that in general, because that means you're having real world use cases. And there is also pay button and pay to stay, simplify merchant adoption there with Eacheche. And there was a-- I see the metric training in the right directions when many of the usual blockchain, I would say, like this day's the training, the usual direction, which is why the markets be depressed, I guess. But we are smaller. I don't want to over-sell it. We are smaller than those of blockchain, but we are training in the better direction, if that makes sense. Yeah, you're being very humble here, Amari. But I think you should recognize the fact that an Eacheche is definitely going to be up there at some point among the biggest players, because yeah, it's just that simple. It's just that simple. It's just up to me, that would be-- Like, if someone did it before I got involved, it's not just me, right? There is a lot of people being that project, but-- But depends on how they did it. Again, of which, I didn't have to do it. You become a victim of your own success. That's how they say it. But yeah, that kind of goes in hand with my question that I wanted to ask you. And this is the last question for the podcast. I want to kind of touch on the future vision and adoption for Eacheche. And just beyond the technology. adoption is of course the major hurdle for any crypto projects. And I wanted to ask what initiatives or like real-world use cases are currently driving e-cash adoption? And how do you see it evolving over the next few years? Because again, when you talk about the successful project, it mostly relies on adoption because if people are unwilling to use it, people are unwilling to go to their friend and say, oh man, this is like sort of such a cool thing. You got to use it. And that means there is going to be a big hurdle in both adoption and spreading of the good word of e-cash. I'm definitely going to check it out because I'm very intrigued and very thrilled to learn more about e-cash and use it on my daily operations. And so what would the message from you be? And how would you describe these hurdles towards that adoption? Yeah, so generally, in many ways, the e-cash community reminds me of the early day Bitcoin community, where there's much more usage. And actually, a lot of people that are in that community are very early days Bitcoiners, so it's not completely run down that it looks like it. And so in many ways, we're doing the same kind of stuff that the early Bitcoiner did. That being said, it's actually harder the second time around. Because so I don't know if you specifically remember but many of you are this narrow, probably not even aware of this. There was a time where you could pay with Bitcoin in like many large, you know, but like you could buy a computer at Dell with Bitcoin, you could buy on the Microsoft Store with Bitcoin, you could buy game on Steam with Bitcoin, you could buy on Overstalk, you know, which is like a big platform game of like Amazon. It's a bit smaller, but you know, similar. Like there were many big player accepting Bitcoin as payment. And all those players, they're starting dropping it like, you know, hot potato when the scaling issue is coming. And the reason is very simple to end the cell from their perspective. Yeah. You have this payment method. There is still less use than credit card, you know. But that's still not the least up to generate the huge number of support tickets because people are like, OK, you know, I bought this game on Steam. But you know, it's been like two hours and the transaction still don't go through. We like receive the game and you know, it's even worse if you were, you know, with your friend in the afternoon, you wanted to play the game or something, you know. Everybody is waiting. So the experience has got really bad for the users. And that's the reason it got really bad for the support for those company. And so this stopped doing it. The result of that is that, you know, like once you've been burned once, it's harder to second time around, right? So a lot of people came of a decision in their mind. And not just those big players, but a lot of people in crypto in general have decided in their mind that, hey, we tried that and it didn't work. And so, you know, it doesn't work. So it's harder to second time around, but we are doing similar stuff. I mean, you can learn from experience and I think you're going to have a much clearer path to success. And then that I'm most definitely sure of. But with that being said, I really got to say a big thank you. I mean, I mean, I learned so much on this podcast and I learned so many things. A lot of the peculiar information that comes through all of our experience guests. And you, I think probably has you have to be the most experienced out of all of them because I've had guests that came in crypto back in 2012, 2013, but you were there since the beginning. And I can see why you're so passionate about building eCache or Bitcoin ABC. What do you prefer to call it? What eCache is like Bitcoin ABC is the software project. Yeah, yeah. The slack is the not software, but the cryptocurrency is eCache. Yeah, yeah. So, yeah, again, a big thank you for providing such clear info on how the things stood back then and how things have evolved right now. And I think I'm going to take all that knowledge and I'm going to use it for. My myself, of course, for the podcast and I'm definitely going to be checking eCache out very soon. But yeah, with that being said, again, a very big thank you. We got to wrap this up. We actually went 20 minutes over the the limit that we had, but I think that's fine. It's okay. Yeah, I could not stop you from telling and it's been in fire. I'm kind of reminded of that meme where the guy sits in a room and whatever he writes lights on fire. So that was the kind of vibe that I was getting here. And I didn't want to butt in and ramble on myself because you were just saying such good things and such insightful things about how the space is evolving and. The these historical remarks on Bitcoin and how it evolved and what it is right now, how it is considered right now, how does being perceived by now. Now, by people and yeah, it was very insightful. Again, thank you very much. Yeah, don't forget to thank you for having me and you know, like good question. I love that. I think it was good discussion. So yeah, that was my pleasure. I mean, yeah, just before we go, do you have any message you want to send to people at ECTA? No, I just want them like, you know, eat out cash is the website of the project. And you can learn all the details on there and you know, try it out. I think you know, there is there is some there was something magical about Bitcoin in the early days. Or rather than trading, you know, like a window that opened to a different world that is possible and today you can have the same experience with the cash. So I would, you know, advise people not just, you know, not just buy it on some exchange and sit on it, but I actually try to use it. Because it's a bit of a magical experience. Yeah. In some way. I think it's going to be a magical experience for all the people that experience Bitcoin or the first came out as in it's going to be very similar, right? Yeah, exactly. And I know you don't really have that experience because of congestion. Yeah. And so people mostly buy it on exchange and keep them in there or interact with the natural payment process or something, what not. You know, just having like the capability to send stuff from one wallet to the next just the two of you know intermediary and whatnot. Yeah, that's amazing. It's really something else that don't really exist outside of crypto. Yeah. And a lot of DGENs are going to respect you for that, of course. So that is going to be it for our today's episode. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did and thank you all for our dear listeners that joined in on the live section of this podcast. We haven't done one of these in a while. So I'm very glad to be back here and again, very big thank you to Amari and E Cash for being a part of this podcast. We're going to be signing off. As always, make sure you stay safe, make sure you do your due diligence, make sure you don't get scammed and we're going to see you next week. We're going to be announcing our next episode very soon. Stay tuned and goodbye. Goodbye, Amari. Good bye. See you.