Haseeb

and they blow past the 5% threshold, they do probably have to start thinking about this, about what does it mean when you are now, with the EF stepping back, with consensus not really being anywhere near the scale now of what Bitmine is, and all the other DATs being quite a bit smaller than Bitmine, and Bitmine now having access to the bigger levers within capital markets, like being able to issue preferreds that are stretch style, that may mean that they just

rocket their way to becoming by far the largest single holder of ETH.

And when that happens, things might get trickier relative to what it is today, where it's a pure financial play.

I mean, I think it's hard to describe these as Ponzi's.

A Ponzi is guaranteed to fail, right?

That's why we call it, that's why it's a crime to run a Ponzi scheme.

These are clearly not guaranteed to fail.

They might fail, but they're not guaranteed to fail.

You know, even over a very long time horizon, you know, if Bitcoin, like Bitcoin would probably never be worth $1,000 ever again, right?

So if you take a very small amount of leverage on Bitcoin, such that you will get margin call if it goes below $1,000, right?

there's a very good chance that that just continues forever.

You have now perpetually taken on leverage and you will never get margin called and the Ponzi will never collapse.

Now, if you take on the Ponzi, quote unquote, if you take on, you know, 300% leverage and if Bitcoin ever goes below 65, it's over.

Then okay, that's very, very likely to collapse.

And if you just look at the historical vol of Bitcoin, like that's a risky proposition.

But, you know, if you took that thing when Bitcoin was at,

Bitcoin never visited a thousand again.

So, you know, it's so I think Ponzi, not Ponzi is just the wrong frame to be thinking about this.

Like it's kind of too binary or too simplistic.

These are risky bets.