Haseeb

The story is supposed to be buying more Bitcoin instead of selling Bitcoin.

In this case, okay, you know, they bought, let's say, you know, 100,000 ETH and then they get some staking ETH and they sell that, right?

that sort of sounds like, oh, you're still accumulating more ETH.

That's great.

In reality, they're still selling ETH, right?

They're selling, you know, there's still somebody else who has to have cash to buy ETH in order to, you know, make the whole system work.

But it sounds better.

It does sound better.

It does sound better, exactly.

It sounds like, oh, we're still accumulating.

The number has not gone down.

It's only going to go up.

And so I think that is a narrative transformation, not an actual economic transformation per se, because of course that's, you know, inflation to the total ETH supply.

But-

You know, Ether does not have a real yield, quote unquote, meaning that it doesn't have a yield paid in external assets.

It's not like you're getting dollars by staking ETH.

You have to get ETH and you have to sell the ETH.

And so at the end of the day, I think these are similar from an economic perspective.

But for the DATs, it's very clear so much of the flows depend on the narrative.

And the narrative is Tom Lee's going to keep buying this stuff and therefore it's always going to have a bid.