Sal Ternullo

Near has 1.2 second fidelity, fractions of a penny cost to transact, but the core value accrual mechanics are from these vertically integrated products.

So...

I would compare that and think about it in the Ethereum context.

Imagine if all fee revenue generated from Aave and Uniswap were accruing down to ETH as token and all the ETH L2s didn't have their own native tokens, but ultimately were consuming ETH, which some have done with a stronger alignment to the L1.

And generally, I like that pattern, but...

That's how I look at EPDs and the protocol side.

It's similar, but it's not a source of massive value accrual given how performance and low cost the system is to try to act on.

Exactly.

Yep.

If you take a look at near.com, they just launched confidential transactions at near con back at the end of February.

But from a user experience perspective, it's one of the most seamless kind of retail self custody solutions that you can use today.

And it allows for privacy to be embedded across every transaction if you toggle to confidential mode.

So to your point on the first party app side, it's demonstrated live in production today.

And it's a genuinely great user experience.

It does not feel like you're interacting with clunky web two from, you know, 2021 and two.

Yeah, it's a good question.

So the difference is that in the context of the third-party integrations like the Infinex and the Zashes of the world, swap kits, etc., those are negotiated bilateral agreements where there is a fee share between the third-party integration surface and yourself.

The first party applications don't have any type of distribution agreement or partnership revenue share.

It's 100% of fees generated through near.com or consuming near.

And so it's a better take rate for near consumption than you would see through these third party integrations.