Ep. 1 - They're Selling Dollars for $1.01

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Predictable, predictable. Predictions. [00:00:01] Speaker B: Predict. [00:00:02] Speaker A: Predictable Predictions. [00:00:03] Speaker B: Predictable. Predicted. Predictable. [00:00:08] Speaker A: This is Predictive Programming Episode one. I'm Henry Kerins. [00:00:12] Speaker B: I'm Chris Dierkes. [00:00:12] Speaker A: We're just talking about prediction markets. What's going on in the world of prediction markets this week? I think we're usually going to record these on Monday and put them out on Tuesday. We're taking a few extra days this week because we got to get all the feeds and channels all set up. So everything might be outdated by the time I put this out because everything changes literally on a day by day basis. [00:00:32] Speaker B: Just two days ago, yesterday. Polymarket is now approved in the US which is me. Very big. Yeah. [00:00:37] Speaker A: Because we were talking about this a week ago and being like, oh, we're just going to be doing a Kalshi podcast and by the time we record it's like, oh, Kalshi's dead. It's all Polymarket. They're buried, they're destroyed on Twitter, which is not true. Really. Yeah, it's big news for them. [00:00:52] Speaker B: I'm most curious about what Poly is going to do to compete with the Robinhood flow. That seems the key. I see all this like talk from the Kalshi team about it's their product that's so good. I call bs. It's all Robinhood, it's all the brokers that matter. It's probably going to come in and say, hey, we'll take 40% of the fees or 30% of fees or whatever the number is. I assume it's 50, 50 split with Kalshi and Robinhood. I actually don't know. Whatever it is, they'll offer less than just Kalshi and Poly will race to the bottom with who's willing to cut off their leg to save their body with Robinhood? [00:01:26] Speaker A: Well, the products. There's Kalshi Direct is a product like an actual customer facing product. And then there's how well can this system handle institutional flow at massive levels and how good is the support for building on top of it? Right. Like you could be Robinhood or now Webull starting today I think. And other platforms. It might just be like the integration is difficult, there's too many issues, too much downtime, blah, blah, blah. You're not a valued partner and that's the kind of thing I don't have a good read on. I get the sense that both Kalshi and Poly are good for that and that they were built with like second level products living on top of them in mind, which is smart. But I haven't built things yet for them. We're working on it right now. And it's not until you build that you actually find out how good this has really been done. But yeah, I mean, obviously everybody's going to fight over these fees. Everybody is going to. There's going to be a race to the bottom. And I think one of the places you see this reflected in is like I did this interview with Rufus where I was making the bull case for the sake of it on prediction markets and he was like, but doesn't everybody kind of reinvent sportsbooks from first principles where you're like, oh, actually I want to own all the risks. The profit is in the risk. And the new maker fees that came out yesterday, which are incredibly punitive and again, I wouldn't be surprised if those are different by Tuesday. But it certainly points to trying to create some infrastructure that either milks market makers dry or squeezes them out to the point that Kalshi training owns a lot of the flow. And so yeah, like all of those things happen at the same time and kind of reflect a sense that like, like whatever, whatever split we have with Robinhood, like it's going to get chipped away at over and over and over again. [00:03:26] Speaker B: That is, I totally agree with that. And that's what I, the first thing I thought is like just looking at this like Cowboys Philly game tonight, it's, it's insane. There are one cent wide that's like half a million on each side and if I were to post that, I'm getting like, like 12 cents on the one. Sorry, 0.12 on the one cent because after the fees, which is like just not possible, I as a single market maker cannot do that unless I'm cutting some sort of deal. So clearly their whole point was get all this liquidity, then screw everyone else so that they can be the ones taking liquidity. [00:03:57] Speaker A: And it'll be interesting because if they. None of the CFTC regulated or trying to be prediction markets have the big wide array of player props like we have them and ProphetX have them but we lack like a lot of the infrastructure they do to get the massive volume if we currently don't charge fees on those, but if we did, we would still do a lot of volume on them because there's like margin there and there's a lot of origination there and if, if Kalshi and Polymarket release them, they could have the similar fee schedule and they'd still have a lot of like mid level. [00:04:35] Speaker B: Well, for what it's worth, I just noticed today Kalshi does Have player props but no anytime touchdown score. [00:04:41] Speaker A: Talking about. [00:04:41] Speaker B: Yeah, I just posted a bunch, I just posted a bunch of orders myself on no touchdown scores. Not getting much flow. I assume it's not getting integrated with Robinhood. Yeah, I'm getting much more flow for what it's worth on my player props on Novig, which is why Novig is my go to on player props. But on the main markets, I think right now for me I'm getting a little bit better flow on Kalshi. It's very interesting to see how that's gonna go. [00:05:03] Speaker A: So but I think it's okay to be like, look these things where everybody's sitting on the same price and there's no edge, there's no original view. Like I want all the flow, but I'm gonna serve up to you all these exotic markets and charge you a fee and everybody gets to eat. But they haven't really delivered that product yet. So it's a frustrating customer experience. [00:05:23] Speaker B: I thought about this question a week ago and I was waiting for it to talk about some podcast. What's your opinion on? So take Kalshi for example. They have very expensive ticks. It's $0.01 wise, which is monster, you guys. Decimal odds, very, very cheap. What is your opinion on doing it? If I have an order for say +100 on Novig or $0.50 on Kalshi, however you want to look at it. If I say that's my, that's. I want to be a maker in that price, I post it and instead of giving, the first person to post gets the first fill. You randomly select anyone posted there and you and that's how you determine who gets filled or you or based on how much you're posting, you get a percentage of the next fill on that to incentivize more people, more liquidity. Because you know, I might look at right now when I look at it and I see a $0.01 why I'm not even incentivized to post. But if I could get some fills, I might be incentivized to post and that would create deeper liquidity, et cetera, et cetera. And someone on the other side. What is your opinion on that? [00:06:26] Speaker A: Everybody does first in, first out. So I'm, I'm sure it is theoretically more important than I am like right now able to conceptualize why. Although I do kind of like the owning a portion of the whole thing solution. It's kind of interesting because my thinking. [00:06:46] Speaker B: Was like if there's like say there's 5,000 on, on Eagles moneyline at. [00:06:52] Speaker A: Like, I mean, the idea is if there's not that much liquidity there, then you don't mind being at the back of the line because the line is short. So you kind of, you're kind of, you have a solution in search of a problem right here with what you're proposing. You really just want to be late to the party and still get filled, which I think it's understandable to not be interesting. [00:07:09] Speaker B: Take, take on Kalshi, for example. If there's say. Or it doesn't even matter, whatever exchange it is, if there's like something's at 50 or plus 150%, whatever you want to look at it and there's a few thousand dollars, I don't care. But if there's 50,000, I might want to come in with a 200,000 order size so I get to get the majority of it. And that would create deeper liquidity and it would be maybe beneficial for everyone. Now, the counter, I was thinking is it doesn't incentivize me to jump and get to the more efficient market price, which is worse for the consumer. I don't know if you kind of agree with that or. [00:07:41] Speaker A: I was just thinking about, do you ever see an order on the book and you say, I want to sit behind this, but I want people to see size at top. So I'm just going to fill this. Even though it's the same side that I like, because I do that sometimes. [00:07:52] Speaker B: Yes, absolutely. Yes, of course. [00:07:54] Speaker A: Kind of a similar thing. It's like, like I have enough money. I'm just going to nuke whatever's going on here and start fresh and I'm going to tell you what this looks like. [00:08:02] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:08:02] Speaker A: I also don't know technically if that's within their terms because, like, if you. I guess it would be there who you're referring to, Kalshi. [00:08:12] Speaker B: But like, this is, this is a question for any, any exchange. [00:08:15] Speaker A: Yeah. You got to be a little, a little more careful on the regulated platforms with anything that resembles market manipulation, which I would. That's not, that's not like classic manipulation. Like, it's not fully dishonest, but it's, it's like order book massaging for sure. Right. We're kind of understanding the psychology of other players. [00:08:40] Speaker B: To me it's more of like, look, Novig cannot exist forever with no fees. At least in my. Maybe you guys can, but I mean my view, you guys can't. And when you do come fees, you're gonna heavily reward being a maker as opposed to a taker and if you. I assume at least. And if I want to be a maker, I'm incentivized to get a better price so I can be that maker and not the taker. [00:09:08] Speaker A: Yeah, that is generally true, yes. Yeah. [00:09:14] Speaker B: Okay, it sounds like you don't want to say any more of that, which is fair. [00:09:17] Speaker A: No, I mean you definitely do incentivize makes and I think you're right about. I think the ecosystem calls for more fees. Now I'm kind of, I'd like to have a sort of like low vig bet online style split where it's like there's some set of parameters under which we allowed people to trade with no fees that we feel like gets us information cheaply. Like, similar to how like, like Kalshi direct has lower fees than Robinhood. Right. Like can you identify some vertical where it's like I can get high value sharp flow and find the floor of the cost to get this flow to then do better trading in higher volume, higher margin verticals. Those products and concepts don't exist yet. But that's why I'm like, well maybe it would be. Maybe you actually want a place where it's super cheap to take because you want a bunch of arb flow at small numbers that then does price discovery to let you do something. But like none of that is figured out. [00:10:26] Speaker B: So on that note, what's your thoughts on penny jumpers? [00:10:31] Speaker A: Yeah, we both, us, everybody should have a very good tick schedule. There's trade offs. Ours is super fine, which makes it too easy to jump. [00:10:44] Speaker B: Yes, yes. [00:10:44] Speaker A: Yeah. Poly's also one cent at a time. [00:10:48] Speaker B: 0.1. [00:10:48] Speaker A: Okay, 0.1. Yeah. So they're like us. So they're too fine. Kalshi is too large. [00:10:55] Speaker B: I'm seeing the pros and cons of both. It's funny because I was like complaining to you about penny jumpers and now I go into Kalshi and I see, okay, there's no penny jumpers. But this also sucks. Like this also sucks. [00:11:07] Speaker A: And also ours is very good for long shots. Like we actually have, you know, 101 versus 201 times, which they can't do. Then you know, like profit has like this very elegant kind of like tiered cascade of. It's tight in the middle and I like wide in the middle. It is, it's the best concept. It slows down development time a little bit because now you flip from like a price is just a number to like a price is a very special entity. And it is a little confusing to users. Probably not really to like a retail user on the application. But, but like if your whole thing like we were talking about how easy is it to onboard a Webull or a Robinhood? Like the more when you're in it, you feel like it's so easy to learn all these bespoke concepts like this. Oh, this is our like customized tick chart. And then it actually turns out like it's very easy. So easy to explain one decimal point percentage versus whatever. So there are trade offs to all these things. Yeah, I think, I think if I could snap my fingers and change everything, I would want like a very well thought out like wide in the middle type on the polls style tick schedule that is meant to account for all these things. But then once I had it, I'm sure, because we like for instance, we have it with even just like converting prices to dollars that actually takes account of, you know, cent rounding kind of things. And every time you have to do that, you're like, oh fuck, I don't want to be thinking about that. You know what I mean? So like I ideally would have something that discourages penny jumping a little bit in that regard. [00:12:51] Speaker B: But so I was arguing this with like Jacob actually in betbash. Is penny jumping that bad? Because it's getting closer to efficiency. So like what? And it sucks for me when I, because I'm typically a maker and when I post I don't jumped. But if I'm not a maker and I'm from the outside looking in, who cares, right? It's getting closer to the efficient. It's better for the consumer and like as a capitalist, it's better. I want everyone to have the fairest way to do it. Why punish penny jumpers, why ban them, et cetera, anything like that. [00:13:28] Speaker A: There's this theoretical framework too where if they're getting big fills and you're not, you should be able to spoof and murder them into oblivion. Right? Because it's like there's so much penny jumping. I never get filled and I get to hit it all. And you say, no, I try that and I'm getting filled. It's like, well then your regular order should be getting filled too. Right? So like everything, game theory wise, you should land at like, I'm still doing okay and if you're not landing there, there's an inefficiency that can be exploited, I think. So we don't have an open API, which is another thing we're personally moving towards an open API. That's like a big advantage that calcium poly have because then if even some subset of sharp traders has bots that identify penny jumping spots and seed and cross wash against themselves over and over and over again, they punish it hard enough that you probably squeeze out a lot of it. But if you don't enable your users to do that and it's just like too difficult to do. I mean even just we released desktop today which like maybe make that a little bit easier to try and yeah, mess about which would be interesting, but it, it definitely does. The other part of this, like, and this is a very practical concern, all of the sports based third party tools, odds jam, unabated, spank odds, spot odds, et cetera, they weren't built with exchanges and markets in mind. So at first none of them even had liquidity and now some of them are showing like top of book or like we have some min price. [00:15:03] Speaker B: That always annoys me because I hate like I'll look on odds jam sometimes and it's like, oh, there's $13 liquidity, but then like one tick lower it's like 40,000 in liquidity or 10,000 liquidity and it's like well that's very misleading because like, okay, if you're like, if you're that sensitive that like one decimal tick is not enough. I mean if there wasn't, the play wasn't strong enough. So like they need a better way to display the liquidity. It's insane. [00:15:30] Speaker A: I try not to rage about it. I had one response, there was like, there's literally 9,000 2 cents deep. Like what are you talking about with this 50. But the, but I think a lot of people are building tools for prediction markets that will be much more like order book as first class citizen. And I'm actually starting, I, I want to try and get some of these people on to have conversations with us and like that's, I think one of the eventual goals is try and bridge the like crypto prediction market side with the sports side. I know, I know, it's. Take a deep breath. [00:16:08] Speaker B: I can't take the digital third world. I'm just getting way too tilted on Twitter. [00:16:12] Speaker A: Like the, the one about they're going to remove the taboos around talking about politics at the dinner table. Because if you say like, no, you don't understand. I bet a lot of money on JD Vance to be president. Now all of a sudden your lib aunt isn't going to be upset, are you Rudy? Like that's so insane how much worse that's going to make the problem. [00:16:33] Speaker B: Why would you bet money on me? Exactly. [00:16:36] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, I like that a lot. But I do think those products will probably make it a lot easier to explore these markets in a reasonable way with like volume weighted average prices and stuff. So I'm, I'm starting to reach out to some of those people and. [00:16:52] Speaker B: Yeah. Because I can't even think of a solution. Like, you can't just go like 2 ticks deep or 3 yet. You can't. And you, at a certain point you have to determine what, how deep do you go? Like, what is like, I don't know, like. To me, I haven't really thought about a good solution. So I'm curious. I would love to hear someone smart like, say, this is my idea, why it's good because that would help out. And you know, it's like I see like the Twitter wars when like, you know, the social media team says, look, we have the best odds, but they're like a $3 deep. Well, that's not really the best odds because if who's betting? Only like, anyone that serious cares about the price is gonna want to be betting more than $3. But at the same time, how far back do you go, et cetera, et cetera? [00:17:36] Speaker A: Well, you could do things like set a unit size and be like, just find me. Like, I need this much quantity. Right. So give me the volume weighted average price of 1k or whatever. And like, and that's what a lot of them are. Kind of like sort of, kind of sort of doing like. We even do that with like, we hide anything under I think 25 Novig Cash from the just main page where you're scrolling. Like, you have to click and see the order book to actually see the tiny ones that we just set as like some made up threshold. Right. So everybody kind of has something like that. But yeah, I think you could do something smart. Like we could probably do that. Like, right. Have some setting where you could be like, I want to see when I'm scrolling the app for whatever quantity and maybe it would make it more usable. It's a fun idea. All right. I have, I have something I want to ask you about. Saturday, Last Saturday, Texas OSU is the big game. So. [00:18:27] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:18:28] Speaker A: College Football Week, 1, 97% of the volume on Kalshi was sports. [00:18:34] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:18:36] Speaker A: The, the product roadmap is a world in which sports is one of many categories. Yeah, right. That's the, that's the publicly stated view around both Poly and Kalshi. And in my opinion, not knowing these guys that well, but kind of knowing, I think they mean It I don't think they just want to build sports platforms. [00:18:59] Speaker B: I agree. [00:19:01] Speaker A: You start doing the math because sports is going to grow, right? So let's say, I mean you had parlays, you had player props. You can imagine sports volume conservatively 4xing over the next year or even say next 5 years, say only 4x's on those platforms. The corresponding growth you would need in the politics, news, climate, etc. Markets is they need to like 500x to get to that kind of ratio. [00:19:32] Speaker B: I've been thinking about this a lot and I think the best example to think of is think about player props. A couple years ago, player props was decimate with low liquidity. Several years ago you couldn't get a lockdown. Even like big guys didn't really look at to them that much. You had a couple smaller guys betting player props. And now NFL Sunday you can get almost 10k on a fresh fanduel account, which is insane. That is bigger than WNBA sides. It's bigger than some NBA sides and totals. And the market has just exploded because people have cared about it more and more and more. And you know, to further go on, I think I saw something, fact check me here that like three college football games made up almost 50% of their sports volume. Like probably like Texas OSU. The volume size there was insane. I posted an order for like 300k contracts and I was just like checking every like 20 minutes. And when I became top of book, I was getting like 50k contracts filled every 10 minutes. I think this is just absurd. Like the amount of volume is, is insane. It's because so many people. [00:20:43] Speaker A: You ruined maker fees, by the way. That's what they were looking at like never again. Now, week two, this is done. [00:20:49] Speaker B: Still has no maker fees. Really? Yes. [00:20:51] Speaker A: Okay, Are you sure you're not just over some tier where you're not paying fees? Because I ran. [00:20:56] Speaker B: I have no idea. [00:20:56] Speaker A: I asked somebody else and they were like, there were definitely fees on the Texas game. Chris just doesn't realize like what tier he's in of a fee rebate. [00:21:04] Speaker B: Oh, okay, Maybe, maybe I don't really know anything. [00:21:09] Speaker A: Maybe the only person who's accidentally hit these tiers that everybody else has looked at and said, well, that's obviously impossible. Nobody can do that. Like this is designed to be unachieved, unachievable. [00:21:19] Speaker B: Fair enough, Fair enough. All right, so getting back to your, to your question though. Like the point I was trying to make though is you can get it if it, if people actually care about it. And people care about the Super Bowl. People care about marquee NFL matchups, marquee college matchups. And that's why you can get this deep liquidity and insane volume. People care about sports in general is what happens. And using my player prop example, people didn't care about player pops years ago and now they do and now it's big. So will people. People don't care about like I don't care about these random like Taylor Swift markets right now, but in five years will people do care about them. And if they do, then the math actually does make sense. And the question is, will people. I don't know. I don't know. [00:22:05] Speaker A: There, there are two, I think that's one is like can you build actual new product categories, entertainment product categories. Right. Like people do this for fun. The Taylor Swift thing is fun. Like, like turning Rotten Tomatoes scores from something I think I have an edge in into like this is actually like a whole scene and we have a good time and win or lose, I'm glad I'm doing this with my time. That can account for some of your growth. I can't get there to the kind of numbers they need to do with just that. [00:22:39] Speaker B: Honestly, I think the problem that these guys are making when I say these guys, I mean Poly and Kalshi is they're too split up. Like too many markets is bad because you kill the liquidity because people can't concentrate on one things. There's so many different non sports markets on both a Poly and a Kalshi. I can get very specific at the thing I want to bet on or you know, sorry, not bet on, predict. So I can just get to the exact thing I want. If they kind of force people to like, hey, if you want to bet on Rotten Tomatoes, you can only do the number one ranked movie. Not every movie on score, just a number one movie or movie of the week, something like that. It kind of forces liquidity to go there and then if it gets deep, more people care. And I think a lot of people like myself, I'm not going to look at it. The reason I'm not going to look at it is when I pull up these order books, it's bid for $40 at 40 cents, sell at like $70.65 and then there's like a thousand dollars, you know, 10 cents deep on each side. I'm like, I'm not gonna waste my time for like $3 in expected value. If I'm, if I'm smarter than anyone here, I'm Just gonna ignore, move on. If they had deep liquidity, I would actually sit there and do the math and figure out what. [00:23:52] Speaker A: I think the thing that keeps me away from it the most is that just from a cursory explanation exploration of it, so much of the like sharp action and edges that I see people describe is basically just past posting or like hacking, hacking bad settlement rules and like, oh, like this is gross. In our little world, we have already concluded that this is gross and needs to stop. [00:24:18] Speaker B: Yeah. Anyone that pass post is ridiculous. [00:24:21] Speaker A: Yeah, right, exactly. Which I think you, you know, once you're calm, you kind of agree with. Yeah, of course, like you certainly can't build an ecosystem around it. Right. And so until I see something more than that, the product doesn't really feel like it's where it needs to be. But what I was going to say the other option is there's a reason that Wall street is so much bigger than sports. It's because these are actual valuable assets. It makes sense to own an equity. And it also, I'm talking about like safe stuff like, like equities and bots. I'm not talking about options. It makes sense to own a bunch of stocks. It also makes sense to sell stocks. It can be a win win trade day after day after day. The products sold on prediction markets are not win win unless you factor in the entertainment value of them. Unless they could become win win. And so like the, the 4% them paying 4% interest is a start. If you're already going to park this in a 4% asset, why not park it in a series of exciting 4% assets? Those are the kind of steps that get you there to the point where could you actually create a series of asset classes that people say this is a responsible thing to do with money? [00:25:49] Speaker B: For me, maybe I'm biased here. I just really disagree with that because coming from who I worked for when I was in the family office, he would say casinos opened at 9:30. [00:26:00] Speaker A: Okay. [00:26:00] Speaker B: And this is one of the greatest traders of all time. But he did a lot of swaps, which is a zero sum game and has really no value in those kind of things. [00:26:09] Speaker A: No, no. But a lot of swap trading is on one side, risk mitigation trading into a guy who wants to own the risk. Right. Like people have exposure to changes in interest rates or whatever he did, hey, there's this billionaire in New York who's willing to own that exposure. I do not want to own the exposure. And he'll charge me a few basis points to get out from under it. And that's where he makes his bones. [00:26:36] Speaker B: Okay, fair enough. And I will admit that the guy, he did take in some cases some negative EV trades to risk mitigate his other portfolio, which was like in fundamental good companies that he believed in and he thought if interest rates happen it would be cut or increased. It would affect him in one way or the his portfolio one way or the other. But what I can't wrap my head around is okay with the rotten tomatoes who is financially hedging. [00:27:02] Speaker A: No, right, right. It's not rotten tomatoes. It's not that. And the fact is Wall street has kind of sort of already invented every product that really has financial value. Right. Like there's no reason to think there's a bunch of low hanging fruit of like you guys haven't thought of this or that or the other thing that all of a sudden if I invent it, pension funds are going to start purchasing. [00:27:29] Speaker B: So let me ask you this. So I do agree. I see the difference between your points is yes, with some options there is value and have it makes sense for me to take a negative expected value position on swaps and options, et cetera, et cetera. But so many people use him as purely speculating and gambling devices. When we traded most of his trades was him gambling and he just had an edge over everyone else. What percent of this financial market is actually used for what it's supposed to be for, which is good investing, et cetera. And what is just advantage gambling? I would argue the majority is advantage gambling. [00:28:06] Speaker A: No, like, and in, in Tradfi, most of the volume is relatively responsible. Like consumer recreational mistake making is a very small percentage of the volume that is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Right. Like that's, that's not where it's going. But I, I think it is. It's kind of like hand wavy magic to be like we're going to create asset classes that fall into that bucket. Like not one exists yet and it's very hard to see where it comes from. And the only reason that matters is because that is where you could get to like giga volume trillions traded, you know, kind of thing. And I don't see it. But like an entertainment product is very much a great product. It's just, I think there is more history than people are willing to admit of seeing that sports are by far the most popular one. And you think horses were huge and died a death over several decades and were overtaken and even baseball was bigger than football for a while in the United States. So there could be some long, long arc of all this stuff changing. And obviously the speed of history is faster now. So maybe it's not that long, but it seems to me more of a culturally driven thing. The demand could create the supply. Like, BET Online can make these markets right. [00:29:34] Speaker B: For what it's worth. And you're saying this. I think the best markets are actually going to be, like, temperature in a specific city that's not riggable. Like, you cannot rig what temperature it is in New York. The Rotten Tomatoes is riggable. And if it gets big enough, someone is going to come in there and do some shady shit, and there's nothing you can do about it. [00:29:54] Speaker A: So that's the other thing that is a little interesting, which is can the. This is gross to talk about. Can the culture around rigging or, like, trading on things that you have influence on flip to where people actually feel like it is acceptable and cool for large factions to amount opposing positions on things that they then have, like, influence on. Like, I remember being in college and it was Kanye and 50 Cent released albums on the same day, and it was a big fight. Like, who's going to sell more units? And if you actually had, like, all the Kanye fans on one side and all the 50 fans on the other side, and it's literally streaming as much as you can buy it on itunes over and over and over again to win. [00:30:43] Speaker B: And. [00:30:44] Speaker A: And people didn't think that was nefarious. They thought that was sick. Then, like, maybe that's the next thing. [00:30:51] Speaker B: Is actually the best idea I've heard. That's actually pretty good. [00:30:54] Speaker A: And, like, our generation looks at that and is like, that's. You know, this isn't right. Like, you're not supposed to do it this way. But it doesn't take that long to have people who are raised in that ecosystem be like, this is normal. This is cool. This is really fun. And that would be fun. [00:31:09] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:31:10] Speaker A: Anyways, a few product ideas. Anything else you want to close with? [00:31:14] Speaker B: No, I think we'll get it next week. [00:31:16] Speaker A: Boom. [00:31:16] Speaker B: I mean, things will change so much, so we'll see what happens. [00:31:19] Speaker A: Week one in the books. Nice.