Texting While ‘Driving’ In A Tesla Is… Allowed? | The Brainstorm EP 109

Hello everyone. Welcome back to another episode of the brainstorm.

Today we're joined with Tasha Keiny. Brett is here as well.

And I lied to everyone.

Sam will likely be back next week.

That's my bad. Um here we go. Um we're going to just jump right into it. We have two great topics.

First, Tesla shareholder meeting.

Next, after that, we'll get into uh some Arc research on Robin Hood.

But Tasha, Brett, want to open it up to you.

Just had the Tesla shareholder event.

lot to talk about. So, why don't we take it away?

>> Sure. Sure, I can start. Um, so, you know, leading up to the meeting, the big uh decision that everyone was looking for was to see whether or not the pay package was approved. It was approved.

Um, so that's, you know, good news, uh, to incentivize, um, you know, a CEO to deliver promises that seem impossible when they're made, right? Um but uh I would say like from an investor perspective, we got a lot of other interesting tidbits.

Probably the biggest announcement, the biggest change um that we learned about was that Tesla plans on building their own chip fab.

Um they're doing this because they even with um TSMC and Samsung, they say, you know, we're uh they basically they think that chips will be the limiting factor for manufacturing.

This is both for vehicles and for Optimus. They think um Optimus could be more prolific than smartphones.

And so in order to get the true volume um that they need to scale both of these platforms, they're looking to build their own fab. Um but that's a much different business. That's a very different business from what they do now.

So Brett, what was your >> Yeah.

>> What did you think when you heard that?

>> Yeah. And one, it was new news.

Um I'm doubt well I think within the context of total volume of chips produced it seems clear to me that there should be enough chips to support kind of these new fangled applications within Tesla's ability to negotiate with TSMC and Samsung.

Um maybe they're not being given the volume promises that they want to hit their ambitious goals.

And so similar to what happened with batteries where um there was a um battery supply crunch um in order to in both kind of spur kind of the supply chain to invest in the form factor that Tesla thought was superior and to give themselves more negotiating leverage they invested in their own vertically integrated battery manufacturer.

I think that's the way to interpret the news where it's not necessarily that Tesla will develop a fab that then is selling to, you know, all these other players.

they're going to invest in the technology both to um make sure and like increase their negotiating leverage against Samsung and TSMC to ensure that they have a good um chunk of their supply and maybe um you know it provides them with um sourcing for specific products that can use whatever node they manage to get to and the the particular strengths and weaknesses of what they do on the fab side.

But spinning up a fab is is a license to incinerate billions of dollars.

Uh and so I think that there's a you know I I think it's probably um a a very low odds proposition that they get to kind of like a globally scaled fab that can compete with kind of the already scaled fabs. you have to line up a bunch of customers like they may be the most the the biggest consumer of chips in the world over time.

Um which would then kind of allow them but to potentially do it well. But you know look at Intel which has you know relied on its own volume to to essentially underwrite its own fab and they you know are really struggling right now um to to make the economics work. Uh, so I don't underestimate Elon, but I do think it's more of like a positioning play rather than uh we're gonna go all in and try to compete with Samsung or TSMC >> for for their own needs. Yeah, I mean, of course, if it was to compete, it would seem strange to announce that at the meeting, you know, it seems like their partners necessarily wouldn't take that well.

And they also mentioned um that they, you know, could see a future where they work with Intel.

So, seems like the decision-m for kind of where does this volume exist in the future is still ongoing.

>> Yeah. And maybe Tesla turns around and buys or Intel. Um maybe not. But I I do think that generally the idea that Tesla is going to be the chip maker for not just Tesla but also, you know, he mentioned sending, you know, compute chips up into space. uh SpaceX will clearly provide the launch facilities and probably the launch satellites for that, but that Tesla will be the provider of the underlying chips.

um does indicate that um it's likely that Tesla could be the um chip provider that XAI could rely on over time, assuming they get inference chips that are um kind of sufficiently interesting that they can scale and and designed to allow to scale to more language type um um models rather than just the embodied robotics.

Uh, and so I do think it was both kind of Elon recognizing that he's been being incentivized to drive Tesla forward here.

Um, and then looking at his own team across all of his enterprises and saying, "Hey, I have like the chip design team inside Tesla.

I need to use this team to best ability across everything that I'm involved in.

" I I do think that that's the direction they're moving.

uh they tried to use Dojo to compete head-to-head with Nvidia for the training stack and have now you know cut losses on that particular effort saying hey the inference chips is where things are going to happen but it's pretty clear that you know the particularly on the humanoid robot side but also on the robo taxi side there's going to have to be like reasoning that goes on uh in these chips and so the inference chips for those devices will probably look more and more similar to the training type workloads that XAI has to do.

Uh so you could read it as like there is a you know if you look at open AAI's um plans for investing in comput it exceeds a trillion dollars.

Well XAI to keep up is going to have to invest something on that order.

Well you know OpenAI is trying to ally with Broadcom to create its own chips. It seems natural that XAI would need to try to create its own chips and now Tesla seems like it's the natural provider of that talent and engineering resource to facilitate their growth.

>> Brett, not to take us down a rabbit hole, but you mentioned space compute.

What is the feasibility of that in the short to medium term? Because it's not just Tesla and Elon talking about it.

I think we've seen Google and they're going to send some TPUs into space.

I think there was just a startup that actually did this. And then you also had some graphics come out from Nvidia with huge solar arrays powering what looked to be like giant cargo container ships of what would be their Blackwell um you know data centers flying in space.

So what is the feasibility of this because we're hearing it more and more.

>> Yeah, I think there's um misperceptions and then there's accurate perception of what's going on. The misperception is um hey space is really cold. One of the problems with these chips is they get really hot.

So therefore we can stick a chip in space and uh it can get rid of its heat very easily because space is really cold.

The problem is yes space is cold but you don't have a lot of molecules in that up there to bounce your hot rapidly vibrating molecules off of to like offload that heat.

And so that temperature differential um way to offload heat just doesn't work.

It's just wrong. Uh and so but so so actually the the ISS the you know space station has to have these radiators to instead of having molecules bounce into each other to get rid of your heat.

You need to actually output um photons like you basically need to emit light uh and and radiate energy outward. Uh, and so the if you look at the weight of the radiators on the ISS relative to the heat they have to dissipate, you would crudely compute conclude that sticking a computer in space is a dumb idea because the amount of weight and mass you would need to get rid of the energy is way way way too much um for kind of like the output you get from the computers.

Now you can run those radiators hotter like you can actually change the the ISS has has kind of optimized to one um specific set of engineering specs for an actual computer in space that's running training workloads.

You can do things to actually make the economics potentially work and that's why Nvidia signed the partnership with StarCloud which is a startup that's trying to do it. And um I think Elon is looking at you know the amount of land space and um things he'll have to sign and execute upon in order to build kind of like lots and gigawatts and gigawatts of data center and saying well there's really like no power issues in terms of I can get 100% of the time solar energy in space and there's no real estate issue. I can just stick as much up there as possible. So once you get it working then you can scale it effectively you know to the degree that you can launch things up which he has the best in the world ability to do and so then thinks well I need a lot of training compute this is the you know uh real estate that has no limitations on it and so it's a way to kind of skip past scaling constraints I'd otherwise have now near-term no way like this is a you know um even even on his timeline it's kind of like 28 29 when they begin doing this practically probably early 2030s.

Um, and uh there's a lot of engineering work both on the SpaceX side and on the Tesla side that will have to go into trying to make this stuff work.

And it's, you know, there's radiation shielding, there's the temperature stuff, there's the um I I mean there's just a lot. So I think the prior to this week's set of announcements, my belief was yes, maybe you'll do computing in space for things that have to happen in space, but never back to Earth.

Um, now maybe it's more compelling just because it's so painful to try to build a data center on Earth that you're better off building a data center in space, but that's kind of a sad reflection on the political reality of building stuff on Earth.

any sense of like kind of what the biggest breakthrough will be um to fix the um heat dissipation issue?

Do you think it'll be more on the radiator side or do you think it'll be more on I don't know whatever coatings or >> Yeah.

No, I think I think you can um it's more you have to experiment to find out how often things break when you engineer it for like there's no um at least on the horizon huge technical breakthrough.

Uh it's more I have to be able to construct these things in space and then because I'm running these radiators very hot, I have to be pumping fluid out to the radiator from the chips.

So there's some kind of like pump system and then some of that, you know, then the system as a whole is maybe running hotter and so kind of like do my chips actually degrade at an accelerated rate with the combination of of, you know, the um kind of gamma rate or whatever particles are out there that bounce around and mess up your chips plus the additional heat. And you know, if you're sending a chip up there and it only lasts you a year, well, that's probably not a very good use of resources.

But there is there are people that have done like kind of the unit economics of it. We'll we'll look at it because from the context of our SpaceX modeling, it could become an alternative meaningful demand for um kind of their lifting resource.

Um whereas before we were like this is basically a company that puts up communication satellites, collects cash flow from those communication satellites, funds Mars, uh and uses the cash flow to fund Mars and build additional launch capacity to do additional communication satellites.

But there's an upper limit to how much communications revenue you can collect.

You know, basically like marginal bandwidth becomes less and less valuable because you've like flooded the earth with as much bandwidth as you need.

Well, if there's another demand curve that's also we can build a data center in the sky and people will pay for the flops that we put up there at a different schedule at a different rate and actually it's probably like a more unbounded curve where you can keep throwing flops up and keep monetizing it, then it changes potentially the long-term economics for SpaceX and consequently for Tesla and supplying those chips.

Um, but we just need to do more work.

I'd say it's a pretty early not not just on does this stuff pencil.

I mean I I can you could make assumptions that make it pencil but then also like can we demonstrate that that the practical reality is that it will work.

I I don't know.

>> Tasha, back to you. Any other tidbits from the shareholder meeting?

I'm assuming we got some incremental news on Roboaxi given how infocused it is right now.

>> Um yes. So, so, uh, Elon said that in the next month or two, um, you know, they could see a path to allowing texting while driving. And, uh, this is something Tesla has talked about for a long time is like kind of the, you know, the reason or or like a way to imagine how the demand for robo taxi will be so robust because once you can text and drive, everyone will want to do it.

In fact, you know, as they've said, people already do that. It's just incredibly dangerous.

Um, so the reason, you know, announcing that that'll happen in the next month or two is interesting because that that seems to signal that, you know, they're moving towards this unsupervised full self-driving software update.

Um, and if you if you can text and drive, that seems like it's in the unsupervised camp.

Um, and you know, they're also looking to remove the operator in the vehicle um, in parts of Austin, you know, within the next uh, few months here. So, uh, you know, it's just a another signal that they're sort of moving more towards that full autonomy plan.

>> So, that would be for FSD that we all have in your own personal cars, right?

That texting while driving.

And what would be like the legal ramifications if you got caught, you know, driving past a cop and you were texting, but it was actually the car driving.

Like, would they understand that this is okay?

Is it okay from a state point of view?

Well, it's it's a good question and I mean I mean it has to be it's okay.

It >> this already happens in Whimos with no driver in the front, right?

You just become a passenger. So it's like where's the person sitting in the car?

I don't know. Maybe maybe to get around some regulation loophole.

It's like you actually have to become a passenger.

I'm not I'm not exactly sure. My guess is that's not happening immediately, but um it's it's a good question sort of like what what this looks like the initial roll out.

I I don't think we specifically know from a regulatory standpoint, but it's like, >> can it happen? Yes, it already happens today, you know.

>> Yeah. Yeah. So, technically possible from, you know, how good the full self-driving software is getting, but >> maybe don't do it just yet if it does happen because you might get in trouble.

You might get a ticket.

>> Well, but yeah, he makes the point that like currently people turn off FSD in order to text while driving, which is definitely the wrong thing to do, right?

Like that's like it's definitely less safe but people do that because if you try to text while driving with FSD it's like you know you strike. Yeah. Yeah.

You get locked out. So um I've definitely never >> right now the incentive >> by the way.

>> No. Never. Never.

>> I've never had to pull over to the side of the road, stick it in park and then go back into drive.

>> Right.

>> Yeah.

I mean, >> and I did, you know, I did like six hours driving over the weekend with my kids and it was so I'm just like twiddling my thumbs there. I mean, like, come on.

>> Yeah. You just sit there with your hands on your lap and you have to look straight.

It's very awkward, >> right?

>> They should let you move around a little.

>> So, this is good. It's good for us.

>> Well, you can you can pass snacks back.

>> Yeah, you can. You can stretch.

>> Yeah. Well, so in in kind of Tesla related news, uh the CEO of Robin Hood, uh this past week as there was, you know, questions about Elon's comp package, announced that anybody that has a portfolio with Tesla shares in it, can transfer over to Robin Hood, their uh you know, brokerage for a 2% uncapped match, which probably on an individual account by individual account basis is perhaps like you know, some of the largest customer acquisition costs of all time.

Um, Nick, why is this a good idea for Robin Hood?

And also you and Vugo have just published a a big blog for Robin.

And and full disclosure, my mom is like, I should do that. And I'm like, yes, you should.

So, um, so she as a very very elderly person relative to the average Robin Hood customer is, you know, going through the process of transferring over her brokerage.

Uh, how do you think about kind of Robin Hood competitive landscape and how valuable it could be?

>> Yeah.

>> Would your mom be happy that you're calling her very very elderly?

Did you need did you need both >> relative to Robin Hood is mostly >> It is a very young demographic of users.

>> Yes.

>> Yes. Yeah. What is the demographic of Robin Hood's users and you know how are they going to take these poor young users and turn them into wealthy elderly users or young users that are very wealthy?

>> Yeah. Um I think uh so we just published a piece and we go through what we look at and call internally really the Robin Hood playbook and how you know when you look back at the story of Robin Hood in 2013 the way that they started was you know offering commissionfree uh brokerage trading and and went after a mobile first design which you know at the time was radically different from everything else happening. You had Erade Schwab everyone was charging anywhere from $7 to $10 per trade.

Robin Hood came in with POP which now has you know been demonized in a in a sense.

Um but you know what they did >> what what is POP?

>> POF POF payment for orderflow.

>> POF.

>> Yeah. PO off.

>> Okay.

>> Payment for orderflow. So you're you're you're routing uh the trades and getting paid for that. Robin Hood is that's how they're able to offer to us commission free.

But they were able to move the market away from commission trading into free trading.

And I think you look at how they um you know went after that market and said we're going to drastically lower the barrier to enter into brokerage um or trade as an individual and gain this leverage in the system.

One they you know ended up moving everyone in the brokerage space over to commission free. So they you know they found a solution that worked because they brought in a whole new demographic of traders.

Brett, you mentioned, you know, they skew significantly younger.

And that's because $10 a trade to a young investor that may only have a couple hundred to trade is a pretty meaningful meaningful size of your position. If you're, you know, only trading $100 and you have to pay $10, that's a that's a lot of capital to put up. So, I think now what we see is they've taken that and they've applied it to all of these new categories they're going after.

And so we'll put up a graphic here, but the idea is you have brokerage sitting at the center.

And now Robin Hood is going after active trading, so more professional style trading.

They've offered crypto.

They're launching banking. They have credit lending, wealth, wealth, and retirement.

And then they're also going to be launching a social platform in the next 6 months.

And so you think about where the leverage in the system is or where the real moat um for digital wallet players um is today. And we personally believe it's in the brokerage space. So when you ask the question, you know, how do they make sense of offering a match for Tesla shares, it's because once you've moved these shares over to Robin Hood, they can begin to cross-ell you into all of these new products. And once you're using two, three, four of these products and you've become a gold member, it's very unlikely that you're going to switch.

So you might have, I think the average person today has roughly $12,000 with Robin Hood. If you look at Schwab, it's just over $350,000.

So, as you age up with Robin Hood, their AU or accounts under custody and their revenue per user is going to just drastically increase as you shuffle and move more of your dollars into the ecosystem.

And I think it really does start with the brokerage.

And that's really what we tried to hit home in the piece.

If you own the brokerage, you own the rest of the financial landscape that surrounds an individual.

Is that I mean traditionally like banks for example would attract customers via the checking account feature and then kind of cross- sell them into other things.

Is there a reason why and and you know in call it 5 years ago we were very focused on kind of the peer-to-peer transfer transaction and how that leads to transaction facilitation and kind of like the debit card and how that could be a mechanism by which to expand.

Is there like why would brokerage be the better landing spot both in this moment and generally?

>> Yeah, I think in this moment and it's something we hit on, it's because the new generations are investing younger and younger and it's in part to what Robin Hood has done. So, if you look at uh the survey data that's out there, boomers, they started investing when they were around 35 on average.

Gen X was around 32. Millennials was around 25 and Gen Z is at 19. Right? So if you can own the individual at a younger age as they begin to you know accumulate more wealth tying that to the brokerage becomes you know very important to the rest of the story and I think if you look at the rest of the space P2P checking savings you've had a lot of innovation that's made it very easy for companies to offer checking savings like products to offer P2P right it's become very competitive and in my opinion more commoditized than brokerage um I brokerages is just inherently harder business.

It's high customer acquisition costs, right?

It's not as easy to break in.

But if you look at what had happened in the fintech space over the last 5 years, you have a lot of different players offering what would be quasi checking accounts, saving accounts to individuals.

And so if you can own that brokerage space, then it becomes much easier in in in our opinion to be able to break into checking and savings because this is also where the majority of your assets over time will sit or should sit.

If you're in the market, especially with your retirement account, with your crypto, with with your equities, that's, you know, if you can own the majority of someone's assets, then you're able to leverage and build off of it. I think it's the banking model just reinvented for the digital age.

I think, you know, there's something that's happened where it used to be there's this artificial distinction between this is your spending money and this is your saving money and then this is your brokerage, you know, and so it's like you got a checking account that you could spend out of, but then you had to have a separate savings account to capture like getting paid interest on it and and you could only withdraw like three times, I don't know, a quarter from that or whatever without paying some penalty fee. Uh, and that kind of got broken by interest rates clapping to z collapsing to zero, but it really gets broken by um like synthetic dollars and kind of like decentralization of finance.

And really those categories are just being blended and mashed together.

It's like why should I think of kind of this money that's here is money I can spend whereas this money that's there is money that I'm investing. Um, and also, you know, I need to be able to bounce back between the two um, very very frictionlessly.

And so then that's the promise of um, hey, if you have brokerage, like you can more easily flex down into facilitating spending and these other more traditional banking functions than you've been able to do in the past, both in terms of people how people think about the money um, and just kind technically with the back end of kind of decentralized finance etc. >> Yeah.

And it also works in the opposite direction.

Because you own brok or because you own the brokerage, you can offer other products. So one example is the Robin Hood credit card.

They're able to offer 3% cash back on all purchases across the board, which is a pretty high fee.

And we go into comparing it to other premium type credit cards.

But the idea behind that is you're not going to spend that money necessarily outside the Robin Hood ecosystem. So, they have a very seamless function where you can take the dollars you've earned and directly trans transfer that back into your brokerage account to then invest into your IRA or or wherever else.

So, it stays within this all-encompassing financial super app, which is what Robin Hood is is is leaning towards.

And I think that's really important, you know, to understand like they're now able to offer a competitive product in credit because they have this strong belief that the money is going to stay in this ecosystem because they've built out every other, you know, financial application or product that you'd potentially then transfer that money into.

Yeah, I think one of the really striking graphs in the piece which is quite good uh is the percent of revenue they generate under versus assets under custody versus a traditional brokerage.

So they're getting something like I don't know eyeballing 1.5% um versus 0.25% for a schwab. Do do you think that that is like a sustainable differential or is that just because hey we have young poor people on here who are doing a lot of trading as we ageify and kind of like up wealth our kind of user base that'll blend down to some degree.

Maybe they'll be more kind of revenue generative but um or is it going to continue?

think you'll end up looking more like Charles Schwab and we we'll have the graphic up here but it it will be that you know your take rate comes down but your assets under custody for an individual skyrocket up and so if you look at right now really high margin products options crypto all of these products that are in that one to one and a half% range those will become less meaningful over time because the opportunity in retirement which is a lower margin product is much bigger on an assets basis and That's really, I think, the point of the last component of the piece, which is think about this generational wealth transfer that's happening um currently and will continue to happen over the next few decades.

If you look at the assets under custody from the boomer generation, it's around $124 trillion.

And we'll we break it down and you can see the different components of that. And a lot of that money over the next two decades are going to transfer to millennials and Gen Z and they're going to have to keep those assets somewhere. And so if you're Robin Hood, you want to build out again this one singular platform to be able to accept and transfer all of those assets that your parents kept on Schwab and some of these older, more outdated, in my personal opinion, uh, brokerage uh, applications and move it into something that you've been accustomed to using for the past 10 years. And that's really where you think of the long-term opportunity for Robin Hood is beyond brokerage.

And you look at, you know, the the the revenue opportunity and we showed this chart. You know, brokerage from a revenue basis is a $25 billion opportunity.

This is from their own investor day slides. But if you look at retirement and and lending, these are hundred billion dollar opportunities.

So, this is really where you want them to begin to focus and shift away, not away from the brokerage because it's still central, right? It's that glue that holds it all together, but at you want them to focus on newer opportunities.

And that's what they've done.

They have retirement now.

They have lending products.

They're continuing to move into more lending products.

They just started a mortgage um you know lending partnership with Sage where they offer you know one of the most competitive mortgage rates I I think I've seen which is 75 basis points below whatever you're quoted um elsewhere.

So you know this is um you know the Robin Hood playbook, right?

Go into a new market, offer the most competitive pricing and then move everyone into your financial super app.

Tasha, where do you do your brokerage?

>> Um, I I use uh JP Morgan or No, but I I don't use any of the digital tools, >> but it's probably because >> it's probably >> Well, it's probably because of the um restrictions that we have on on sort of what we can do as an individual um to to keep in line with our client interests.

So, >> yeah, it's true.

>> Well, right. I I would totally do this except that, you know, I there are some assets that there's like a particular strategy that's in the private, you know, company land that Robin Hood won't custody for me.

So maybe if Robin Hood would, you know, on board some of our other strategies, then I would be able to transfer over and and Vlad.

Um the uh Okay, we're on to the ledger.

Um, this is the market we're going with.

It is. Uh, so this is Tasha, you get to wager in the guest slot.

You're blended. Basically, it's us against the field here. But, um, so far Nick is losing to the field.

Um, the market is the market is the market is who is Times person of the year in 2025 going to be? I'll read out the odds to you and I'll just give you a little color on what's happened. The number one is right now uh AI at 39%.

If they say chat GPT is is it that doesn't count as AI. Chat GPT is somewhere down the list. It has to be like artificial intelligence in some way.

Uh number two is Jen Sen Huang CEO Nvidia trading at 28 21% and climbing uh up 8 percentage points like over the last week or so. Uh, number three, Pope Leo, uh, 16%, Donald Trump 12%, Sam Alman 12%, and Zuran Mamdani at 10%.

Uh, or you can pick something down the list if you can find the Koshi contract, but we'll go with uh, uh, we'll go with Tasha first.

Tasha, >> I I mean, this is like an interesting answer, but I I think um, I I I would pick AI.

I mean, they had the the uh, you as person of the year one year.

Um, so it's like they have done sort of like a a non uh typical uh highlight before and it that that one seems like the more likely.

I mean it just really took over the past year.

So Nick, I'm going to take Jensen.

>> Yes. Yes. That's also what I'm feeling.

I'm feeling Jensen. I think that the um I I I think you have to interpret it both.

Oh gosh, I think Tasha would be right because they they are trying to sell magazines.

They don't actually care about who the person of the year is.

What do you put on the cover to like actually drive kind of like people to buy the magazine and if they say AI, maybe that's more sellable rather than um kind of a CEO that all of us have heard of but maybe the average person has not.

Um, so it it really is kind of like a balance between that and whether or not Jensen's PR people are pushing him hard enough that they get him in.

But I'll take I'll take I'll take the um yeah better odds on Jensen rather than AI.

Uh in fun prediction market news, I read a tweet today that was the government shutdown is apparently ending.

Um, there was someone who put an outsized position on it ending, you know, within this week and they posted that they're an Uber driver and they were driving home a drunk Democratic senator who let slip that, you know, the deal had been finalized and, you know, everything's going to come out on Monday.

And so there you can track the trade.

You can see it.

This person posted about their rationale.

um people picked up on it and you know this is the the new the new world order in prediction markets surfacing uh real time alpha for anyone willing to believe an anonymous post about uh driving home a drunk senator.

>> Yeah. Well, and it shows how private information can become public through the incentive mechanisms of markets.

I hope the Uber driver, you know, basically extracted a much better tip than he would otherwise get.

I suppose >> I think it was a pretty sizable position.

And I thought I s thought I saw around $8,000 on I think what was a long shot >> at the at the time.

>> And what's the incentive to publicize your rationale?

>> Just try a good >> Well, I mean because then you can even if you're lying, you can like monetize.

>> You can you can move Yeah, sure.

>> You can try to move the market in your favor, >> right?

>> That would be the way, >> right?

But even if you don't, I mean, you know, if you imagine there's private information, the person is like just betting and suddenly the market's moving, they're not going to necessarily tell you, but you look at the market and you say, "Someone knows something here.

" I mean, that's happened with a few markets in the past. And then people have pointed to like, "This person clearly knew something, though.

It's an anonymous contract. We don't know who they were.

" So, yeah.

All right. Well, that's the show.

Thank you, Tasha, for coming on.

Brett, pleasure as always. Um, all right.

Thank you.

>> All right.