A New Era of Coverage: Bitcoin Insurance Powered by Distributed Custody

It all comes down to computers communicating. The information superighway can be a confusing mix of on-ramps and off-ramps. Bitcoin is worthless artificial gold. Is it still rat poison? Probably rat poison squared. We need to get into the world of Okay, this is actually foundational technology. What the internet of money does is it creates a single network which can do a microtransaction to a giga transaction. The internet is going to be one of the major forces for reducing the roll of gun. The one thing that's missing but that will soon be developed is a reliable ecash. Alrighty, boys. Welcome back to another episode of Final Settlement. Today is Monday, March 24th, 2025, and with me today, we've got a a big cast of characters. We've got my co-host, Liam Nelson and Michael Tanguma. We're also joined by Mitch Cotchman, uh chief revenue officer at On-Ramp, and very special guest, Ben Davis, CEO and co-founder of Native Insurance. Very excited to have him on the show. Uh if you've been following on-ramp or everything we do, uh big announcement with native from last week um a partnership with them to secure uh an insurance policy for multi-institution custody from Lloyds of London. So very excited to to dig into that and unpack everything related to you know how insurance has worked in the digital asset and Bitcoin space for um sort of the first 16 years of its history and and what we're building today on top of this foundation of of multi-institution custody. We'll get to all of that, but maybe um just to start things off, Ben, it would be great for uh the audience to learn a bit more about yourself, your professional background, and uh native as well. Yeah, absolutely. Before jumping in, super excited to have you on the pod, and I think um the past six plus months, I think as the price has gone up, the industry has gotten very interested in insurance for this precious asset. And so after meeting your team and your backgrounds, really excited to have you talk about and dispel and demystify a lot of the insurance industry where the gaps are and how Lloyds is actually frankly pretty sophisticated and understanding the asset class and where to price risk. It's just been necessarily not the easiest to price it in a cost-effective manner. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. I think there's some great points and happy to kind of go in that. So I guess for me, so I'm originally from Canada. I live in the UK for for 10 years now. Um, I've been in insurance for 13 years and um, I would say the last eight years has been dedicated to digital assets and and advancing the um, the insurance uh, community within within the digital asset sphere. Um, I think it's been very apparent to me that there's been no more um, excluded asset class in history than Bitcoin and and digital assets when it comes to insurance. And so um as my kind of journey in ensuring these this emerging technology started and kind of progressed, I realized that there really needed to be a a dedicated insurance broker um for the the community that could kind of lead companies by the hand into into a a a world basically where there is less risk than um than where it is now. I think when Bitcoin first kind of came out and the whole idea of of having this decentralized currency, we had this we had a whole lot of innovation that kind of came out of it. But what actually happened was in a lot of instances we were actually just finding new ways to put risk in in in different ways and actually instead of de-risking a lot of things in in a number of areas risk started increasing. So like relying on you know centralized institutions to custody everything with very little risk management practices as we found out with FTX collapsing um or Celsius or the Terral Luna stable coin disaster right there. A lot of things started coming out where actually you know risk wasn't being handled the way I think um maybe Satoshi envisioned when it when he first kind of wrote wrote the white paper. And so a couple years ago, myself and my co-founder Dan Ross, we looked at the the entire ecosystem and we could name, you know, five different companies that were born out of the digital asset ecosystem that focused on specific problems, whether it be custody, um, you know, hedge funds, VC, exchange, whatever it is. There were all these verticals and there were companies that had started in the digital assets sector that were born to solve those problems unique to that industry. except when you got to insurance and there was no regulated insurance broker that could actually um kind of navigate those those two worlds kind of the traditional insurance finance world and then you know the new decentralized economy of of today and so that's why native was started we started because we think that there's a massive chronic underinsurance problem in in the Bitcoin industry and in order for there to be mass adoption for consumers and institutions to feel safe and engaging in this world, there needs to be good risk management and insurance is a big part of that. And so that's why we started um native and it's gone uh fortunately better than we had anticipated. I think um we've had a lot of uh really good kind of early successes in our in our um in our life cycle and uh yeah really excited about future and working with you guys and and bringing you know the the vision of multi-institutional custody to to more businesses. Yeah. No, thanks for that that uh overview. I think, you know, it's it's probably worth taking a bit of a step back and just talking more generally about, you know, insurance, the industry, why it exists, why people want it, why it hasn't been super applicable, um, at least to date in the digital asset and Bitcoin ecosystem. Um, so so maybe we can touch on that, Ben, and and whoever else wants to jump in on just like sort of how we got here, um, in terms of, uh, the ecosystem and there not being a lot of solutions for what we're describing. Brilliant. Yeah, I think there's there's a lot to bite off there. So, I think whenever I'm kind of having these discussions, I like to kind of zoom out and actually just talk about insurance as a whole. Insurance is a capital market like anything else, right? You know, there's supply, demand, it is a financial service. Instead of trading equities, we trade risk in in companies. Um, and so back when I first started this um, this journey in 2017, there was an incredibly limited appetite for for digital asset risk. I would probably say, you know, now we're probably working with, you know, 30 40 companies. Back then it was like two that that could really write this. And I think why it was so limited was that it was in order to understand Bitcoin you had to understand the problem which is you know the fiat money system uh you know is broken. And so when you walk into a boardroom of this big financial institution and you say look there's this Bitcoin thing that's going to really kind of change things. We need to start under understanding this getting our heads wrapped around it because this is going to change pretty much everything we do. everyone at that point was looking like you're about to deal them drugs or, you know, send money to who wherever. Um, they didn't the the problem wasn't big enough for those pe the people sitting in the ivory tower to really like care that much. And so instead of walking into a boardroom where you're starting at like ground zero where you can kind of build up the education, you were starting at -2 because they already had all these preconceptions about what Bitcoin was even before you walked into the room. And so most of the education sessions I was doing back then was just trying to demystify a lot of the the um the misconceptions. I mean, Bitcoin had a very bad PR problem back then. It was there was just tons of FUD kind of constantly hitting the news cycles and on these new news newspapers. And so when you walked into these boardrooms, people already kind of labeled you as the the crazy guy. Um but ultimately um what kind of started happening was more and more businesses started waking up to the fact that um this was going to happen. there's going to be digital assets being put on the balance sheets of these big corporate companies, big publicly traded commercial companies. And if the insurance industry didn't wake up to it, there's two things that were going to happen. One, they were going to lose business to the client to the companies that did understand it. Um, two, the, you know, the digital asset guys are going to figure out a way to do it better than them and leave them behind. Um, and then yeah, three, they wouldn't be able to kind of defend uh or acquire new new new customers because if more people are touching this technology and as soon as they touch it, they can't underwrite it, then they can't grow as quickly or and hit their business targets. And so it's actually a big kind of fundamental problem for these companies. And so that's kind of like how how it started and how it started developing. it hasn't, you know, when when we really started going at this thing probably six years ago. Um, more and more companies started waking up to it, but there was still a big underinsurance problem. And then as the value started kind of rising, um, and and more serious companies started getting into the space, that's when, you know, we jumped from like, you know, 10 companies to 40 because people started realizing, okay, this is actually here for the long haul, right? back when back in 2017, I don't know if you guys remember, but people were calling it the the tulip bubble, tulip mania, and referring get some of that. Yeah, exactly. Right. Somehow, but but it stuck around and people are realizing that it's not just this flash in a pan, this bubble that people thought it was, it's actually something more. And so I think the the education is certainly much better now. I think companies are taking it much more seriously. We have a lot more serious players, big limits, you know, as you guys know, with the 100 million facility coming out. Um, it's a serious space and and and it's now being taken as seriously as it needed to be. Ben, can you break down go a little deeper on um because I'm always fascinated with entrepreneurs that have backgrounds, you know, specific to maybe it's not exactly what they're they were previously doing, but it's adjacent. So, they have deep market knowledge coupled with understanding the consumer or the client sentiment. So, you can start to really commercialize. I think a lot of people come into digital asset space, ideulate on an idea, maybe raise some capital because there's a lot of money out there, but may not necessarily have the taste for what the market wants. And so curious, like I'm not actually super familiar with Superscript, but I know it's a larger firm. Curious what you did there and then how it ties into Native and where Native like really found a gap in the or a perceived gap that I think you found, you know, and where the market was lacking um between the digital asset firm and Lloyds and these other underwriters. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. So, I joined Superscript about five and a half years ago. Um, and kind of then started as an underwriter and then kind of morphed my role into heading up the digital asset team. We grew it from zero to I think it was 19 million uh GWP when we when we left. Um but as we kind of grew that book and started interacting more with the ecosystem, we really realized that there was this boundary, this limit, this threshold that you couldn't cross unless you went all in. Um because the culture, the technology isn't something you can really just like bolt on. It's something you have to you have to be immersed in and build it from the ground up. And so there was we could never and we had a very ambitious um vision of where we wanted to grow this thing as being the riskmanagement center of the digital asset ecosystem. And we couldn't really get there unless we dove head first into it, raised that money, and then built the foundations with that technology as as the underlying core. Um, and so it it didn't matter if it was Superscript, if it was, you know, another big insurance broker, there's always this threshold that you can't quite get at. And so my my co-founder and I, I think it was actually three years ago now, we put our heads together and said, "Okay, where do we see this space going? Where do we see our solution come into play here?" And we kind of iterated on it over the years. And then it basically just coincided with a lot of our clients and investor contacts just said, "Look, you guys got to go do this yourself." Um, you know, we'll back you just go do this because the market needs something like this. And we were only really competing against the big financial institutions of the world um that could never be agile and nimble and kind of move and and go through the the very big gaps that were kind of that have emerged in in the digital asset insurance industry. Um and so that was kind of the the impetus from it. It was we knew that we had to do it or else we'd never be able to kind of realize the vision. and it coincided with um access to capital, access to to clients and having relationships in that entrenched distribution that we had worked with for the last eight years. So we've got great contacts all over the world with in all the big major digital asset hubs so that once we got going they all just kind of brought us business and we would get up and running very very quickly. And so yeah, it just kind of really all came together really nicely that kind of preceded the the opening of native. And is it a over oversimplified version saying that the gap in the market you guys fill is that there's all these digital asset native firms that need to price and underwrite the the the custody or risk that they are engaging in and they don't have the means the market knowledge to go to the large syndicates and the Lloyds of the world to be able to articulate that and then get favorable pricing to make it economic and that's what native steps in to fill or is there anything else that I'm missing there? Yeah. So that's um that's definitely the beginning of it. Um we just from the traditional insurance side of things. Um a lot of people were having a lot of very confusing discussions around insurance and they didn't really know what's insurable. You know what do you have to take on your own balance sheet? What do you have to put onto a third parties? How to make it cost effective? How to segregate it? All that kind of stuff. And so we had a really great proposition where because we've been doing this for eight years, we knew exactly how to do it. Um, we also had the relationships with the syndicates like you mentioned, Michael, um, so that we could introduce those those clients and place them in the traditional into the traditional markets. However, the the the real kind of um, innovation we're bringing to market is now we're able to do all of that but onchain. So, we're actually able to build Bitcoin denominated insurance policies um and other, you know, using stable coins as well and actually offset that risk onto um a balance sheet denominated digital assets. And so what's really cool and why I think 2025 is going to be a really big year for digital asset insurance is we have got now a few insurers that actually have balance sheets in Bitcoin um and and in ETH and some and and USD where they can actually offset the liability onto uh digital assets. And if you're a broker and you don't have our capabilities, you can't even you can't engage because you have to have that fiat. Your system's all fiat. So you'd have to work out a way where you don't get exposed to any digital assets where with us because we have that tech in the background um and we know how to do it. It we're able to take advantage of this new wave of insurance that is coming out that is denominating digital assets. And so that's the big innovation. You know, no brokerage has ever done that before. And so um we're really excited that we're the first that can kind of go in and and bridge that gap. Yeah, it makes a a ton of sense in terms of really needing the domain expertise to execute on this properly. And I think, you know, this is sort of um a correlary to to what we talk a lot about on the custody side. It's just like Bitcoin is so unique. It's so different from custodial perspective. How, you know, where these risks actually manifest in the sense of like securing private key material is just very different than any other asset. So obviously the insurance of set asset is going to be very different and so you do need that that fundamental expertise. Um curious you know if we could dig into a little bit more around you know what's existed in the market to date. So like in terms of you know the Coinbases of the world that have quote unquote insurance policies. What are the pitfalls of that? Why is that you know really more or less marketing or or window dressing on and and not a really robust solution? Um, and then how does that tie into, you know, uh, what we're trying to build in terms of having more resilient foundations in terms of the custody itself and then having basically a more clear path to ensuring something that's more risk mitigated at the foundation. Um, so insurance really started for for custody by adapting um forms, specy forms. So speci is is the insurance that is used for um things of value in vaults. So that's normally fine art, gold, silver, things like that, jewelry that you know you store in a vault, you lock it away, you forget it, and you can insure it. When in when digital assets came along, the the very first kind of iteration of a new policy basically envisioned a way where, you know, you could lock up some Bitcoin in a ledger, throw it in a vault, and you basically have the same kind of thing. And that, believe it or not, that mentality is still the prevailing kind of mentality when you're insuring large amounts of digital assets. Um because as soon as you start getting into that, you know, 200, 300, 400, 500 million dollar range, which you need if you're insuring, you know, however many billions, um or if if not more, right? Um you you compromise on the coverage. So you have to you have to have a bit more of a narrow policy because if you have a claim, the entire thing can can go up. And so it's this kind of it's been this dance in the insurance market really to um kind of balance the limits that are being provided with how broad the wording is and how much it actually covers because you kind of have these different levers. If you have a broader wording, you can't offer as much coverage because if you have it, then you could have a really really bad day. For example, you know, like the bybit hack is a great example of, you know, if they had uh 1.4 4 billion insurance policy. That would be, you know, potentially an entire insurance company that's just gone under or multiple insurance companies that have just gone under, right? So, there has to be some um uh I guess bars or or limit fac limiting factors when you're offering that kind of that kind of coverage. What's coming along now is more um we're now broadening out that wording to offer more of like a crime style wording which is actually offering um coverage for uh funds transfer fraud or um hacking more hacking style attacks where an external actor can kind of come and and hack the the underlying infrastructure. And so there's this there is this kind of two two mindsets in insurance. You can kind of go the the tall and the the narrow or you can go the broad and the short um with kind of coverage and limitations. And so what a lot of the custodians have had uh predominantly is that kind of um tall narrow coverage because that's the thing that has kind of been um the thing that's attracted new users into the space. Ultimately insurance is a great vote of confidence for the underlying company. And I think that's why it's so cool that um and so important that on-ramp has under underwritten the uh multi-institutional custody model through Lloyds and we're now able to kind of offer this out to to your clients as well. Yeah, maybe we can go a little broader there with the group. I know there's a lot of experience and expertise um on this pan or on this this podcast specifically from Mitch who um is our chief revenue officer here at on-ramp but spent a few years working directly with leadership at Bitco and and selling you know custody insurance and there's this just notion and sentiment and it's not necessarily fair but it's true that it's felt that um insurance is more of window dressing than anything and that you have these large pools of assets that have billions of dollars, but then the policies are onetenth to 1/100th of that. And it's always understood if there's some risk there that the under the individual will not be made whole. And and I think that there's an underlying component to that of just um to the point that we talked about, it's the overlaying of traditional finance on top of this industry. I like to joke and say it's like it's almost like if you were trying to build Instagram and you went to Kodak. Like it's completely nonsensical. It's alien except for this is everyone's money. So it really makes no sense if you're trying to build if Instagram was a financial service firm to go to Kodak. And I think it ties back to you know the uniformity and the physical nature of like bank vaults and the the um reversal of transactions in the fiat system or ledgers versus a digital bearer asset. And the thing that really like stuck out to me was the buy bit hack because we're looking into some like just research on other theft or losses. And from a physical perspective, it was 20 times larger than the the previous biggest, which I think was there was two that were in the $50 to $60 million range. One was gold in Iraq and the other one was I think a painting in in Paris. But it's just this point of like underwriting insurance is fundamentally it's like alien when you think of a digital bearer asset because you put it all in this wallet that's omnibus aggregated together and the insurance is just kind of window dressing and that's where most Bitcoin holders have ended up saying the best insurance for their Bitcoin is the way the cryptographic keys are secured. How the private keys that's why they take them offline because the only way you can credibly make sure they're safe is by segregating them. you you sever that internet connection. So, I know I threw a lot out there, but that's just like setting the stage of like how we're here and that there's ways to inspire confidence, but it's basically like a check checkbox for compliance on an institutional level. And then the individual is if they're educated, they know they're not really going to be made whole. God forbid there's a hack. And the other side of that, people are hacked all day long on their personal accounts and they're never made whole from like their Coinbase and BitGo wallets. And Michael, you nailed it there. Uh, you know, we've got the we've got the first, you know, asset digitally native that that you can actually just lose. And it's not a checking account. It's not, you know, where you can just replace a row in a database. This is just it's a bearer asset. So, you know, you solve for it, you know, realistically with with your infrastructure set up with um you know, keeping these the funds actually in cold storage on segregated addresses. So, um you know, one incident doesn't tear down the whole system. But that said, um, you know, the you mentioned the compliance teams and, you know, everybody I've spoken to the largest Bitcoin treasuries there are and you know, and I did so at Bitco. The first thing or one of the first things you get asked for is the insurance policy. And it's it's a check mark. Um, you know, it's it's important to these firms, but it's also a sign, you know, on on more than just the window dressing. It's a it's a sign that, you know, the the infrastructure has been inspected and by by firm that, you know, like a Lloyds that ultimately has stake in the game of, you know, they if they're signing off and blessing the infrastructure, um, you know, it's going to something happens, it's ultimately, you know, the policy was followed. if it it falls on them. So, um you know, they're looking to, you know, as for for that signal to, you know, to make sure that the that's the first sort of speed bump of, you know, this is a firm I want to work with. And then you know they they get into the details of um you know key management and um you know the finer details that you know a bitco or an on-ramp you know where you know progress through and you know we we continue that discussion but yeah insurance for sure is is the first speed bump and and very much was one of the first questions I got with talking to any of these firms. Yeah, it's it's a great um way to show that you take risk seriously. Um so it's a sign of maturity. Um it also is a great um kind of I maybe call it like business liquidity provider where if you have it, it's a lot easier to transact and to contract with other businesses that that are requesting it, right? Like I would say probably one of the biggest um sources of growth for us is from companies who either need it to get regulated or need it for big contracts, right? Like you won't probably get um even a seat at the table unless you have some sort of insurance there to to show that you're mature. You've you've done your due diligence. You're got risk on your mind and you're not just going to blow up. And if anything did happen, at least you'd be able to make those people whole. Um so again it's it's it's big. I think like m Michael Michael what you were saying about the um kind of those big big limits and those big omnibus wallets. I think what is going to be probably the next big um trend in digital asset insurance is ensuring on a per wallet basis and really having that segregation between accounts because at that point if you can show you know proper segregation you'll be able to have those dedicated limits kind of on a per wallet basis. Um, and I know you guys have done a lot of work on on that in terms of, you know, having segregated client accounts. I think you call it vaults. Is that right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Michael, do I was just going to say maybe you want to give like a a brief overview of you know multi-institution vaults why that is you know a more robust trust minimized trust distributed structure and why that was able to effectively get underwriters more comfortable with there can't be a omnibus style black swan event because the underlying infrastructure of our custody model is segregated onchain and very transparent. Yeah, Ben's the expert, so I'll let him dive into what his initial um inclination or where he thought we had something and then going to the underwriters because I think there's a lot there and their understanding. But maybe before that, I think there's it's really important to contextualize like what we're talking about here. Um because there's a few I don't want to call them fallacies, but things that are embedded in the industry that are looked at as improve like improvements that aren't actually improvements. and and when you really like maybe there improvements incrementally if there was no such thing as multi-institution custody but there is and the one that you just referenced Ben that reminds me of um another one is like the notion of diversification of of custody right diversification of custody in general diversification of anything is is is implied this is a cynical take but it's true is implied that you don't actually know the future so you're making a bet that you're you're diversifying the fact it goes to if you're an investor Everyone knows you you you place your bets, you double down on your winners, but generally when somebody doesn't know what they're necessarily doing, you see this AC across FDIC insurance, people park assets across banks or you see this right now it's the institutional theme of segregating across uh institutional custodians because ultimately you're saying I don't know which one's going to go up. So I'm in I'm insinuating that if I split it across three institutions I lose 33% of my assets or five institutions. It's similar with an individual in their custody. If you're diversifying your custody, you know, there's a natural version that we've spent, you know, hundreds if not thousands of years of walking around money and then safeguarding money. But if you're thinking of custody and splitting around 25 30% of a total stack of Bitcoin across four different entities, you're basically saying, I don't know which one is going to like have that black swan, so I need to like make sure I don't have that happen. And um I think that's similar is similar vein to what you're describing in segregating the wallets from an institutional level because ultimately generally those are the same private keys that are securing the omnibus as the individual wallet. So you can do it per wallet but there's a full there's a fundamental reason why these policies haven't gotten past 200 300 400 million at the highest level is because I'd be curious Ben is there a re what's the reason for that? Because that ties into this like what I'm describing for securing the higher limits or yeah where you generally run into this threshold of my understanding it's like anywhere between three to 400 million at the highest end that uh any exchange or custodian has been insured from a like a loss. Yeah. Um I mean there there's a lot of factors that that determine that. A lot of it is um well some of it's right regulation saying you have to ensure up to a certain limit. So if you have a billion, you have to ensure up to let's call it 30% of your your cold storage or hot wallet. Um or it's budget just people can't afford to um purchase for full limit. Um or it's for a contract. Um but also like when you start getting up to that amount of coverage, the amount um of companies you have available that can provide that amount of coverage starts declining. So you you there's only you know it's it's kind of a sellers market um at this point where they can kind of figure they set the rules, they deploy as much as they want and then they don't really need to deploy anymore. um they can get a good rate for it. They can set the terms and so they can say look on this risk we only want to do you know 100 million 200 million whatever it is because at the back they're also working with other syndicates and reinsurers that kind of spread out that risk. So there there's a few different reasons for that. Um but yeah that's that's what I've kind of started seeing as the I guess the common kind of point for some reason. I don't know why if it just converges there but yeah it does. Yeah. in the way my perception of it is is that it's a there's an economic reality that I call like the barbell problem of on that side the market has formed around that number from an economic perspective of custody can only be charged so much to be competitive. So you have to whether it's the liquidity from the institutional side to being able to sell it. You everyone's come to that agreement, it's roughly 3 to 500 million. Um if there's a existential hack or some problem at that custodian, most likely you're not being made whole. And then there's the other side of the barbell which is a little different in the sense when it's physical assets it's easier to underwrite you know a Rolex watch or a diamond ring or even like the art because you can start to like understand the physical world and there's a lot of friction between the bad actor and that and the premiums and even that starts to get not economically feasible. But when it comes to digital assets, if somebody's trying to secure their own setup, their own multi-IG setup, it turns into this like snowflake problem where everyone's fundamentally going to be a little bit different, how do you underwrite it, how the keys are stored? And so then it becomes very economically on the other side not feasible because you end up paying, you know, 1 to 2% if not higher. And then on the premium side, you have to pay 10 to 50%. So you're basically stuck on both sides. And this is just a a fundamental like point of how early we are to this asset class. And so this notion of what multi-institution brings is it's this unique opportunity where you can put it onchain segregated. You can have a vault or address title to that person's name. But then the institutions and the underwriters already have done the qualified custodians. They already know how to underwrite the risk, how they secure that cryptographic material. And so it turns into orders of magnitude higher um or d-risking while also being able to have it on the client side onchain segregated. And so if there is some kind of whether it's negligence, malfeasants, uh collusion, it's at a policy level or at a wallet level, not at the entire aggregate of all the assets secured. And so independent of the insurance, it's just it's a game changer as we're realizing for all the way from individuals to the pensions we work with. But then now you can layer on insurance. And I think where this naturally progresses is you start to make it more bulletproof for institutions just to hold spot custody and or spot bitcoin in this type of custody. As that comes in, it's a natural progression. If those institutions are holding in that way, then they can actually start to provide liquidity dollars to underwrite the insurance in the same way that somebody's underwriting the insurance to provide that liquidity now can feel more comfortable in the spot custody. And I don't know which ones I don't think it's a chicken or egg problem. I think they just happen uh simultaneously as we go up the market. And now you can get hundreds and hundreds if not billions of dollars in these policies. And so that's kind of how I the uh my layman version of like how I think this goes because I don't know the insurance industry. I just know that when you look at a market and it's just mispriced on both sides incorrectly, you have to naturally standardize that process to really grow um the industry forward. And I think that's what gets us excited about merging insurance with multi-institution custody. I think I think if you look at sorry the single party custodians out there um it's a race to zero right now on on custody fees and when you've got revenues decreasing on the custody side you on you know the insurance which is an expense for them you know it's it's ultimately how much is enough that that I can get by and I think that drives some of this is you know at a certain point you know three 400 million you can go tell your clients to go break up, you know, if they're comfortable with how the keys are held. Uh, and you know, it isn't true cold storage, you break up into different wallets. And that's that's how the problem is addressed today. But that said, um, you know, we all know price can change very quickly. And also, as price changes very quickly, the risks um, you know, with single party custodians can also change very quickly. So, it's it's gotten us by this far. Um and I you know I would say it actually hasn't because you've got incidents all over the place you know across this industry of that scream you need something better. Uh it's the reason why I'm here, reason why I wanted to work on multi- institution is this is the better way. Um you know you start primarily with the infrastructure building resilient systems that can handle an incident. Uh you know that you know an incident would would would hit one of the you know the institutions that hold an asset rather than uh the majority. But that said, it does unlock, you know, like Michael said, the chicken or egg, it unlocks sort of the art of the possible on the insurance side of, you know, how can we do this differently? And then the testament to to working with you is, you know, this is this was step one here. there were so many ways and we have talked about so many ways of of how we grow this partnership and and the art of the possible to um you know to really change the way that the the asset is insured and I'm I'm excited to to see what's you know what in the years to come uh you know more announcements in the space. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Sorry, Leon, did you want to uh add something? One thing that I thought is interesting too, and Mitch, you mentioned custody going to zero in terms of uh the cost for end consumers. And you know, you still are kind of paying for it one way or another. They're going to pass that along in terms of higher fees for trading or uh X Y and Z, but also um you're also paying for it either with fees or with just a horrible custodial setup from the actual custodian. Um, and that's been fine in the past because a lot of these custodians are really large and they've always thought, okay, the uh end user can always just go hold their own private keys because that's how they were brought up in kind of the the cipher punk era and uh but like there are more people that just continually want Bitcoin price exposure that you know um don't necessarily want to hold the private keys especially as a first step. Um, and so it's just necessarily going to either cause their customers to move elsewhere if they aren't charging for that custody or they're just um not upgrading it or the customers really get to pay for it in the end run by just, you know, losing all their Bitcoin if something happens to the exchange. Yeah. And the way I think about that dynamic, Liam, that you just described is it feels like you're paying zero if you're holding your your coins on Coinbase, but there's some tail risk that that could go to zero. Whether you get socially engineered or there's a internal hack entity, there's some tail risk associated with that. So, while you think you're paying zero today, you're potentially paying 100% of your balance at some point in time. And there's some, you know, percentage probability associated with that. Um and that's what's just baked into what you you know you you seeing yourself as paying zero fees. It's it's not actually um on a riskadjusted basis zero. Yeah. And the same goes with completely self-custody too. Right. Yeah. I think like the way I look at at this I look at it from multiple angles. Um I think you know just talking about the risk side of things when I was learning about on-ramp and I had we had our original conversation with with Michael and Mitch um however many months ago at this point um I was starting to think about my own kind of setup actually and it really got me thinking about security and actually um weirdly like the most effect some of the most effective hacks are ones that are just done with a wrench right like a wrench attack style hack. tax and that was something that I was really kind of getting more worried about as the value kind of accrewed and I thought you know what if something happened to me what if I was in danger you know how can I safeguard my family and and um value and so actually you know speaking with Michael and learning more about the on-ramp solution I love the multi- redundancy side of things so you not only spread the keys in the organization but you work with other organizations who do that as well so there's multiple steps of redundancy Um, and then you have an inheritance built in in the platform, which is something that I had really struggled with because I was interested about it, but I never really found a good kind of provider. And so you guys had that as standard. And so, you know, me being an insurance person, always kind of thinking about risk, it actually derisked my personal life as well, which which was really cool. Um and then just talking about like multi inst institution custody in general. The way I kind of looked at it when I was kind of going through the onboarding process and you know becoming a client of on-ramp and then working with you guys on the insurance I kind of looked at on-ramp as um the protocol of how companies in Bitcoin work together. Um and actually as you grow the multi-institutional custody model they'll you'll start having these amazing network effects could already be happening now but the more companies and you know very credible institutions you bring on into the model the bigger it grows and the more safe it is and it becomes this kind of reinforcing or self-fulfilling kind of cycle where you have individuals that want better custody that ask their custodians or the custodian are aware that they need to have more um redundancy in place that there probably some single points of failure. You know, even with even with NPC technology, there's been a ton of hacks just on um API co-signers, right, that just come in, they hack them, and they're able to get it without having to really compromise much. Um, and so with what you guys are building and doing, I really see that the future can be built with the community in mind because what you guys are really building is a community minded uh security solution, right? You're working with other companies. You're not taking the onus all on yourself to to be, you know, the single point of failure ultimately. Um and so having that mindset allows you know insurance and insurance loves that because when we are doing the underwrite or we're working with the underwriters and looking at the risk profile the number one thing we're constantly asking ourselves is what's a single point of failure? Where does this all go wrong? And the more redundancy you build in the the more safe it is. Um the risk comes down for you know pe just normal people like myself. Um, also risk comes down for uh the entities working together because they all understand the custody and and um the architecture and how they're uh cooperating in this multi-institutional custody model. And then premiums get cheaper because everybody's more safer. And so that's why I think it's so cool. And then when you start building in that Bitcoin denominated insurance stuff that hopefully will be um much more prevalent this year, you start having, you know, a solution that can't be beat because it's all it all starts getting entwined uh and you have people covering each other. You have it denominated in Bitcoin so you don't have to go out into the fiat system and it's safer so that it's it's much more cost effective for everyone. So, I really see that kind of as the the the lynch pin or the key that kind of unlocks um better capacity, better pricing in the future. Yeah, there's a lot there's a there's a lot of secrets in this space that we share, but they're just not widely known. Uh and you touched on a few like one of the main ones is the most sophisticated people use us. Like at the largest firms you can think of and Ben just referenced, he's been in the space, understands it, and understands what we're trying to do. And so the problem in this market is we're still so early and it's maybe sophistication, education, whatever it is. It's like time in market you realize where the risk lies and what the most optimal product solution for for the market, an individual all the way to an institution. And um a few other secrets that are true, but they sound like completely antithetical to Bitcoin or what most people have been educated on is most people actually don't want to be their own bank. Uh there's a reason why we don't take all of our money out of the equity equity market and bonds and put it in a duffel bag and walk around with it or all the gold and bury it around. Like Bitcoin and gold are actually much more in dollars or like much more similar than than different in the sense that like it's it's a it's a bare instrument. You can hold it. It can store value now. It stores value better. But the reality is the reason why we don't do all these things is because once the price gets to a certain level, we've already played this out when it comes to the risks associated and it's the thing that people are just generally not ready for is 250,000 750,000 1.2 million the amount of physical risk that will will be embedded in that. But then also just on the uh institutional or I'm sorry on the custody side just like single party custody and it's a similar uh relationship to the financial crisis that occur because ultimately you let you just keep you keep papering over bad debt and so eventually the system tries to delever and you get these cycles where we see this accelerated in crypto because it's like accelerated deleveraging events when you get the Binances or not Binance but FTX blocky Celsius And so similar to this what you described is like daisy chaining uh resilience. So if somebody goes down or goes away, you're not knocked out of the game. So we just generally came came into the space individuals uh educated about being romanticized about holding your own keys and being your own bank, but you have to go back and embed well that it's because you couldn't trust a single custodian because there was no insurance. They didn't have all this risk. Once you like start on the premise that a most people don't want to control all their wealth underneath their mattress or if they get hit by a bus cuz they want their family to get it and that there's now newer solutions that you can reduce trust uh trust minimized. Nothing's really trustless because even if you hold your own keys, you have to trust yourself not to mess it up. You can just start to see how this market forms and and the the sad part about all this is it's literally the reason why this asset class is in a $10 trillion asset. Like it's not that hard to understand. and there's only 21 million, maybe it'll become valuable if other people agree that there's some value to that. It's just that people can't put material wealth in an asset that can just keep going up in smoke, which is the common tropes that get lauded and thrown around in the media. It's like vibe, FTX, they just keep happening. So when we go talk to the large institutions and clients when they come on, it's like you don't need mic, you don't need multi-institution, there's not going to be any more hacks, there's not going to be any more bad actors. You know, all that goes away. But if that's not happening, then the reality is this this solution ends up being the end state as Bitcoin's millions and millions of dollars. And it's not for all the assets. It's just to keep the system credible and safer versus having to trust yourself for a single third party. Yeah, it's it's probably worth just double clicking on one thing that that you referenced in there. And it's really, you know, what is multi-institution custody? It's adding fault tolerance and redundancy to Bitcoin custody really for the first time in its in its history of 16 years because whether you're managing keys in self custody or trusting a single entity um there's some single point of failure that to your point Michael you can get knocked out of the game you can be totally right on Bitcoin its appreciation you know your thesis for its value um and wake up one day and your allocation is a zero and that is untenable for folks who are looking to allocate material size to the asset and I think I think you're spot on in like, you know, we're probably a $10 trillion asset already if we had figured this out a little bit sooner. A way to add fault tolerance uh to a setup because you're exactly right. Like if you can't have that conviction and confidence that you know the asset's going to be there into the future, whether that's tomorrow, 5, 10, 50 years from now. Um you you just you're not going to allocate as much as you otherwise would, right? it's a 1 or 2% flatter allocation as opposed to a 10 25 50% allocation in a portfolio. Um, and you know, the the people that have been here for years have just been putting up with uh basically suboptimal solutions where the burden is on them, particularly on the self custody side. It's, you know, the there's a realization that I can't just keep this on Coinbase. I can't keep it on a single entity. I can't live with myself if that were to happen. So, I'm going to take on the burden of of managing the keys myself. so that that you know that alternative doesn't happen. But now there's a hybrid approach. There's a there's a middle ground way where you're not seating this is the key to me. You're not seating unilateral control of the asset because none of the the entities in the quorum have unilateral control. So that allows the end client to retain control because nothing can move without the express, you know, expressed direction of of the end client. And so that's really what's unique at the core of of multi-institution custody is fault tolerance, redundancy, and allowing the client to retain control without having the burden of of private key management. One of the things on top of that, Brian, and I say particularly, Ben, what you said that resonated with me and what we see across, you know, a lot of the calls we have with clients and it resonates with me personally is is the wrench attack. And there's products that can insure against the wrench attack today, but the fact of the matter is you still get wrench attacked. And you know, sure, yes, you you get you get back stop for the funds, but like I've got two young kids. there's there's no way I'm going to do anything that that puts them at at more risk for for an incident like that where you know even if you they're safe there's still you know the you the emotional damage and you know let's say you get back stop with the funds like it doesn't matter you know at the end of the day Michael says you know you're gonna die for a trade or you know I'm not putting my like I have no keys on my person because I I can't put them at risk And I think we're going to start seeing and we start seeing from our clients that you know at the end of the day it's about growing up and you know this becomes a m material portion of your wealth then you you got to you got to treat that seriously because there's risks that come with that. So um you I applaud you for making that decision. It's what we see every day from our clients. But and you know one of the reasons why it was so important to me, Michael, and you know, our team that that we provide this product for the individual first because we've got to we've got to safeguard against these risks for people. Yeah. There's also like an important thing to call out here there. It's just a sign of like true broken market structure when you can target people to kidnap them because you can't you don't do that for like if you have a big equity position or bond position like there's just controls and processes in place to get that money through the system. But the other side of that is on the institutional space because a lot of the things we're doing here similar to yourself Ben from the superscript days is you learned right what the market wants where the gaps are and I wouldn't have the confidence and conviction to say these things let alone like us execute on them unless I saw what happened in 21 and 22 with all the big players that people thought were too big to fail go under. And so right now like there's a there's a trope understood in Bitcoin is um most Bitcoin is lost by a false sense of security more than anything like people just naively go into a custodial relationship or they think that their private keys are secured when they're not. all all that and I think what's what's coming and what we see is the risk is getting uh offset to the black rocks and the big institutions of the world because it's like they can't go under they can't get lost right and and the reality is I thought that too even though we positioned against it it just didn't you don't believe it until it happens and BlockFi was the one to pick on because they were Peter Tealback they had billions of dollars big valuation you're like you know if something happens it'll they'll get bailed out. They'll figure it out. The investors will come in, the equity will offset it, but the reality is the math is the math and that everyone's offsetting this risk to these big big ETF holders because that's a proxy for part of this. It's like one they talk about access to spot, but it's really like hey, it's somebody else's problem. And I think of like Stan Ducken Miller is a great example because I think he has like half a billion dollar or no Paul Tudtor Jones has half a billion dollar position. He has to know all of this. But the reality is like what is he going to do? Go figure all this stuff out. It's like no, it's it's it's Black Rockck's problem. But really, it's actually his problem because the whole trope of like if they lose a dollar, it's uh it's their problem, you know, or whatever. If like 500 million goes lost out of his assets, it's really his problem. It's not Black Rockck's problem anymore. He's going to maybe get dollars at best back. Yeah, absolutely. There's there's still just not enough. I think I probably had the worst call in human history when um all the problem with FTX was happening. Um I think on the Tuesday I said these guys are too big to fail. No way they go under right two days later they were gone. Um and it was just you know being in this industry with how fast things move. Um and the fact that we aren't really backstopped by a government right if if a if a company loses 100 million Bitcoin government's not going to care not going to step in. But you know with the whole um 2008 financial cut obviously it's more than 100 million but the fiat systems backs stop all the time right they get bailed out all the time we don't and so the because we don't we should be even more I guess risk conscious than the the the fiat system because you know it's it's on it's on all of us it's on the the retail investors ultimately they're the ones that really lost out with all of these um blowups over the last however many years. Um, and so, yeah, I think, you know, there's a very good case to to make that we need to be even better than the fiat system if we are to survive um for, you know, the years to come. Yeah, 100%. Maybe um would it be worth you know giving folks just an overview of the partnership what it means for on-ramp clients sort of what's included if we could do a brief overview of that and then sort of you know what's next where is it headed what's on native's roadmap for for future uh developments and services. Yeah, great. So, um, for the on-ramp stuff, so we were really, um, pleased to collaborate with on-ramp. We've been doing it for a number of months and doing the underwriting submission and review with, uh, Voids of London. So, we presented to a number of Voids of London carriers who, um, it was actually really cool because you could see them have the questions, the underwriting questions that they would normally be used for for traditional custodians. Um, and then the answers that we were coming back with, you could see that they realized that this was something different. And so that was kind of cool to see almost like in a real-time realization that okay, actually a number of the problems that we kind of normally look for aren't really apparent in the the multi-institutional custody model. So seeing that happen and you know seeing it with very knowledgeable um underwriters who've seen pretty much every custodian under the sun um they were you know it was very it was a really cool point in in our in our careers. So um we worked with on-ramp and I think this is again one of the beauty uh one of the points of beauty that we um were able to collaborate on is because the the infrastructure in the model is robust and has these redundancies and different mechanisms built in. we didn't have to um have a um a very large kind of uh policy that covered everything under the sun because it was already mitigated a lot with the with the solution. So what we could do is get really targeted with what we covered and really made sure that the policy did um uh what we wanted it to do and cover the the gaps that the this the system didn't 100% cover. um namely humans, right? You can't have brain chips and humans walking around, right? So for all the technical security um risks, that was something that the system and the the uh the infrastructure covered really well. The stuff that we wanted to cover and offset onto an insurer was the people risk. And so that was something that uh was was really exciting and and then that was what we really built onto for the client program. And so what we're offering now um through the underwriting that we've done with on-ramp is the ability for their clients to now come on and have dedicated policy limits on for their vaults in in the in the multi-institutional custody model. Um which is super exciting. Uh we think that's going to be a really big kind of driver for uh again de-risking in this industry. Um, and that serves as the baseline for what we hope to kind of bring about maybe this year, hopefully this year, which is more insurance solutions being underpinned by the multi-institutional custody model, hopefully denominated in Bitcoin. And that's the ultimate goal, right? Ultimately, we want this to be denominated in Bitcoin, built on um a very solid foundation um that has already been underwritten like the on-ramp multi- institutional custody model. Yeah, I think there's two really interesting things embedded in there. One is it's just a notion of um maybe even on on this discussion might disagree with the market may a bit, but it's the reality that most people don't want to pay much for insurance. Like they want it, but they don't want to pay much for it. And so to do it effectively, you to do it effectively, meaning for the underlying individual's policy to be paid out, you have to bake it into your structure, your business model. um that's like the cherry on top, but it's not why they just go to a provider because if you think about having again to that paying 100 to 200 basis points and the premiums, you're just going to deal with uh you'll take the easy route and just leave it in self-custody or or third party custody. Um which you highlighted really well in explaining the risk and why you can drive those costs down and why the underwriters. But the other one which you referenced around um Bitcoin denominated and just anything that can be done here is that it gets lost that multisig is uh native to the protocol, no pun intended. Um it's native to the protocol. So there is it's interoperable. It scales beautifully. And what it allows you to do is scale in proportion to the amount of assets sitting in a wallet. So people generally get tied to two of three and they get tied to the existing keyholders that we have today. And it's like think of the largest banks and the largest financial institutions. They will participate in our model and you just you actually don't it's kind of counterintuitive. You don't really want them today. I kind of joke it's like the best keyh holders tomorrow aren't the best key holders today and the best key holders today won't be the best key holders tomorrow. Meaning sometimes we have to explain who Coin Cover is or who Bitco is and these other firms but the reality is they're digitally native. They're the best at doing what they do, but people haven't heard of them because they're busy with their lives and managing their everything else that they have. In the same way that maybe somebody wants BNY or Bank of America because they're familiar with them, but the reality is they have no idea about any of this stuff. So, you really don't want them protecting the keys. And so, you can see how as this asset class grows and they get educated and we help them uh and we talk to one of the ETF providers, I called this bulletproof. the solution multi- institution the problem is that it melts brains because imagine going to the SEC and explaining that no single party holds the Bitcoin and having to go through all of that but you can see we're one cycle away from this having to be a standard uh and being a standard it's less from the like regulatory side just from the market requiring it from the third party custodians because if we see anywhere near what we saw and I believe we will that happened in 21 and 22 the market just starts to look at the different firms whether it's Coinbase Fidelity whoever it is and say, "Hey, like I'm actually need to move my assets off because I can't risk the price goes to 500K and now your 4% position is now, you know, 16 or whatever the number is." And you're like, I can't risk you going out. I love you, but your balance sheet, you know, you have more assets than your balance sheet, your equity position. And um so that's the idea is like this scales really nicely where if you have a policy and it needs to be a billion dollars, you need five key holders. Now you can start to underwrite that risk because three can go or two can go away in a 305 and you lost zero assets. And I think most people don't recognize this scales very nicely with the market as a whole. I say we we we we constantly and I'm I'm guilty of it too. We talk about the issues from 2021 22 23 uh that the industry faced. And you know we sort of gloss over the fact that we're not seeing this right now. I bet had a$ 1.5 billion hack. We stuff it like and as the price goes up, you're going to start seeing more of it just because, you know, even if you're, you know, you're you're trying to be careful covering risk factors, you know, the the incentive only grows larger. So, you know, this was this was the first one they just had bags and like they were able to back stop it and they were able to do so with a loan. But like they was I mean let's say there was another wall. Let's say you know they they took the Ethereum and the Salana like would we be in a different this would look a lot different. Uh so you know obviously you the when you think like the the attack surface you know Ethereum Salana something that was more u you where where you don't have the the same ability to go check addresses as you do with Bitcoin u you know reason why I mentioned it but like these these attacks are coming in 2025 we're seeing it then the one that I I think happens the soonest for this adoption that's like becomes required is Um, it's the one that's the most uh talked about right now is corporate adoption and corporate treasuries because if you think about it, all it's going to take, it doesn't have to be a big one. It just has to rumble through that industry which is small that you lost your corporate, you know, treasury uh with this asset and then everyone else looks around and it's always like the big elephant micro strategy. Everyone loves talking about it, but you have all this all these individual shareholders that there's embedded in the execution. Like people think that the risk is on the capital markets and all the things they're doing there and there is risk there but I mostly always look at like how's the custody and if somebody gets knocked out of the game there that equity value collapses and um I think that's hap that that like one instance will really spark I think on the corporate side because you're just managing others capital at that point. Um and they'll be the fastest to move. I think the fiduciaries will still be a little slower, but I don't know, Ben, are any thoughts on that from the corporate side? Yeah, it's interesting. I think like it's a bit funny like every time something like the buy that happens or the FTX happens, I always think, all right, this is the turning point. We're never having this again, right? Like I always think we're we're going to learn from the mistakes and kind of move on. Um but I think sometimes um I think sometimes memories are too short and I think like we I think there is a lot of risk baked into that um the the system and like you said Michael like with these corporate treasuries coming online um they really need to partner these corporates really need to partner with somebody who knows what they're doing because if they don't and they've just lost 30% of their balance sheet because they didn't do the due diligence or someone got hacked or someone signed behind a malicious transaction or whatever it is. Um, yeah, it's it's a massive risk and I think like and I think this is the biggest thing. I I wrote an article on would insurance have paid out for buy and my analysis was yes there would have been a policy that could have paid out but the most they could have probably insured was 100 million which is a drop like would have done nothing right and so the big thing is insurance is not enough. Insurance won't solve this problem. It's not enough. It's not even the solution. Um what is the solution is companies and individuals demanding better banding together having security standards um that first mitigate the risk and then you can transfer the risk that you can't mitigate to a balance sheet basically what on-ramp did right looked at what what are the risks what needs to be transferred and we did that um that that approach needs to be uh replicated across the industry because what you're having right now is people that are either spending too little on risk, so they're not they're not even thinking about it at all or too much and they're and what Brian said earlier, which is that kind of, you know, you're paying 100% for custody because you got hacked. Um, and so you're having this like big disparity between the people that are paying too little getting hacked, people are paying too much because they are getting hacked again and then this middle where we're trying to thoughtfully manage the risk and balance it from the balance sheet of the the the corporate and then the balance sheet to the insurer or the third party who's taking on that risk. Um and so that's kind of how I see the space moving forward is there's got to be this interplay between the industry that's getting um better from you know less risky so better risk profile and the insurance industry that can then go and lower the premiums get better products and transfer that risk onto the balance sheet. Yeah. Yeah. Ben, do you want to talk about a little bit tying into um as much as you want to share? I know we've had discussions on like what is a a better model, maybe breaking down a little bit of like mutuals. I know it's a it's a it gets pretty um you know this the history of them but describing how you can do this because you referenced onchain and I think there's something elegant that can be solved for Bitcoin denominated pulling together assets from under under the individuals that hold Bitcoin that understand the risk can make some annual premium on that while also securing uh and growing that pie to offset any of the losses that you're describing uh at a more I don't know if egalitarian is the right way, but in a more like mutual what they were intended to do, not having to go to a third party that may not even be solvent because that's the reality of most people look at insurers and they don't even know necessarily if somebody's fully solvent, if you'll ever even be paid out is a bit goes back to the most Bitcoin's lost from a false sense of security and going back to the best security for your Bitcoin is the way or best insurance for your Bitcoin is the way the private keys are stored because the insurance is not the the the the holy grail to your point. It's the fallback plan. God forbid something happens. Yeah. Um absolutely. I think like well what's funny about insurance is you know insurers aren't onetoone backed either, right? So insurers have financial strength ratings and you don't need a financial strength rating when you're not holding one one. Um so they have solveny ratios. So they ensure you know um they'll map out what how likely they are to have a loss and then they'll hold stuff on a money on a balance sheet and financial instruments on a balance sheet to then offset that risk. Um, what's really interesting is is I really believe the mutual model of companies and individuals coming together to pull their assets in uh to kind of pay each other out if something bad goes wrong is actually very um native to Bitcoin. I think that's actually like if you look what Bitcoin is, it's community money all over the world um that doesn't need a financial intermediary to regulate it. Um, and so I actually think that form of insurance where you have companies that are underinsured or not finding the right products in the traditional market banning together and creating a new type of insurance for Bitcoin community. And so when I was looking into this and doing some research for it, I looked at actually there was um I think it was in the 80s or the '9s where a hundred of the top 500 companies in the I think it was in the uh the Footsie 500 um banded together and created their own mutual. And so they're all publicly traded companies. They didn't really have anything connecting them other than that they were publicly traded companies. And what they did is they banded together and created a mutual called Excel. And they created this mutual to ensure their own risk because at that point there was liquidity crunches. Insurance premiums were rocketing up. There was global unrest. Nothing like today at all of course. And what these companies did is they banded together and insured each other. Um and it worked out so well that they established uh um an insurance company called Excel. That grew that insurance company then acquired um XL Catelyn. So Catelyn was a syndicate and Lloyd's very well known. they acquired that and then XL Catlin got acquired by AXA which is one of the biggest insurance companies in the world and so this is an amazing story of how a community banded together because of a pressing need that they weren't having the right insurance solutions that they wanted and actually grew to be one of the biggest kind of insurance companies in the world today and I think if we look at that with Bitcoin where you've got um companies that need more uh capacity they need better products banding together to create Bitcoin denominated native solutions, you'll be able to imagine a future where um again kind of following on what we've been talking about where risk is, you know, kept within that community because ultimately they're the ones that understand it the best, right? Like if if I gave you if I gave On-Ramp, you know, a pool of capital to underwrite, you'd be able to underwrite uh your solution way better than anybody else because you built it. You guys know it, right? And so imagine having pooling that knowledge with other great builders in the space and ensuring other Bitcoin denominated risks. I think it's you know it's a beautiful way to manage this community going forward and and making it all a safer space. Yeah, it's really well said. I mean we we talk about similar dynamics just on the pure custody side of you know you have this decentralized asset Bitcoin like that is core to its value prop its distributed nature and then you know a large swath of the market is kind of just okay with the asset centralizing in in you know a few entities coffers. it's just antithetical. And so, you know, not only should custody be distributed, but you know, even potentially insurance policies should be distributed. And the protocol itself gives us the ability to do this. And that's the unique nature of it relative to any other asset. And why you don't see these sort of collaborative solutions with other assets and why, you know, historically in traditional finance and financial services, you just own it all yourself. you build the the you know, you build your castle with a motor around it and you just try try to protect it as best you can. Um I think we're fundamentally flipping that with this new asset because there are just different capabilities at the protocol level um that allows you to distribute trust, distribute risk um in really unique ways. Yeah, it all ti kind of ties um it's part of where the foundation of why we have early writers um and invest in this ecosystem is because we have a background in not only building but investing but most the time you look at this industry people are investing in 2D versions of the world. They're looking at the existing models and then just building that version. You think of exchanges as the best example. It's like we've exchanged capital for goods for thousands of years and that's effectively what an exchange is. Well, there should be a 3D version of that where you can not only do that but provide an underlying custodial relationship and then build the financial products on top of that and then insurance is very similar. individuals are investing in insurance, but they go back to the premise of well, you're holding the underlying asset and you still open up all that risk versus this is a 3D version. And it ties really nicely to your point, Ben, around ties directly to Bitcoin because Bitcoin all relies on game theory when you have nodes, individual participants, and then the miners. And it's very similar when you embed the holders managing the governance of the asset. Maybe they have to participate in the underwriting or whatever kind of financial instrument they're doing or the others have embedded uh risk associated and so that's how you can know they can be all coordinate to do the most game theoretical optimal version of the next step which is like signing the transaction or doing it is we saw this in my previous firm on the lending side where if you get to the way to lend against the asset where the dollars are being lent out the bitcoin's being held you can start to make sure you manage that risk risk on margin calls, liquidations, transferring back that BTC. And so it's just a blind spot. The industry hasn't fully adopted because you ultimately have people building the old financial way, which is, you know, the Coinbases of the world, or you have people managing these plastic devices where ultimately it ends up with the individual participant. And you can't really manage risk that way because if you give a loan to somebody holding the devices, well, they can they have the money and the dollars. And if you give the keys to the person, well then it goes back to you can't really economically make it feasible for them to take the insurance out. Uh so it's just a it's an exciting time and to be working with you guys and have that pulse and on the mutual and just other things that we'll either be able to build here at onramp or invest in. Um excited to work with you and then anybody else interested in building in that sector. Yeah, absolutely. Um, maybe before we wrap, any any final thoughts on the partnership, where things are headed? Um, any final questions for Ben? I think we covered a lot. I don't know, Liam or Mitch, if you have any anything else. We went through the whole, uh, digital asset ecosystem and insurance. All righty. Well, uh, thank you very much for joining us, Ben. This is a a great discussion and if folks want to learn more about uh on-ramp or anything we're doing on the insurance side of things, please reach out to any member of our team or or visit the website to to learn more. Well, we got to let Ben plug. Where do we find where do they find you, Ben? On socials or uh if they're interested in figuring out how to work with Native for their own uh firm. Yeah. So, we're um our website's www.native.inc. Um you can find us uh find us there. got a contact form there if you're interested in in uh insurance and we've also I've got LinkedIn um Ben Davis on on LinkedIn. I don't really do much Twitter these days. So, kind of stay in my own lane. Um but yeah, uh find us on our website. We've got a ton of uh information on the services we provide. We'd love to help you guys further. Awesome. All right. Thank you. Thanks, J. Take care. Thanks for listening to this week's episode of the show. If you found the information valuable, please share the episode with a friend or leave a rating on your favorite podcast app. All the links we discussed in today's show will be in the show notes inside your podcast app. Before we finish, a quick reminder that Onra Media is forformational and entertainment purposes only, and nothing should be construed as investment or legal advice. Regardless of where you are on your Bitcoin journey, we'd love to hear from you. Visit onrampbitcoin.com/cont to schedule a consultation with one of our private client adviserss.