Is there like a behavioral pattern behind this?

I think there are two specific reasons in, in my estimation, uh, that I'll be interested in, in what the group thinks.

So first and foremost is that the settlement time into and out of tokenized assets via primary subscription redemption is T plus one or T plus two.

So if the whole point of having stablecoins is to transact in a 24/7 internet native way, then the idea of exiting the market, you know, for a day or two while waiting for investment to settle is kind of anathema to a lot of the core use cases.

I think also, um, and you know, it kind of depends on, on how you-- I guess which stablecoins, y- you know, balances we're, we're counting and what use cases, but there are a lot of market participants, especially in trading, market making, where the idea of being out of the market for a day or two to invest in the risk-free rate for some short period of time is not only uneconomical, but it also exposes you to either risk or missed opportunities because the whole point is to be liquid, to be able to kind of immediately take advantage of, of opportunities.

So I, I think those are...

That's, that's one main reason and it's, you know, of course, uh, specifically the gap that Multi-Liquid is designed to fill.

Where do you see this kinda intersecting with the RWA play as we know it today, and then the banks entering the space? Like, how do you see these things kinda coexisting together? Do you see banks over time winning because they have trust with the existing clients? Like, h- how do you see that playing out?