Listen to podcast episode
Subscribe to Coywolf Podcast
Read full transcript
JON HENSHAW: I’m Jon Henshaw with the Coywolf Podcast, and I have the pleasure of speaking with Stephen Diehl, and he is a software engineer in London, England. And I discovered him, I guess, maybe on Twitter because he had written a blog post that really got my attention, and the title of it was Web3 is Bullshit. Of course, I immediately read it because people may not know this, but I’m not so sure Web3 is the future of the internet, and I’m not so sure that the internet is broken.
So I ended up going down the rabbit hole of the things that Stephen has written and was just kind of blown away and really impressed by his knowledge, specifically historic knowledge, and also his, I guess, either education or just being well-read in economics, because he makes incredibly compelling cases for why this is truly a bunch of hype. Well, regardless, welcome, Stephen. Thanks for joining me.
STEPHEN DIEHL: Hi, Jon. Lovely to be here today.
HENSHAW: Yeah. You actually sound great. I’m in the US, and you’re in England and somehow, the internet is working today because we can hear each other without too much latency. So maybe the internet isn’t broken, I don’t know.
DIEHL: Maybe this Web2 thing, Web 2.0 thing actually kind of works.
HENSHAW: Right. I mean, do you think that maybe in order for us to record this, it should have been done on the blockchain? I mean, do you think we’re okay with whatever protocol is being used here?
DIEHL: Yeah. We need like a Jon token where we can speculate on the price of your podcast, right? Yeah.
HENSHAW: Yes, yes. And for sure, once this is done and I can just publish, it’s totally going to become an NFT because I’ll own it, but they’ll, I guess, own the audio but without rights. It’s very confusing.
Well, before we get into it, I love the way you title your blog posts. And some of them are kind of just… I certainly laugh when I see them. I’d mentioned earlier that the post, that sort of like made me discover who you were was Web3 is Bullshit, which is actually a brilliantly written post. But then there’s the next one I read after that, which was The Case Against Crypto, another brilliantly written post. But some of your other titles are just… I love them. And I’m going to read some of them for the people listening because I think they’ll love them too.
- The Internet’s Casino Boats
- The Handwavy Technobabble Nothingburger
- The Tinkerbell Griftopia
- Decentralized Woo Hoo
- The Intellectual Incoherence of Crypto Assets
- The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency
These aren’t as funny as much as they are, just maybe matter of fact.
So I guess it would be an accurate statement to say that you maybe aren’t a crypto bro.
DIEHL: Yeah. I probably put myself more in the crypto skeptic camp. I don’t know if you kind of read that from my posts. They’re a bit subtle.
HENSHAW: I get the feeling. I get the feeling that that might be true. Well, my intention today is just to sort of talk about tech, talk about web tech. And of course, I want to talk about the Web3 stuff first because you seem to have a lot of opinions and things to say about that. And you’re one of the few people who have actually been talking about it for a while. I think that I haven’t really seen or read very much, I guess, open critiques of it online. I think there’s sort of like a fear of it, a fear of pissing off people who are in that space. It’s almost like a religion or a cult. And so my first question to you is, let’s say that we meet on the street, and I’m wearing my t-shirt with my .eth domain on it. Because I’m hardcore, I’m holding a sign that says, “If you don’t accept Web3 into your heart as your Lord and savior, you’ll die poor and alone and live in tech hell forever,” what would you say to me to think otherwise?
DIEHL: I mean, you’re definitely right. There’s kind of like kind an almost religious fervor to some of these technologies, which is a very strange thing. It’s not often that we have technologies that seem be wrapped in so much sort of political and sort of like quasi-religious discourse as crypto. But if I saw somebody on the street, I feel like I can kind of reason with most people. And I think the arguments that we can make about. Just ask the simple question like, “What is this crypto thing doing in the world?” And a kind of Socratic dialogue from that question generally leads you to answer some fundamental questions about the technology and like what is it being used for in the world.
I mean, it’s being just for gambling, that’s certainly a use case, but it’s one that has a very kind of limited societal value. And I think a lot of the kind of narrative that’s being pushed around these technologies has been kind of intellectually deconstructed by a lot of people like including like some of the Nobel prize winners and like a lot of policy officials and technologists. And so, fundamentally, the question about crypto is like, “What is the purpose of these things?” And that’s a really hard question, I think, for a lot of those people to answer without the kind of… a kind of like a sort of the quasi-religious faith.
HENSHAW: I would come back and say, “It’s the future of the net, bro.” I mean, I would come back and essentially be like, “Look, everything is corrupt, nothing works. The only way for the internet to work is to have nobody be in control of it. Fiat is bad and these tokens, cryptocurrency is really the only currency we should be using. Also, I got in early, so I need for this to work because I’m making a crap ton of money.”
DIEHL: Yeah. I mean, there’s definitely that kind of like economic directed reasoning. It’s hard to convince a man of something when his future returns depend on him, believing in it, right? In fact, depending on him, recruiting more people into the scheme forever basically kind of to have exit liquidity for your position.
I disagree with the fundamental conception that the internet is fundamentally broken. I think the internet works very, very, very well, and like the cost of building and deploying new web applications these days has never been lower. There are some problems with the internet, certainly, some of the centralization we have with some of the large tech players in the United States. But like by in large, the internet is working quite well. And then the notion that these things are like some sort of like the future of money or something seems a bit incoherent as an argument because they’re not actually acting as money. They’re acting kind of as speculative gambling products. Like when was the last time you bought like the yen or like the sterling to get rich off of it. Just ask the fundamental question like, how often do you invest in currencies to get wealthy? And if you ask that question, then you end up with some sort of hard questions ask.
HENSHAW: Well, that’s interesting because one of the things that I’ve read, at least one of your posts, is that it’s not even a… Like you said, it’s not actually a currency. It’s a sort of speculative security or something like that or asset. And that historically, that’s gone poorly. In other words, cryptocurrency, while having a new name and being possible through a new type of technology at its core, we’ve been here before in history. And there’s a reason why we have the type of sort of Fiat that we have now. Can you kind of expound on that a little bit?
DIEHL: Yeah. I mean, you’re exactly right. The important thing to think is that despite the namesake, cryptocurrencies almost have nothing to do with the currencies. They’re a lot closer to like stocks, what are called like securities. And if you look back at kind of the early 1930s, like post the market crash for the Great Depression. We had a lot of these things that kind of look like the 1930s versions of cryptocurrencies, and they were called blue sky securities. So basically, the thing was you would create a shell company, and then you’d allocate a certain number of shares in the shell company. And then you could sell those and float them on the market, right? Except it’s you’re selling shares in an empty shell company that doesn’t actually do anything. Now, people can go off and buy those things and the price can fluctuate up and down, but fundamentally, there’s no reason why that share should have any value. Because normally, the price of any kind of equity is valued in terms of the future cash flows of the underlying enterprise.
And so cryptocurrencies basically look like that. They’re basically like stock in a shell company that doesn’t actually do anything. And unfortunately, it turns out that when you create these things, sometimes they can cause speculative bubbles to occur in markets where people just buy them completely detached from any kind of expectation about the product itself and just trying to offload it on a greater fool. And that always ends badly. And it always ends the same way.
HENSHAW: Let’s talk about how there’s this common message that I read all the time, which is that the internet is broken, and Web2, whatever that might be, is broken. And I think it’s really ironic to me that in order to actually do the things that surround it, like for example, get a .eth domain or to be able to view and buy and manage cryptocurrency, that type of thing. Everything’s on Web2, from my perspective. So for example, I’m thinking of the crypto.com type thing or its coinbase.com, all of those things require Web2. But how is it that I’m able to actually access crypto.com and do those things on Coinbase if everything’s broken? Explain that to me.
DIEHL: Well, I mean, I disagree with the notion that the web is broken. I think it’s a bit of a reductive statement. I mean, I think there are certainly problems with like Facebook and Twitter having too much power. I think people like to kind of overgeneralize that statement saying, “Oh, the whole web is broken.” I’m like, “No, well, GitHub still works, Wikipedia still works, Airbnb still works there. There are hundreds of these tech companies that get spun up every year, and they’re all more or less working. So I find it a bit reductive, the kind of notion that the web needs to be rebuilt from scratch like a phoenix. Something new will arise out of the crypto scams because I don’t really see much there. But to ask your question about like why crypto.com works, like why these exchanges work? Well, because they run on databases, right? When you go on to one of these crypto exchanges, what you’re doing is kind of acting what you’re interacting with a broker that’s selling you kind of a derivative of a crypto position that they run out of a normal web 2.0 application.
And then on the backend of that, they sometimes settle these things on one of these distributed ledger technologies like the bitcoin network or the Ethereum network. But these things are very much building on traditional technologies. They happen to just use a very, very small slice of the blockchain to do a kind of gross settlement between some of these projects. But the crypto changes are basically just like sort of offshore gambling platforms if you will. They’re not actually kind of anything new or interesting, to be honest.
HENSHAW: So that’s the thing. This is the thing that really kind of… If I think about it, it gets me worked up, which is at the end of the day, most of what’s going on in this space is reliant, mostly reliant on what is considered to be Web2, and it’s centralized. I mean, that’s, to me, is like the biggest joke, is when I read and see all this stuff and all this like idealistic ideas around what Web3 is and what it can be, and you can do it right now is that it feels like more of the same. That’s what it feels like. It’s just sort of like you’re… And kind of like what you were just saying, which is it’s just centralized companies that allow people a different way to gamble, and it’s not something completely new and fixing all the things. That’s sort of how I see it, and it confuses me to no end that it could be anything other than that.
DIEHL: I mean, it confuses a lot of people because the narrative that these technologies are wrapped in is this sort of techno-utopianism dream about, “Oh, we’re going to decentralize all these old legacy players, and we’re going to create a whole new financial system that’s going to be based around decentralization.” And then you look how people are actually using these things. And then like they’re going to like a centralized broker, which is going to custody all their funds. Because you know what? It kind of sucks the custody, your own crypto. Like my grandmother doesn’t have the kind of InfoSec skills basically act like her own bank, right?
So you have these kinds of unregulated brokers that are basically acting like a sort of quasi-bank-like structures that basically custody of people’s money and like, well, congratulations, you’ve just recreated a bank except without regulation, without deposit insurance, with no consumer protection on top of something that doesn’t actually function as money. So there’s a fundamental-like contradiction baked into most cryptos, is that by the only way they could possibly succeed is by becoming the very centralized systems that were designed to replace. And that’s the fundamental contradiction at the heart of crypto.
HENSHAW: Which to me is sadly funny, I guess. Well, let’s shift more towards… Let’s shift away from this a little bit and talk about something that I think is important and does matter, and I think is consistent with what you were sort of alluding to earlier about what might be broken with the internet, which is the Facebooks of the world type of thing. And so let’s talk about actual true decentralization for a little bit. I think it’s important to point out for the people listening that we have decentralization now. And it’s really an issue around protocols. And so for example, the fact that I can send an email and you can receive that email, that is decentralization. That everybody could run their own email server, and we can have our own domains, and we can send and receive those electronic messages. And so we’ve had it for since, I guess, the beginning of the internet we’ve been using, but we don’t really have that elsewhere, at least with the things that we like to use every day.
And so, I’ll get into social in a second, but I wanted to talk about one of the Web3 technologies first and one of the technologies that I’m a fan of that I actually use, I’m pushing for, I really like. Even if I don’t get the rest of it, tokens, blockchain, et cetera, NFTs, I really like this particular technology, which is IPFS. IPFS is decentralized distributed storage. And it means it allows me to as just some yahoo in my home. I can take an old computer. I can install the IPFS client on there, and I can add a file, and I’m now I can add, even like a static website. And anybody either via gateway or using some sort of client that can access IPFS CIDs, Content IDs can access that in the world.
I mean, it is truly decentralized file storage and delivery where I don’t have to go to a hosting company. I don’t have to use Amazon S3. I could just kind of do it outside my home and everybody can access it over that peer-to-peer network. I mean, what are your thoughts on that? I mean, is that a good piece of Web3? Is that something that makes sense towards sort of a truly decentralized world on the web?
DIEHL: Yeah, I think this may actually surprise some people, but my only criticism is about Web3 is basically the affiliation with cryptocurrencies. So like a lot of these distributed technologies, I’m actually quite bullish on. So things like IPFS, just the pure technology, they’re kind of like the next evolution of like the BitTorrent protocol to basically have a way of doing persistent storage of content. So I have no problem with those kinds of things because there’s no investment scheme attached to them. There’s the pure technology for doing persistent hashing of files and throwing them in a persistent way across the internet. And I think there’s probably is something quite useful there. I mean, BitTorrent was originally a decentralized protocol. There are things like Mastodon, Beaker Browser and IPFS. If there is an interesting kind of software to be written, it’s written around things that don’t have a token attached to them, and IPFS is one of those things. It’s quite interesting from a computer science perspective.
HENSHAW: At this point in the conversation, as fate would have it, we had connection problems. And so that entire answer you just heard about IPFS, I hadn’t heard any of it. I was actually asking him if he was still there. And so we had to switch over to Zoom, which does not have the best quality and recording, but we were able to keep the conversation going. But if it sounds different, now you know why.
So a lot of Web3 stuff is around this concept of decentralization. And as I said before, we already kind of have that with email, but we don’t have it when it comes to social media. Everything is absolutely centralized, and you even sort of alluded to that earlier in regards to what might be broken on the internet, which is that a handful of giant companies pretty much control all of our social communication.
And so there has been some movement around this, but it’s just been very slow, and there just doesn’t seem to be a lot of adoption yet. For example, there is something called the Fediverse, and it’s made up of different sorts of services like Mastodon that can talk to each other. And it enables me to run sort of an instance of my social presence, and I can follow and connect and communicate with yours if you are using a supportive protocol like ActivityPub. Why do you think there hasn’t been much growth in this area? What do you think is stopping it from getting to a place where people would actually want to leave Twitter or leave Facebook to be able to be in control of their own social media presence?
DIEHL: Certainly, I don’t think anybody looks at the kind of current state of the web ecosystem today, looks at things like Facebook or Twitter and things like, “Oh, this seems like a very sensible business model.” No, I mean, like basically, their business model is to turn all of their users into little sources of data that they can mine, and that they basically show the maximally divisive content to maximize their screen time, show them advertisements. It’s an inherently kind of predatory business model. And you’re right, these kinds of these like fledgling protocols, which have been developing for a while to kind of replace, allegedly replace some of these legacy platforms and things like Mastodon and ActivityPub. It’s just very, very hard to bootstrap a social network just because of the kind of economies of scale and the network effects of these things.
Facebook is accessible because your average senior citizen can use it to look at pictures of their grandparents or their grandchildren. It just takes a lot of engineering effort to make a very well-polished and easy-to-use product. And if you look at some of these projects, unfortunately, they’re run like by five or six open source contributors trying to like take on these behemoths. And a corollary to this as well is that even if there were a fledgling social media startup that had less malign influence on the world or a better business model, the default behavior for most of these companies is basically just to acquire them immediately.
And so just the business invite doesn’t allow competitors to exist anymore. And that’s probably why we’re kind of seeing all these antitrust suits being brought against some of the social media platforms because I don’t think anybody looks at the current tech ecosystem right now and thinks, “What we need is more power granted these large monolithic companies anymore. What we need is some more competition and some more startups that can kind of address the fundamental, flawed business models of the predecessors.”
And I really hope that some of these centralized technologies could do that. I’m just a bit wary about some of these kind of alleged Web3 attempts to do this because they could seem to be… I mean, the notion of Web3 is that you basically create some sort of… You take an existing Silicon Valley company and turn it into kind of like a multi-level marketing scheme in which you attract users by incentivizing them with like a piece of equity in the company, but it’s a token acting as equity. And then those people are incentivized, bring more users and so on and so on to get kind of a return on their token investment in the platform. And so this all looks very kind of pyramid-like, and I’m not sure that the Web3 notion of trying to turn sort of the next generation of YouTube or next generation of Twitter to a pyramid scheme is really the… answer to this.
HENSHAW: It’s interesting because I’ve watched this space for several years. I’m sure you’re aware of Diaspora, and they tried to come up with a solution. There was something called Tent.io that seemed really promising at the time. There’s something called SOLID, which is Tim Berners-Lee’s project. And then somewhat more recently there, I think it was Jack, who’s no longer technically at Twitter or at least not running it had announced Bluesky, which was an initiative to decentralized social. And I was pretty excited about that until it seemed to devolve all the way back into blockchain again.
I mean, because I almost got involved with it. I was given access to the sort of private group chat, which they were running on Matrix at the time. I think they moved to Discord. And I never interacted because once I got on there, every single person it seemed was saying it’s has to be a blockchain token-based whatever solution. I’m probably embellishing a little bit. It’s probably not that severe, but that’s where most people were coming from who were on the committee to decide what Bluesky might be, so that you could truly talk to people on Twitter and Twitter could talk to people on whatever it is might end up being. But that was really disappointing to me. And I feel we’re or back almost at the beginning, which is there just doesn’t seem to be anyone thing that that is going to be compelling enough for people to adopt, on top of it being easy enough for, like you said earlier, our grandparents to use.
DIEHL: Yeah. I mean, it’s very, very hard to challenge some of these behemoths because they’ve just become so powerful. And I think that’s kind of a strong argument for like why we just need like antitrust suits to basically break some of them up. They’re kind of becoming like back in the 1950s. We had these like standard oil and standard electric where the railroad monopolies. And like it’s just in the interest of a dynamic market to basically break up behemoths like this because it creates a more dynamic economy and a more dynamic ecosystem where there’s actually competition and actually things can actually thrive without being kind of swaddled in the grave or in the cradle by some of these larger players.
But I mean, fundamentally, a lot of these Web3 projects tend to be… They have their own kind of pathological structures baked in because they want to effectively… Their answer to how to fix this problem is, “Oh, let’s turn all of our users into shareholders by giving them this token, which will kind of incentivize them to engage with the platform.” Allegedly, that would be better than showing them advertisements, except that like there’s a fundamental contradiction in this model because the interests of shareholders and the interest of the users are diametrically opposed. Your user wants a very high-quality, low-cost product that fulfills some need in their life, right? And your shareholder interested in having a very minimal product, basically just generates a return on their holdings. So the notion that like turning every single social media user into a shareholder in the network they are involved in unfortunately has this kind of logical contradiction baked in the heart of it. And that’s probably the fundamental sort of incoherence I see at the heart of the Web3 narrative.
HENSHAW: That’s interesting. And it’s also frustrating to me as somebody who participates in that type of communication. The kind of next to last thing I wanted to ask you about were your thoughts on the metaverse, and do you think it will become ubiquitous in society? Will it change the nature of how the next generation relates and communicates similar to smartphones have for my kids? Or do you think we’re real-life all went out?
DIEHL: I mean, god, if I know what the metaverse actually even is. I think it’s kind of a buzzword. Like I read like most definitions-
HENSHAW: I think it’s goggles. My definition’s going to be goggles. My definition is you living in virtual reality? Let’s go with that definition.
DIEHL: Like if your goggles are a real thing, I can’t deny that. And I think they’re going to have some very niche applications probably in the gaming space, probably for teleconferencing, maybe like computer-aided design. Those are going to be small niche industries that are going to transform some aspects of our lives. But like the notion that I’m going to basically strap in an Oculus to my head for 24 hours a day and just participate in Zoom calls with my remote colleagues sounds like a living nightmare to me, to be frank.
DIEHL: And I think the Zuckerberg vision of the metaverse is a bit hyperbolic. I think he’s selling a lot of hype on technology that exists, but I don’t think it’s as revolutionary as he thinks it is.
HENSHAW: I think the thing that not that I literally lose sleep. But the thing that I lose sleep on when I think about this is… My concern is that we’ll see some sort of cultural shift in sort of the next generations, the same way that I’ve seen in my own kids. And so an example of that is they spend most of their time on their smartphones. It just is what it is. They’re either watching YouTube or on Instagram or whatever it might be. And one of the biggest social changes that I’ve seen from my generation, I’m assuming I’m a bit older than you, I’m a Gen Xer. We used to date. We to go out and do things before the internet existed when I was a kid. And I talked to my kids, and they are basically like, yeah, nobody dates because if anything goes wrong or even right, everybody in the school knows about it immediately. And they’re petrified.
And so there is this whole generation that I’m looking at with my own kids where they are not experiencing the same stuff that my partner and I did when we were growing up. And while that might be nice as a parent because your kids aren’t totally, totally getting in too much trouble, it is concerning from a socialization standpoint. Like what does that mean that most of your socialization is done electronically and digitally? And they are entirely new threats that they have to be concerned about on that, so much though, that it keeps them from living some percentage of their life, at least what I would consider being normal, even though what I consider be normal is not normal anymore.
DIEHL: I think you made a very poignant observation. I don’t know anybody that isn’t struggling with this question at the moment, especially parents. It seems like every single parent I know is involved in this kind of endless battle about too much screen time or kids wanting to maximize their screen time. If you give the capacity for the kids to now like literally strap screens to their eyeballs with this Oculus thing, it’s going to have effects on just their cognitive development.
And you’re right. Our kids are probably going to grow up in a very, very different kind of social context than the one that we went lived in. Like we to go out to the pub, and we used to go out and meet people and in person. I feel like what we see in like kind of the Japanese culture may actually be kind of coming over to some more Western countries where this kind of is like generation of people that just have very, very deficient social skills and come kind of shut-ins. They kind of called that like hikikomori over there. And I really, really hope that my kids don’t become sort of incapable of interacting with people outside of like a virtual environment because it just seems a very sad world to live in.
HENSHAW: It does it. It really concerns me. It doesn’t concern me as much with my kids because they’re older. Meaning like they’re almost out of high school, but it does concern me with the sort of younger next generation.
Because to me, unless I’m completely misunderstanding and miscalculating what it is, that meta is trying to do, it’s trying to sell a virtual world where you can be anything you want to be. If you don’t like yourself, as a kid, you don’t like yourself in your particular society, whatever, which is probably going to be most people, especially when you’re trying to figure out who you are and what this all means. You can be whatever you want to be in this virtual world. You can look and appear what you think might be the perfect being in that world. You can purchase and own land. Essentially, all of your interactions and communications can happen in that. And I think that’s a Zuckerberg wet dream, but it’s not good for humanity. So that’s sort of the concern I have is if that ever becomes something, it will be the continued dumbing down of our society and a sad state of affairs for what it means for us as human beings to create and participate and love and be with people as human beings, as opposed to this secondary virtual, whatever.
But as I say all this stuff, just like with the Web3 stuff, it makes me feel like a Luddite. Makes me feel old. I feel like if anybody listens to this who is sort of on the other side, which is like embrace all technology, becomes cyborgs and all these things, I might sound like a hundred-year-old person to them. I mean, maybe I am. I don’t know, but I’m concerned. I’m concerned about what that future might look like. Let’s end on a more positive note if we can. And that’s going to be with me asking you what is a new or sort of updated web technology that you think has a lot of promise, and you’re excited about. So when you think about something that you’re aware of that people are working on that is going to make using the web better, what is that?
DIEHL: So I’d actually work in web development in my career. Actually, I kind of work more on like numerical computing, and I work in financial services a bit. So I’m not up to speed on like all of these web developments. But I’ll say that some of the things that are happening over in sort of what’s called like the no-code space are terribly interesting. Basically, rapid prototyping tools for applications are becoming quite sophisticated these days. And I think the phenomenon of driving the cost of development down lower and allowing faster prototyping and faster duration and putting those tools in the hands of people who honestly have the skills to do such things is going to be a very, very interesting force multiplier for our entire economy. Because I don’t know people know this, but I think a lot of the world runs on a lot of legacy software, like things that were written back in like the eighties, nineties, like old COBOL systems.
HENSHAW: Yeah. I used to work at Visa, and I don’t know what they’re on now, but at the time it was COBOL. And I was building a front-end with whatever was the modern stack at the time for that, but it had to map to all this COBOL stuff. And it was just like, “Wow.” Like that’s actually what’s running everything? So, yeah.
DIEHL: The world runs on duct tape and part chewing gum, basically the software equivalence of that. And when a lot of those legacy systems get replaced and the cost of software development gets driven down, then entire sectors become more efficient versions of themselves, and everybody wins because software really does run the world these days, and the more replacing of legacy software, especially into the enterprise that we can do it, the better off the entire field is going to be.
HENSHAW: That’s great. I think that’s really interesting, and that’s a nice note to end on. Stephen…
DIEHL: Being optimistic.
HENSHAW: … thank you so much. Yeah. Yeah, it’s optimistic. We need some. We need a little bit in our life.
DIEHL: Despite the Web3 stuff, there’s still a lot of good stuff in software. You’re right.
HENSHAW: Right, right. Yep. Hey, thank you for taking the time to talk to me about these things. These are all really interesting. I really encourage everyone to go read Stephen’s posts. I will link to these where the podcast is published. But it’s Stephen Diehl… Is it dot org or dot com?
DIEHL: Dot com. Dot com and smdiehl on Twitter.
HENSHAW: Yep. And I’ll spell it for the people listening. stephendiehl.com. And he has some really good content that regardless of where you fall on Web3, I think it’s good to read and consider so that you have all the information that I think you should have because there are things that you have written, particularly from a historical and economic standpoint that I don’t think are being discussed regularly, just sort of in media. And I think it will make everybody smarter who reads it. So thanks so much.