Speaker 1: Welcome to Trallians. I'm Joel Webber and I'm Eric bel Tunis. Eric.
Speaker 1: There was an announcement recently by kind of a big
Speaker 1: company formerly known as Facebook, now known as Meta Platforms,
Speaker 1: and I'm curious what your your take was on all
Speaker 1: of that, because what I saw was a company rebranding
Speaker 1: itself and the market just kind of went nuts for
Speaker 1: this idea of the metaverse. Yeah, you know, I'd heard
Speaker 1: of the metaverse. I mean, this is not a term
Speaker 1: I was unfamiliar with, and when I saw the announcement,
Speaker 1: I kind of thought, well, Facebook has really been that
Speaker 1: name has kind of been through the mud, and maybe
Speaker 1: they were just trying to like make an easy like
Speaker 1: news start. But when they did that, what happened that
Speaker 1: really caught my attention as an E t F analyst
Speaker 1: is the e t F with the ticker meta, which
Speaker 1: I assume Facebook probably wanted but couldn't get because it
Speaker 1: was taken the round hill ball metaverse. Et f UM
Speaker 1: started to see flows very quickly like and I thought, well,
Speaker 1: maybe people are like accidentally buying it, But over the
Speaker 1: past sixteen seventeen days, it just takes in more and
Speaker 1: more money. It's very reminiscent of Hack after the Sony
Speaker 1: Pictures Hack, where this news event becomes a catalyst moment
Speaker 1: for a theme. It's the perfect situation and Meadow was
Speaker 1: right there waiting. And I'll give you some numbers. It's
Speaker 1: now grown by sixfold since you know the Zuck moment,
Speaker 1: and it's also seen volume grow by fifty times. The
Speaker 1: options activity has grown by forty five times. The ETF
Speaker 1: is becoming. It's just it's basically done what you want
Speaker 1: to see in two years in about three weeks, which
Speaker 1: is impressive. So joining us on this episode of Joinings,
Speaker 1: We've got Matthew Ball, the guy behind the et F
Speaker 1: meta Also joining us Matt Canterman, an e t F
Speaker 1: analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence, where he's also the co host
Speaker 1: of a podcast called Into the Metaverse, along with another
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Intelligence guest, Rebecca Sin, this time on Trilliance Exploring
Speaker 1: the Metaverse. Mr Cantorman, Mr Ball, Rebecca Sin, Welcome to Trilliance,
Speaker 1: nice to be here, Thanks for having us. Okay, So,
Speaker 1: Matthew Ball, I want to start with you. Last time
Speaker 1: you and I connected a couple of years ago, you
Speaker 1: wrote like an article for Bloomberg Business week and then
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, like you're back with an E
Speaker 1: T F. What's been going on? Man? Quite a bit?
Speaker 1: I mean, funnily enough, the article that I wrote for
Speaker 1: Bloomberg was on the ongoing and soon to be precipitous
Speaker 1: decline of Hollywood in the box office. This is like
Speaker 1: before times, it was like nineteen pre pandemic was certainly
Speaker 1: pretty pandemic. But it's a good way to look at
Speaker 1: the metaverse, which is through my career I've jumped a
Speaker 1: few different times. At one point I was a wild
Speaker 1: firefighter in initial at act, if you can believe it.
Speaker 1: But I've spent most of the past fifteen years jumping
Speaker 1: from what I saw to be the new thing. At
Speaker 1: one point, that was the digital apps economy. Shortly thereafter
Speaker 1: it was digital communities. I then moved into s VAUD
Speaker 1: a few years before the streaming wars began, and then
Speaker 1: over the past five years, I shifted over to video gaming,
Speaker 1: and that very cleanly brought me to the metaverse, albeit
Speaker 1: at a time in which I still thought it was
Speaker 1: fifteen years away from fruition and at least five years
Speaker 1: from the public consciousness. And so what came first this
Speaker 1: e t F or or the idea of of just
Speaker 1: you know, putting a finger into what what this space
Speaker 1: could look like. So I've been writing about the metaverse
Speaker 1: since mid but it was mid twenty in which this
Speaker 1: is a macro super theme started to become an idea
Speaker 1: that investors would start to look at this. And then
Speaker 1: in the intwoing months in the back half of the year,
Speaker 1: we had roadblocks. File there s one. It was the
Speaker 1: first time in which we had the metaverse really driving
Speaker 1: a story to the street. We also had the I
Speaker 1: p O of unity. Those two combined were some of
Speaker 1: the biggest ideas the gaming industry had ever seen. They
Speaker 1: very quickly became some of the biggest companies in the
Speaker 1: gaming industry, and that gave us a lot more confirmation
Speaker 1: that now was actually the right time for an e
Speaker 1: t F. And so we began in late the second
Speaker 1: quarter of devising the methodology behind the index. In the
Speaker 1: third quarter, we began doing initial conversations with various et
Speaker 1: F providers. Secured that in the first quarter of one.
Speaker 1: But to be honest, even midway in the second quarter,
Speaker 1: we were concerned that we were too early. We didn't
Speaker 1: think we couldn't have a viable e t F. But
Speaker 1: we thought that it was largely going to spend a
Speaker 1: year or two proving itself from a returns perspective, but
Speaker 1: struggling to actually penetrate the average investor, certainly institu Oceans,
Speaker 1: but even many retail investors. Um And just before we
Speaker 1: go to meta here, for those of us who are
Speaker 1: the uninitiated, how do you even attempt to explain what
Speaker 1: the metaverse is when you know we're very early innings
Speaker 1: in what may transpire. It's a good question, and obviously
Speaker 1: I'm asked quite frequently. The honest answer is I tailor
Speaker 1: it to the audience, and that's based on the varying
Speaker 1: degrees in which they're familiar with the Internet. It's antecedents
Speaker 1: and so forth. But I think the most fun way
Speaker 1: I have to describe it is a riff on Daniel X,
Speaker 1: the founder and CEO of Spotify. He talks about the
Speaker 1: first fifty eight or twenty years of the consumer Internet
Speaker 1: as being this relentless quest to break down anything made
Speaker 1: of atoms and converted into bits. Think of your alarm clock.
Speaker 1: We all used to go to bed with an alarm
Speaker 1: clock on our nightstand made of atoms. And then today
Speaker 1: we actually go to bed with an alarm clock on
Speaker 1: our iPhone on our nightstand. We converted an alarm clock
Speaker 1: from something made of atoms into something made of bits software.
Speaker 1: This next stage, the metaverse, you can think of as
Speaker 1: reconstituting that alarm clock using bits, but into virtual atoms.
Speaker 1: There's a broad belief that that is a more intuitive
Speaker 1: model of interaction. You can take a look at forty
Speaker 1: years of the Internet's history and see is constantly shifting
Speaker 1: towards more tactile, more immersive, more visual experiences in much
Speaker 1: the same way we started on the Internet, representing ourselves
Speaker 1: with the user name and email address, sharing via text messages,
Speaker 1: message boards, slowly shifting too limited web pages, then profiles
Speaker 1: full of photos, video streams, Instagram stories. This next step
Speaker 1: is shifting online existence commerce into virtual three D objects.
Speaker 1: And I just follow up on that because there's a
Speaker 1: really important point that Matt has made um and you
Speaker 1: can check out We've talked about this extensively on our podcast.
Speaker 1: Into the metaverse. But the metaverse is not a device.
Speaker 1: You know, it's not defined by any individual access point,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of misconception that the metaverse is
Speaker 1: a VR headset or it's an a R goggles, and
Speaker 1: that's not the case. The metaverse is device agnostic. The
Speaker 1: metaverse is the Internet. That's what Matt was saying. It's
Speaker 1: enabling the Internet with real time three D software. Unity
Speaker 1: likes to put out a stat that today two percent
Speaker 1: of the Internet is enabled by real time three D.
Speaker 1: And whether you think the CEO is is full of
Speaker 1: it or not, there's a trend in the direction. He
Speaker 1: thinks that ten years, fifty percent of the Internet will
Speaker 1: be enabled by real time three D. So you're talking
Speaker 1: about making the Internet exactly as Matt was saying, much
Speaker 1: more immersive and much more three D enabled. And and
Speaker 1: that's really the metaverse again, it's not a device. It's
Speaker 1: a really important point to make. And so, um, you know,
Speaker 1: as somebody who has a ten year old kid, he
Speaker 1: plays Roadblocks, I've seen it. He loves it. He plays
Speaker 1: with his friends. That's the metaverse, right, Matt Kenterman. Absolutely
Speaker 1: Roadblocks is like the only pure play in the metaverse
Speaker 1: right now. It is a virtual, social, shared persistent experience platform.
Speaker 1: That that is the definition of a metaverse platform. Now,
Speaker 1: there are ways that they can make it more immersive.
Speaker 1: There are ways that they can enhance that experience. There
Speaker 1: are ways they can do more from the business side
Speaker 1: on the monetization. But Roadblox is you know, Roadblocks Fortnite
Speaker 1: with ten cents done with honor of King's um. You know,
Speaker 1: these are some of the leading metaverse platforms out there today,
Speaker 1: even Minecraft within Microsoft, and so absolutely the metaverse exists today.
Speaker 1: But you know, we just interviewed Craig Donado, the chief
Speaker 1: business officer, on our podcast, and we're still in the
Speaker 1: first inning. You know, if you put this in baseball terms,
Speaker 1: we're not even close to getting out of the bottom
Speaker 1: of the first yet. And so let's put this into
Speaker 1: dollars and cents. Your job is analyst of Bloomberg Intelligence,
Speaker 1: is to try to find out the opportunity for investors
Speaker 1: who use bloomber terminals. So in one of my recent notes,
Speaker 1: I actually you know, associated one of your bits which
Speaker 1: talked about how the metaverse would be have a revenue
Speaker 1: of eight four estimated by you, um, how do people
Speaker 1: make money in the metaverse? Explain that? So, you know,
Speaker 1: our our forecast for the metaverse reaching eight billion by
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four is really driven by the consumer facing
Speaker 1: client applications. You know, I thought Matt and his team
Speaker 1: with Roundhill when they were marketing three TF did a
Speaker 1: good job of explaining that, and from that perspective, it's
Speaker 1: actually quite a conservative forecast. So we looked at, you know,
Speaker 1: four key areas. You know, from one hand, the metaverse
Speaker 1: is clearly growing out of online games. It's clearly the
Speaker 1: evolution of games into these shared social experience platforms. And
Speaker 1: so we looked at the online games market, which includes
Speaker 1: the software revenue, the services revenue, the advertising revenue. It
Speaker 1: also includes engine, the game engine, the real time three
Speaker 1: D software, which is so important. We looked at um,
Speaker 1: you know, social media advertising. You know, the metaverse platforms
Speaker 1: are going to be the next social platforms. They're going
Speaker 1: to eat into the advertising revenue of these big social platforms,
Speaker 1: so we took a big chunk of that. We looked
Speaker 1: at live entertainment, which I think is a really burgeoning opportunity,
Speaker 1: like such as virtual concerts, which alone is targeting a
Speaker 1: thirty billion opportunity just within the concerts. So that adds in,
Speaker 1: and then it's also the hardware that really used to
Speaker 1: access it. Although it's not any specific piece of hardware.
Speaker 1: The hardware clearly plays a piece, and that adds up
Speaker 1: to eight hundred billion. But there's so much that we
Speaker 1: haven't scratched the surface on. We didn't touch enterprise, we
Speaker 1: didn't touch education, because these are more long term opportunities
Speaker 1: where the monetization potential is still questionable in terms of
Speaker 1: direct revenue. And then there's also you know, secondary items
Speaker 1: such as you know, the cloud services that back all
Speaker 1: this up, the telecom services that back all this up,
Speaker 1: all the infrastructure that goes into building the actual networks
Speaker 1: that power the metaverse. That's all behind the scenes. That
Speaker 1: doesn't even touch So when when Tim Sweeney comes out
Speaker 1: and says the metaverse is already a trillion dollar opportunity,
Speaker 1: it absolutely is when you start including all of those
Speaker 1: secondary tertiary markets. And Rebecca, let me bring you into
Speaker 1: this um as a new member of our team, and
Speaker 1: I advised you to be bold and say interesting things
Speaker 1: in your notes. I think your fifth note said that
Speaker 1: metaverse CTFs could have eighty billion dollars in the next
Speaker 1: ten years. That is bold. I mean, honestly, I would
Speaker 1: say maybe eight to ten. But you went for the
Speaker 1: home run there. I guess with inflation, you definitely could
Speaker 1: get a little help there, But what's your logic to that.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm wondering if you just were hanging out with
Speaker 1: Matt cantervittle too much. So I remember when that note
Speaker 1: first came out and you laughed at me, you said,
Speaker 1: record are you crazy? And in hindsight, this was before
Speaker 1: Facebook had rebranded to Meta and before Korea launched their
Speaker 1: e t S, and I really genuinely thought that the
Speaker 1: market could be this large. And so I had predicted
Speaker 1: that the e t F meta space would become eighty
Speaker 1: billion and that could potentially be six hundred million in revenues.
Speaker 1: And in November, after Korea launched for new e t F,
Speaker 1: so on October twelve, Korea launched for new Metaverse et
Speaker 1: F S and it was one of the fastest growing
Speaker 1: ETFs to have gained a hundred million. So to give
Speaker 1: you some context, in Korea, two of their et f
Speaker 1: Samsung and Miray, reached a hundred million in assets in
Speaker 1: just under two weeks, so it was round six days.
Speaker 1: And so this is a record number of inflows. And
Speaker 1: in early November, I had published that the metaworse space
Speaker 1: would reach two billion, and this was achieved Act week
Speaker 1: earlier this week, and looking at Meta, you know, Meta
Speaker 1: has seen inflows of seven hundred million. But even in
Speaker 1: the Korea space alone, between the four et f s,
Speaker 1: they've already surpassed six hundred and fifty million in assets
Speaker 1: and they only just launched less than one month ago.
Speaker 1: And so I really believe that this space has a
Speaker 1: lot of potential. In Asia alone, we have other regions
Speaker 1: like Australia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore that are all looking
Speaker 1: to launch metaverse et s, and so the appetite in
Speaker 1: Asia is huge, and so I can see that this
Speaker 1: market could really reach eighty billion. Yeah, and I think
Speaker 1: eric it it's important to talk a little bit about
Speaker 1: where the long term can go here, and I think
Speaker 1: that there are a few different perspectives. First is Matt's
Speaker 1: where he talks about how much of the potential metaverse
Speaker 1: economy sits outside of the consumer facing applications. Well, the
Speaker 1: UN estimates that the global economy eighty seven trillion dollars
Speaker 1: is roughly eighteen percent digital. Now, of course, the Gaffam
Speaker 1: or big tech five companies Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and
Speaker 1: Microsoft are about one point three trillion of that. The
Speaker 1: truth is that the vast majority of the digital economy
Speaker 1: sits outside of those big five companies, And in fact,
Speaker 1: we know that outside of that eighteen of the global
Speaker 1: economy that's digital, much of it is still powered by
Speaker 1: digital technology. Over time, we have seen the percentage of
Speaker 1: the global economy that is digital go up. My expectation
Speaker 1: is that that will continue to go up, in part
Speaker 1: powered by the metaverse, as the metaverse also gains share
Speaker 1: of that digital portion. Jensen Wang, the Nvidio CEO, has
Speaker 1: said that he expects the economy of the metaverse to
Speaker 1: eventually exceed that of the physical world. In other words,
Speaker 1: he's talking about a future state in which the global
Speaker 1: economy is perhaps to a hundred trillion dollars and fifty
Speaker 1: or more of that is in the metaverse. That seems
Speaker 1: a little large to me, but it doesn't surprise me
Speaker 1: that invests are so excited to invest in this theme. Technologists,
Speaker 1: business owners, investors have come to terms with the fact
Speaker 1: that the Internet caught many of us by surprise. The
Speaker 1: mobile Internet came much faster and proliferated faster than we anticipated,
Speaker 1: cloud was more disruptive. Just as business leaders have learned
Speaker 1: about disruption theory investors have learned about the pace of change,
Speaker 1: the enormity of a platform shift, and they're preparing. I
Speaker 1: have three visions in my head. You tell me which
Speaker 1: one is probably the most where we're going. One is
Speaker 1: Ready Player. One the oasis where one thing kind of
Speaker 1: becomes like the where everybody puts on their goggles and
Speaker 1: they all live in there, and yet society crumbles around them.
Speaker 1: That's probably like a dark vision, but that's one. The
Speaker 1: other one is more like Mark Zuckerberg's commercial on Good
Speaker 1: Morning America where he's sitting there a meeting talking to people,
Speaker 1: a how you doing like zoom, but like you're like
Speaker 1: a robot or like a fake version of yourself, whereas
Speaker 1: we're in the skeleton outfit. Then the other is something
Speaker 1: like Roadblocks, which I see my son playing, where he's
Speaker 1: too dimensional and he's sort of interacting. I I guess
Speaker 1: I'll throw this to Matt cantonman, you know, because I
Speaker 1: saw you shaking your head like um, you know, especially
Speaker 1: with Matthew Ball saying that that that much of this
Speaker 1: total revenue could come for total economic activity could come
Speaker 1: from in there, it seems like the oasis would be
Speaker 1: the vision that would exist. No no, I don't think so.
Speaker 1: I think that is a way to access the metaverse,
Speaker 1: but it's not the way to access the metaverse. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, if you just think about the iterations of
Speaker 1: the Internet, right, we went from web pages to you know,
Speaker 1: social to mobile, and now we're entering the metaverse era
Speaker 1: of the Internet. And really we're just enabling everything that's
Speaker 1: out there with real time three D software and making
Speaker 1: it more social and more persistent. So an analogy would be,
Speaker 1: for example, you have face Book. You know, you're scrolling
Speaker 1: your wall or Instagram, and it's all photos and posts.
Speaker 1: It's all static, it's two D. It's not immersive. You're
Speaker 1: not interacting with it in lifetime. Imagine if that was
Speaker 1: a virtual bulletin board and you and your avatar were
Speaker 1: walking around and pinning things to the board and others
Speaker 1: were coming up and reading it in lifetime and the
Speaker 1: changes they make affect your board. That is a metaverse
Speaker 1: in theory, right, And then you talk about the business
Speaker 1: opportunities around that. So it doesn't have to be locking
Speaker 1: yourself in a headset. It doesn't have to be putting
Speaker 1: yourself away from the world. It's it's just a new
Speaker 1: way to interact and immerse yourself with others in a
Speaker 1: virtual world. I kind of love this question of anchoring
Speaker 1: in science fiction because, of course, the metaverse comes from
Speaker 1: snow Crash, and many, especially critics, tend to highlight the
Speaker 1: fact that all of the most popular conceptions of the
Speaker 1: metaverse or a virtual future come from dystopic science fiction novels.
Speaker 1: I found it funny because, of course, utopias aren't the
Speaker 1: best situation or construct human drama. By definition. There's a
Speaker 1: reason why we don't find many sci fi novels, nor
Speaker 1: any novels at all, that are set in a pacific
Speaker 1: perfect version of the future. It's a good narrative device.
Speaker 1: But to take a step back, I think one of
Speaker 1: the most interesting things about asking this question of what
Speaker 1: does the metaverse look like? A question many people ask,
Speaker 1: is that innovation is recursive. This is actually why disruption
Speaker 1: is so threatening to today's companies. A technology is created,
Speaker 1: which leads to new behaviors, which leads to new use
Speaker 1: cases for that technology, which leads to follow on innovations, creations,
Speaker 1: emergence of new business models, new companies. If you went
Speaker 1: to or two thousand and five and ask someone what
Speaker 1: does twenty one look like. The closest you'd get to
Speaker 1: today was essentially platitudes like more people online, more often
Speaker 1: from more places with better broadband. You don't get people
Speaker 1: describe being TikTok, which now owns the Billboard one. You
Speaker 1: certainly don't get the expectation that app based trading platforms
Speaker 1: with zero commission would lead to Yolo options trading on
Speaker 1: the subway because your board, which simultaneously rescues a company
Speaker 1: from bankruptcy. You don't get the idea that the most
Speaker 1: popular real time three D rendered experience globally would be
Speaker 1: Battle Royal games that didn't even exist until a few
Speaker 1: years ago. Innovation is recursive, It inspires, it is responded to,
Speaker 1: and so I think we can take a look at
Speaker 1: some of the early conceptions of the metaverse. The truth
Speaker 1: is it will probably look, feel and change our lives
Speaker 1: in a way we can't anticipate. No one thought that
Speaker 1: social media was going to lead to election engineering by
Speaker 1: foreign states in the way that it did, And that's
Speaker 1: actually what's going to happen here. It's the threat, it's
Speaker 1: the opportunity. Okay, So I want to ask another type
Speaker 1: of question, which was and and Matthew I'd love your
Speaker 1: perspective on this. Facebook embroiled in this massive, massive scandal
Speaker 1: basically pulls a rabbit out of a hat with like
Speaker 1: maybe you know a rebrand that will in you know,
Speaker 1: when we look back on this for years, like it
Speaker 1: could be like the greatest business case study of all
Speaker 1: time if they pull this thing off or it's Facebook
Speaker 1: now formerly Facebook also known as Metal Platforms, and all
Speaker 1: of the problems and societal issues that we've been grappling
Speaker 1: with in this Facebook context are now just amplified to
Speaker 1: the inth degree because now it's all in the metaverse.
Speaker 1: So where do you rate the rebrand scale of one
Speaker 1: to ten, ten being the greatest thing ever? Well? I
Speaker 1: think Mark has received some criticism as to whether or
Speaker 1: not this is a sleight of hand, whether his interest
Speaker 1: in the metaverse is new, and I think that misses
Speaker 1: a lot of context. Two years after he acquired Instagram
Speaker 1: for a billion, he acquired Oculus VR for more than
Speaker 1: twice that sum. In he reportedly tried to purchase Unity now,
Speaker 1: a seventy billion dollar game engine company. A few years ago,
Speaker 1: they acquired a company called Control Labs, the leader in
Speaker 1: brain to machine computer interfaces. They have been investing in
Speaker 1: this and other technologies for many, many years. His interest
Speaker 1: in this concept is certainly not new. I also want
Speaker 1: to highlight that Mark is actually a survivor of the
Speaker 1: pre mobile era. Facebook has become a case study for
Speaker 1: the speed with which a company can pivot to mobile,
Speaker 1: But that history often forgets He was late to mobile.
Speaker 1: Why because they bet on ht amount not apps. In
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, Apple launched the app store. In
Speaker 1: two thousand and nine, they came out with their famous
Speaker 1: campaign there is an app for that in Sesame Street
Speaker 1: parodied that campaign, and yet it wasn't until twelve that
Speaker 1: Facebook actually launched a native app. Before then, it was
Speaker 1: a thin client based on HTML. Mark called that in
Speaker 1: the biggest mistake in the company's history. Within one month
Speaker 1: of rewriting the app to native code, time in the
Speaker 1: Facebook feed doubled. Imagine that. Imagine just changing your code
Speaker 1: and doubling engagement in an engagement based platform. Now they survived,
Speaker 1: But what did happen in two thousand and nine, when
Speaker 1: Facebook had three fifty million monthly active users. What's app
Speaker 1: was founded? It was specifically founded on being app based communication.
Speaker 1: They ultimately bought that company for fourteen billion dollars. It's
Speaker 1: now believed to be the most popular of the Facebook
Speaker 1: constellation of applications. What I see in this rebrand is
Speaker 1: a manifestation of many, many years of investment and belief.
Speaker 1: But most importantly, someone who understands the threat of platform
Speaker 1: shifts sees an opportunity to grow. They've been stymming by
Speaker 1: their lack of an operating system. They have a business
Speaker 1: model predicated upon one very flawed business model, and so
Speaker 1: he sees opportunity. But I think there's a genuine belief
Speaker 1: that this rebrand can be an important signal to investors,
Speaker 1: to partners, to current employees, to potential employees, and to consumers.
Speaker 1: It's very dangerous to have one of the most valuable
Speaker 1: companies on Earth and tell every shareholder you should now
Speaker 1: evaluate me on a thing I say is five to
Speaker 1: ten years away and which I am going to incinerate
Speaker 1: ten billion dollars per annum in pursuit of whether or
Speaker 1: not Meta is the right name is not particularly interesting
Speaker 1: to me. I'm no branding expert. I look at whether
Speaker 1: or not this is new. I don't think it is.
Speaker 1: Whether or not it's important, I do think so, And
Speaker 1: whether or not it has utility, and irrespective of the
Speaker 1: specific name, I do see that it's a powerful signal.
Speaker 1: And I just translate Matt into cynical financial analysts PEA
Speaker 1: because I have the same view, but from a cynical perspective,
Speaker 1: and it's that you know, when Facebook was in the
Speaker 1: web era, they were the walled garden or if not
Speaker 1: one of the large walled garden platforms. And everyone wants
Speaker 1: to be the walled garden because you get to clip
Speaker 1: coupons for free on other people spending and commissions on
Speaker 1: app stores and whatnot. Right we went to mobile, they
Speaker 1: lost being in the waled garden. You know, they have great,
Speaker 1: powerful platforms, but Apple and Google and others really became
Speaker 1: these these waled garden platforms. And so the cynical view
Speaker 1: was also they see the metaverse as this opportunity to
Speaker 1: reclaim that position in the market. And you know, as
Speaker 1: Matt was saying, build out ancillary revenue streams beyond advertising
Speaker 1: from devices and content, but also from creating an app
Speaker 1: platform that where people come to them and pay them
Speaker 1: and they take commissions from other people that spending. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: that's assuredly true because the business model on their new
Speaker 1: devices requires that here. Whether or not you want to
Speaker 1: say it starts at one end or the other is
Speaker 1: I think a question of determination. But certainly the history
Speaker 1: of companies that are disrupted or stimed does lead to
Speaker 1: philosophical change. Brad Smith at Microsoft, the president, has said
Speaker 1: Microsoft was on the wrong side of open versus closed.
Speaker 1: One can very fairly wonder if Microsoft had not been
Speaker 1: largely boxed out of the hardware and operating system of
Speaker 1: the mobile era, they would have had that change of perspective.
Speaker 1: I think that's absolutely valid, and that's the nature of
Speaker 1: any person. Frankly, if I'm Mark Zuckerberg and I'm gonna
Speaker 1: make this pivot and it's gonna be a big pivot,
Speaker 1: there's one There's one ticker that I would really love
Speaker 1: to have if I'm going from Facebook into the metaverse,
Speaker 1: and that ticker seems like it would be meta. But
Speaker 1: that ticket was taken by you. How many times have
Speaker 1: you heard from Mark Yeah or Facebook to try and
Speaker 1: get the ticker that you got first? Not once? Come on?
Speaker 1: Just like just random briefcases of cash show up. Does
Speaker 1: that count? Well, We've gotten a number of briefcases in
Speaker 1: cash in creates, many of them and I think a
Speaker 1: good deal of any metaverse oriented companies R and D
Speaker 1: Budget might be might be well positioned to bet there.
Speaker 1: But no, the response has been from investors, Okay, let
Speaker 1: me let me pivot there to another Mark Zuckerberg question.
Speaker 1: I'll throw this to Matt Cantonman, since I know you
Speaker 1: spend a lot of time in the metaverse. Last time
Speaker 1: we had you on about video games, you you were up.
Speaker 1: He was like gaming while he was on the like
Speaker 1: you're you're like, you're in it. And so there's an
Speaker 1: elon must put this tweet out, which had Mark Zuckerberg
Speaker 1: in his like you know during his explanatory video, except
Speaker 1: the caption said if you die in the metaverse, you
Speaker 1: die in real life. And Okay, fine, it's funny, but
Speaker 1: it taps into it's true, it taps into this sort
Speaker 1: of I don't know, um, I think Matthew Ball said
Speaker 1: earlier dystopian, this idea that we're all gonna like live
Speaker 1: in there, and what are the consequences to humanity of
Speaker 1: like putting all of our spirit in this fake world.
Speaker 1: If you take it from a high level and you
Speaker 1: look at what's driving consumer demand for these sorts of experiences,
Speaker 1: it's all about self expression. In the real world, we
Speaker 1: wear the clothes we wear, we buy handbags, we buy
Speaker 1: other things because we want to give off an impression
Speaker 1: of ourselves to others around us. We want those items
Speaker 1: that we wear, that we buy, that we interact with
Speaker 1: to tell a story about ourselves. And in the metaverse,
Speaker 1: in the virtual world, it's the same thing. What your
Speaker 1: avatar wears, what they look like, what they do that,
Speaker 1: the dance moves they do, um, the items they wear.
Speaker 1: You know, in roadblocks, somebody paid the equivalent of four
Speaker 1: thousand U S dollars for a virtual g bag. It's
Speaker 1: not an n f T. It's not something you can
Speaker 1: pick out, you can't sell it, you can't do anything
Speaker 1: with it. But it just is an expression of their
Speaker 1: virtual self. And they thought that value was enough to
Speaker 1: justify that. So, you know, when I think about it
Speaker 1: that way, although you may not physically die, you know
Speaker 1: you have an emotional connection to this avatar that you've
Speaker 1: created of yourself in the metaverse at some point, and
Speaker 1: at that level, when that character dies, you can feel
Speaker 1: something from that. Rebecca, what do you think the resale
Speaker 1: value for that four thousand dollar Gucci bag looks like
Speaker 1: so I think coming from a female Asian perspective, you know,
Speaker 1: Asians do love to shop and females do love their
Speaker 1: shopping bag. I'm surprised or May's hasn't jumped on this
Speaker 1: and come up with a virtual Kelly or Broken, because
Speaker 1: I'm sure that would sell much more than the Gucci bag.
Speaker 1: But I definitely think there's a market for this. And
Speaker 1: what's interesting is looking at the e t F space
Speaker 1: from an Asian perspective, most of the flows that we've
Speaker 1: gotten is from retail, and this is a shift from
Speaker 1: where you normally see growth. So usually in the et
Speaker 1: F spaces institutional clients that are supporting this, but in Asia,
Speaker 1: most of the flowing Korea is all from retail more
Speaker 1: than and the head of e t F s at
Speaker 1: Mira Mr. June said that since the simultaneous launch of
Speaker 1: four meta e t F s in Korea last month,
Speaker 1: the theme has learned much attention from retail investors and
Speaker 1: the media, and so companies are actually in Korea are
Speaker 1: actually spending money to further develop the R and D
Speaker 1: and capital investments and so in Asia, retail is a
Speaker 1: huge market. You know, the Chinese market drive the retail population,
Speaker 1: and so I think there is huge potential, especially in
Speaker 1: Asia for this growth. So actually let's just stick with
Speaker 1: you for a little bit because I want to talk
Speaker 1: about sort of what what's inside the e t f
Speaker 1: s themselves, right, and like you you mentioned the ones
Speaker 1: that have popped up in Asia, but we've also got
Speaker 1: Mr Balls here what stands out to you in terms
Speaker 1: of like what companies the e t f s are
Speaker 1: actually holding. So in Korea, the market is ultimately trying
Speaker 1: to support the Korean market, and so for all of
Speaker 1: these four e t f s, they've picked Korean companies.
Speaker 1: And so for instance, Hub, which is one of them,
Speaker 1: it's uh, it operates in the entertainment space. And so
Speaker 1: Matthew and I were actually debating this last week, just saying,
Speaker 1: you know, do you really consider these companies met first
Speaker 1: companies or are they just entertainment systems entertainment companies? And
Speaker 1: so I think it really depends on what your definition is.
Speaker 1: For instance, in Taiwan, they already have e t f
Speaker 1: s that they consider our metaverse ETFs. But it ultimately
Speaker 1: comes down to what your definition of metaverses. And I
Speaker 1: think everyone has a different definition, And you know, my
Speaker 1: son at one point wanted to get paid for chores
Speaker 1: and roebucks and that was my first indicator that this
Speaker 1: is like a really big you know, uh something that
Speaker 1: was to you know, something to watch. And when I
Speaker 1: think of crypto as being the sort of like Internet,
Speaker 1: you know, money that that can be seamlessly transferred, is
Speaker 1: roebuck or whatever might be used in the metaverse a
Speaker 1: threat to crypto or just because crypto actually plug into it? Um,
Speaker 1: Matthew Ball, how do you see that that that's sort
Speaker 1: of like playing out with crypto and the metaverse. It's interesting.
Speaker 1: I think it's very frequent to hear this conflation of
Speaker 1: Web three or crypto with the metaverse. I tend to
Speaker 1: think that it's a bit like conflating industrialization or electrification
Speaker 1: with democratic republics. One is a technological process, the other
Speaker 1: is about how we organize in society. Where these two
Speaker 1: themes intersect is about what the metaverse economy needs to thrive.
Speaker 1: And one way to think about that is the old
Speaker 1: adage possession is nine tenths of the law. Well, in
Speaker 1: most central server models, you can never take possession of
Speaker 1: anything you don't own it. Where it is is on
Speaker 1: a central server with a central database saying you eric
Speaker 1: have this thing. It can be deleted, it can be removed,
Speaker 1: they can disagree, it can be sees you can never
Speaker 1: take possession of it. And note that in the real world,
Speaker 1: the fact that you have something in your possession doesn't
Speaker 1: mean the government can't take it, but we reflect that
Speaker 1: the vast majority of the power goes to you holding it.
Speaker 1: The perspective in the crypto community is that blockchain technology
Speaker 1: for n f T s and assets is critical to
Speaker 1: ensuring the requisite property rights and trust in the market
Speaker 1: for investment. Are you going to buy a ten dollar
Speaker 1: parcel of land or two million dollar avatar that you
Speaker 1: can never truly take possession of that you have no
Speaker 1: guaranteed rights to and in a dispute the owning party
Speaker 1: can just take it from you until the court forces
Speaker 1: it back to you, you individual person who makes twenty
Speaker 1: dollars per year. These don't require decentralization as a solution,
Speaker 1: but decentralization is the increasingly deployed solution with rapid adoption
Speaker 1: and crucially a considerable amount of revenue behind it, which
Speaker 1: seems to drive more adoption from developers and in turn
Speaker 1: users and Ultimately, and this is a key point for
Speaker 1: all of the failures and struggles and gas fees of
Speaker 1: crypto standards don't necessarily win because they're the best. We
Speaker 1: saw that with Beta max and VHS. They win when
Speaker 1: they are considered legitimate and adopted on mass. That is
Speaker 1: what we are starting to see here. You know, applying
Speaker 1: decentralized blockchain and n f T technology as an economy
Speaker 1: is really a business decision for whether it's a game
Speaker 1: or a metaverse platform. It's not an enabling technology at
Speaker 1: its core. You can do a lot of the things
Speaker 1: like providing transferability of items between experiences. You know, if
Speaker 1: Roadblocks and Fortnite wanted to make it so you can
Speaker 1: move items between them, they could do that today without
Speaker 1: a blockchain. They don't need n f T s to
Speaker 1: do that. It's just another layer of ownership and really
Speaker 1: having that decentralized, you know, no one owns it, but
Speaker 1: you monitor that goes with it. That's the real difference. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I love talking about interoperability and Sharry and
Speaker 1: exchange because there are really severe tech problems in hurdles.
Speaker 1: One of my favorites is actually just to talk about this.
Speaker 1: You know, epistemological question or ontological question about what is
Speaker 1: an avatar? Does an avatar have clothes? Is an avatar
Speaker 1: with a hat and actually an avatar with a hat?
Speaker 1: Or is it an avatar that has an object known
Speaker 1: as a hat? Does an avatar actually have skin? What
Speaker 1: color is the skin? Is that a separate object. Does
Speaker 1: a gelatinous jellyfish and a bodybuilder avatar move in the
Speaker 1: same way? We assume no, But these are actual technical
Speaker 1: decisions that have to be made. When you copy an
Speaker 1: image or I send you a jpeg, it's just bringing
Speaker 1: visual representation. But three D objects require rigging and motion.
Speaker 1: It's when we are talking about interoperation and sharing of objects.
Speaker 1: We are talking about a hard problem of technology. However,
Speaker 1: the harder problem is always policy. It is business. Technology
Speaker 1: can be solved. You can scale up with machine learning,
Speaker 1: you can compress, you can simplify, you can say your
Speaker 1: world has rigging, mind doesn't I'm just going to import
Speaker 1: it and they'll be the same for me. The challenges
Speaker 1: always business policy. One of the reasons why we see
Speaker 1: such network effects in crypto is to some extent, developing
Speaker 1: means giving up that you can't actually develop something and
Speaker 1: then control what people do with it. It's lego. Similarly,
Speaker 1: when you take a look at the virtual world platforms
Speaker 1: of Minecraft and Roadblocks, the fact that their interoperability is
Speaker 1: essentially federated has real technical limitations and that you can't
Speaker 1: do everything you might want to do as a developer
Speaker 1: on Roadblocks, but you do benefit from the network of
Speaker 1: efects of everyone else. And part of the problem here
Speaker 1: is this path of interoperation with crypto from non crypto,
Speaker 1: from closed platforms to other closed platforms. Many including Mark,
Speaker 1: have said that they want to do this, but there's
Speaker 1: no roadmap for how you do that. Um okay, Matthew, Bob,
Speaker 1: I want to bring it back to e t S
Speaker 1: a little bit here and and actually talk about your
Speaker 1: your holdings. How do you decide what goes in this?
Speaker 1: I mean you have I've looked at the index. Uh,
Speaker 1: you have an expert council. Who's on this expert council?
Speaker 1: How do you decide who gets in the e t F?
Speaker 1: And how do you figure out what the holdings are? Sure? So,
Speaker 1: the ball metaverse index, which is behind the round hill
Speaker 1: ball metaverse e t F is a passive thematic rules
Speaker 1: based index. We have detailed methodologies under seven categories hardware, networking, compute,
Speaker 1: virtual platforms, payment rails, content assets and services, as well
Speaker 1: as interchanged endors. You can think of that as your
Speaker 1: unity and unreal We define those seven different categories based
Speaker 1: on the core stack that you see in the Internet,
Speaker 1: in which powers virtual worlds and metaverse experiences. Today, we
Speaker 1: allocated value or waitings to each of those categories, not equivalently,
Speaker 1: because if you take a look at the history of
Speaker 1: the Internet, you'll see that the value or the revenue
Speaker 1: pools differed quite significantly over time. If you take a
Speaker 1: look in the nineties, almost all of the revenue from
Speaker 1: the Internet was in hardware and networking. We weren't buying
Speaker 1: Netflix subscriptions. There wasn't paid ranked with keywords being assigned
Speaker 1: to it. You were buying a Dell computer and a
Speaker 1: o L or Exfinity broadband, and so we had to
Speaker 1: wait each of those seven categories. How we come up
Speaker 1: with the rules for each company that's scored within them
Speaker 1: as our proprietary i P. But it's assembled by this
Speaker 1: expert Council. And for context, the expert Council is a
Speaker 1: council of experts. We have the former lead of in
Speaker 1: Video's Enterprise Clouds streaming offering. The person who launched launched
Speaker 1: Amazon's Instant Applications. Former head of developer relations and content
Speaker 1: strategy for Oculus, former general manager of Steam, former general
Speaker 1: partner at Andres and Horowitz in their crypto division, led
Speaker 1: their Crypto School. Former executive from Spotify, the co executive producer,
Speaker 1: lead game designer of Grand Theft, Auto Red Dead Redemption.
Speaker 1: This expert council only four of the seven of which
Speaker 1: I've just described came up with this methodology, and the
Speaker 1: belief was the reason why I hired this expert council
Speaker 1: was essentially a reflection of why the et F exists
Speaker 1: in the first place, which is the enormity of this transformation,
Speaker 1: which spans trillions of dollars in every country, in every industry,
Speaker 1: is far beyond one person myself or even a handful
Speaker 1: to truly understand. Then trying to systematize that in an
Speaker 1: index is even more difficult, and so we spent about
Speaker 1: eight months building out this rules based methodology, which we
Speaker 1: then maintain over time. I'm happy to say that among
Speaker 1: all US listed e t f s, we have the
Speaker 1: second highest ranking of roadblocks. Has been a good look
Speaker 1: recently the fourth highest waiting for Nvidia and among our
Speaker 1: top four holdings, all of which I would consider to
Speaker 1: be the leading metaverse companies today Roadblocks and Video, Unity
Speaker 1: and Microsoft we have the largest combined holdings. Now. One
Speaker 1: of the challenges with the e t F right now
Speaker 1: is it is very differently weighted from Q q Q,
Speaker 1: but it still has many of the same tickers. And
Speaker 1: I think that there are a few different important points there.
Speaker 1: Number one is two of those top holdings, Unity and
Speaker 1: Roadblocks were not public last year. That's a good reflection
Speaker 1: of how this e t F is likely to change
Speaker 1: in the future. While all of the triple Q companies
Speaker 1: are pretty up year over year, Unity and Roadblocks were
Speaker 1: valued at less than five billion a year and a
Speaker 1: half ago. There now fifty and seventy five billion dollar companies.
Speaker 1: So our expectation is that the new companies will grow.
Speaker 1: But the nature of a multidecade change is why you
Speaker 1: need a diversified portfolio and why the composition of this
Speaker 1: index will change as the metaverse changes. Which companies lead
Speaker 1: clobly and and I would just add that you know,
Speaker 1: we also expect a lot of these companies that are
Speaker 1: private that are you know, key metaverse companies like Epic
Speaker 1: Games will eventually go public at some point or another.
Speaker 1: You know it's right now there's unlimited and basically infinite
Speaker 1: amounts of private capital for them to stay private, but
Speaker 1: you know at some point that private capital will want
Speaker 1: to exit, and so you know, it's it's it's almost
Speaker 1: a certainty that at some point in the next few
Speaker 1: years a company like Epic will look to I p
Speaker 1: O and probably will join the index. For you guys
Speaker 1: as well as for us are Bloomberg Metaverse Index and
Speaker 1: become a key you know, key holding in those indicries.
Speaker 1: But as much as we will see more and more
Speaker 1: of these companies sort of you go public or ter
Speaker 1: h Matthew Ball's index, I don't know if there could
Speaker 1: have ever been a bigger gift than uh a rebrand
Speaker 1: of a company going from Facebook to meta and just
Speaker 1: having this massive catalyst moment uh Mr Ball, And I'm
Speaker 1: just wondering had that not happened, where would you be.
Speaker 1: It's a good question, I mean, and I think Eric
Speaker 1: tied this up. There's certainly been some attention, especially in
Speaker 1: the first few days, as to whether or not the
Speaker 1: increased inflows were just erroneous trades. I think the assets
Speaker 1: have been incredibly sticky. We're now at eighteen consecutive days
Speaker 1: of inflows. Those inflows have grown from five to fifty
Speaker 1: to sixty to eighty eight million in a day. As
Speaker 1: we get farther and farther from that release date, the
Speaker 1: critical answers if you actually take a look at crypto
Speaker 1: and this is the most important, metaverse oriented tokens have
Speaker 1: grown far, far more than meta and almost universe. What
Speaker 1: this tells me is that the spotlight placed on this
Speaker 1: theme for which we could not have purchased on this timeframe,
Speaker 1: is what's driving the inflows. Greater recognition of the size
Speaker 1: of this opportunity and its magnitude. But I think it's
Speaker 1: important to diversify away from meta platforms here. Yes, in
Speaker 1: July Mark started talking about then at the end of
Speaker 1: October he rebranded. But what has happened since, Well, in
Speaker 1: Video has gone from a company two years ago very
Speaker 1: few people knew to several months ago being the ninth
Speaker 1: largest company on Earth, it's now the sixth largest company
Speaker 1: on Earth. Jensen talks about the metaverse more frequently and
Speaker 1: with greater enthusiasm than anyone else. So you've now got
Speaker 1: the seventh and sixth largest company on Earth, Microsoft, the
Speaker 1: largest company on Earth Satya. Nadela went on a tour
Speaker 1: released videos talking about his vision for the metaverse, how
Speaker 1: his company is going to transform. A few days ago,
Speaker 1: Google announced that it was reconfiguring its organization for the
Speaker 1: xr VR, Google Play Team, Google Labs, and Area one
Speaker 1: twenty their special Projects group. We're going to be reorganized
Speaker 1: into a due reporting unit. We don't know exactly what
Speaker 1: that looks like. It sounds like the metaverse to me.
Speaker 1: In addition, Amazon started rewriting their job postings in m
Speaker 1: L in hardware in their Wearable's division to talk about
Speaker 1: the metaverse. Reports have come out from Morgan Stanley and
Speaker 1: others trying to estimate if Facebook Reality Labs is spending
Speaker 1: twelve billion per anum on the metaverse, what is Amazon doing.
Speaker 1: Their estimate is six to eight billion dollars per year.
Speaker 1: Apple has filed more patents in the last year relating
Speaker 1: to display technology than in their history. That is metaverse
Speaker 1: related investment. I absolutely believe that Facebook has catalyzed interest
Speaker 1: in this scene, but that interest has been constantly reaffirmed
Speaker 1: by the most significant powerful and stand to lose comp's
Speaker 1: on Earth. And if you look at some of this,
Speaker 1: like the share price moves on like Roadbox and Unity recently,
Speaker 1: they didn't budge when Facebook rebranded the metaverse necessarily they
Speaker 1: moved on earnings. And I think what was really impressive
Speaker 1: aside from shortcovering, because I think there was a lot
Speaker 1: of shortcovering that you know, catalyzed modes, but you know,
Speaker 1: I think if you look at Roadblocks, there was a
Speaker 1: lot of concern. I had this concern that not only
Speaker 1: would every all the metrics tail off as we emerged
Speaker 1: from the pandemic, but the engagement, the hours of engagement
Speaker 1: per daily active user on the platform would fall down.
Speaker 1: People would go back to spending less time on the platform.
Speaker 1: And that's not the case. It's actually going up still.
Speaker 1: People are now spending more time than they did during
Speaker 1: lockdowns in the second quarter of Roadblocks. That's one of
Speaker 1: the most encouraging data points that you can see for
Speaker 1: this company, because that really proves the viability and sustainability
Speaker 1: of these platforms is not only gains but as social experiences. Okay, Rebecca,
Speaker 1: I want to ask you a question right before we
Speaker 1: wrap here. You wrote a note that Eric uh found
Speaker 1: a little bold. Now that we've had this conversation, how
Speaker 1: do you feel about that number which was what was it? Yeah?
Speaker 1: My e t F number was eighty billion by twenty
Speaker 1: four and I think that we might actually reach this.
Speaker 1: And the reason why is that, especially in Asia, how
Speaker 1: people define metaverse is a lot more broad. So, for instance,
Speaker 1: if we look at Korea before, Korean ETFs that launch
Speaker 1: track the f N Guide k Meta Index and the
Speaker 1: I Select Metaverse Index, and so these are really companies
Speaker 1: in the tech space, anything from social entertainment to live
Speaker 1: entertainment to technology companies. And in Asia we can expect
Speaker 1: more metaverse e t s to come just because they
Speaker 1: take a much more broad definition of what the metaverse is.
Speaker 1: And if we look at this from a performance perspective,
Speaker 1: for instance, in the past month, the Korean ETFs have
Speaker 1: a one month return of thirty six percent, and so
Speaker 1: the retail investors are loving this. The returns are phenomenal.
Speaker 1: And if we compare this to meta in the US
Speaker 1: in the past month, meta has performed sevent and so
Speaker 1: for ets for investors, a lot of people just jump
Speaker 1: on the bandwagon. You know, metaverse is the thing right now,
Speaker 1: I'm going to invest into it. But what I love
Speaker 1: about E t s is that it's really about the details.
Speaker 1: And so for each et F, even though they are
Speaker 1: branded as a metaverse et F, the underlying is actually
Speaker 1: drastically different. And so for in Asia, the Korean ETFs
Speaker 1: are solely focused on the Korean market, while for the
Speaker 1: Taiwan ets is solely focused on the Taiwan market. And
Speaker 1: so as investors look to the metaverse, you know, they
Speaker 1: really need to be selective in what they want. And unfortunately,
Speaker 1: not all ETF issuers can have the luxury that Matthew
Speaker 1: Ball has by having a very exclusive set of metaverse
Speaker 1: experts on their committee to select the index. And I
Speaker 1: think that's what's going to be the differentiating factor, and
Speaker 1: you're really going to see a difference of that in
Speaker 1: the return and performance of the index. So I think
Speaker 1: this market is going to continue to grow. Facebook has
Speaker 1: definitely helped my prediction and pushed it to get retail interest,
Speaker 1: and I think we might actually hit us. Okay, Matthew Ball,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna wrap with you. We asked this question of
Speaker 1: of many guests on the on the on the program
Speaker 1: on the podcast, favorite E t F ticker that is
Speaker 1: not your own, well, I think the the Easy Camp
Speaker 1: would have to be hacked. Eric served that one up
Speaker 1: to you on a platter, so we talked about it
Speaker 1: a lot, just out of curiosity here where where else
Speaker 1: can you go with Meta? How many other ticket tickers
Speaker 1: do you have in your back pocket that are Meta related?
Speaker 1: I don't have any. But the crew at round Hill
Speaker 1: are experts in ticker selection. They have filed for meme
Speaker 1: for weed. We'll see if they can get that one
Speaker 1: through on ecy. But those guys are absolute pros at
Speaker 1: what they do, but ticker selection has to be top
Speaker 1: among them. Matthew, Matthew, Rebecca, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: joining us in Trillians. Thank you, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thanks for listening to Trillions. Until next time.
Speaker 1: You can find us on the Bloomberg Terminal, Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Wordbells. You'd like to listen, we'd
Speaker 1: love to hear from you. We're on Twitter. I'm at
Speaker 1: Joel Weber Show, He's at Eric faul Jinas. This episode
Speaker 1: of Trillions was produced by Magnus Hendrickson. Francesca Levi is
Speaker 1: the head of Bloomberg Podcast Bye,