Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Crypto, a daily Bloomberg I Heard podcast,
Speaker 1: and I'm Stacy Marie Ishmael, Managing editor of Crypto for
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News. Let me cut to the chase. Matt Levine,
Speaker 1: my colleague on the Bloomberg Opinion side of the house,
Speaker 1: is perhaps the greatest finance blogger ever to do it,
Speaker 1: and in what is both a flex and a service,
Speaker 1: He's just written tens of thousands of words on the
Speaker 1: subject of crypto for a special issue of Bloomberg Business Week.
Speaker 1: Matt's gone deep into the blockchain to break down its origins,
Speaker 1: it's possible, futures, and the current state of a technology
Speaker 1: that's showing up everywhere in industries ranging from finance to
Speaker 1: shipping too, of course video games. And we're going to
Speaker 1: be bringing his exploration to you in audio form thanks
Speaker 1: to the talents of Bloomberg editor and professional voice actor
Speaker 1: Mark Ledoff. You'll get weekly chapters of the special Crypto
Speaker 1: issue of Bloomberg Business Week, written by Matt Levine, narrated
Speaker 1: by Mark Ledorff, coming to you each Sunday through December eight.
Speaker 1: And now here's the first chapter of the special audio
Speaker 1: edition of the Bloomberg Business Week Crypto Issue. The crypto Story,
Speaker 1: Where it came from, what it all means, and why
Speaker 1: it still matters, by Matt Levine. One ledgers, bitcoins, block
Speaker 1: chains part a life in databases. Modern life consists in
Speaker 1: large part of entries in databases. If you have money,
Speaker 1: what you have is an entry in your bank's database
Speaker 1: saying how much money you have. If you have a
Speaker 1: share of stock, what you have is generally an entry
Speaker 1: on a list kept by the company, or more likely
Speaker 1: some central intermediary, of who owns stock. If you own
Speaker 1: a house, things are slightly different. There's a house involved,
Speaker 1: but your ownership of that house is probably written down
Speaker 1: in some database. In the US, this often means there's
Speaker 1: a record of you buying the house, your title in
Speaker 1: a filing cabinet in the basement of some county clerk's office.
Speaker 1: It's not a very good database. In many ways, the
Speaker 1: important thing here is the house. You have a key
Speaker 1: to the front door, your stuff is there. Your neighbors
Speaker 1: will be unsurprised to see you leaving the house in
Speaker 1: the morning, and would be surprised to see someone else
Speaker 1: coming back in. But in many other ways, the important
Speaker 1: thing is the entry in the database. A bank will
Speaker 1: want to make sure you have the title before giving
Speaker 1: you a mortgage. A buyer will want to do the
Speaker 1: proper procedures to that record before paying you for the house.
Speaker 1: The key will not suffice. Plus lots of other stuff,
Speaker 1: Much of modern life occurs online. It's not quite true
Speaker 1: that your social life, and your career and your reputation
Speaker 1: consists of entries in the databases of meta platforms and
Speaker 1: Google and Microsoft. But it's not quite false either. Some
Speaker 1: of this stuff has to do with computers. It's far
Speaker 1: more convenient for the money to be computer entries than
Speaker 1: sacks of gold or even paper bills. Some of it
Speaker 1: is deeper than that, though. What could it mean to
Speaker 1: own a house? One possibility is the state of nature.
Speaker 1: Owning a house means one you're in the house, and
Speaker 1: two if someone else tries to move in, you're bigger
Speaker 1: than them, so you can kick them out. But if
Speaker 1: they're bigger than you, now they own the house. Another
Speaker 1: possibility is what you might think of as a village.
Speaker 1: Owning a house means you live there, and your neighbors
Speaker 1: all know you live there, and if someone else tries
Speaker 1: to move in, then you and your neighbors combined are
Speaker 1: bigger than them. Home Ownership is mediated socially by a
Speaker 1: high trust network of peers. A third possibility is what
Speaker 1: you might think of as a government. Owning a house
Speaker 1: means the government thinks you own the house, and if
Speaker 1: someone else tries to move in, then the government will
Speaker 1: kick them out. You don't need to live there, because
Speaker 1: the government's knowledge is sufficient. You can rent out the house.
Speaker 1: Someone else can move in with your permission. If you
Speaker 1: revoke the permission, you can go to the government and
Speaker 1: it will subject to landlord, tenant law, etcetera. Kick the
Speaker 1: person out. Home Ownership is mediated socially by a government.
Speaker 1: The database is a way for the government to keep track.
Speaker 1: You don't have to trust any particular person. You have
Speaker 1: to trust the rule of law. Money is a bit
Speaker 1: like that too. Sacks of gold are a fairly straightforward
Speaker 1: form of it, but they're heavy. A system in which
Speaker 1: your trusted banker holds onto your sacks for you and
Speaker 1: writes you letters of credit, and you can draw on
Speaker 1: those letters at branches of the bank run by your
Speaker 1: bankers cousin. That's pretty good, though it relies on trust
Speaker 1: between you and the banker. As well as the banker
Speaker 1: and the banker's cousin. A system of impersonal banking in
Speaker 1: which the tellers are strangers and you probably use an
Speaker 1: a t M anyway, requires trust in the system, trust
Speaker 1: that the banks are constrained by government regulation, or reputation
Speaker 1: or market forces, and so will behave properly. Saying that
Speaker 1: modern life has lived in databases means most of all,
Speaker 1: that modern life involves a lot of trust. We trust
Speaker 1: the keepers of the databases. Sometimes this is because we
Speaker 1: know them and consider them to be trustworthy. More often
Speaker 1: it means we have an abstract sense of trust in
Speaker 1: the broader system, the system of laws and databases and
Speaker 1: trust itself. We assume that we can trust the systems
Speaker 1: we use because doing so makes life much easier than
Speaker 1: not trusting them, and because that assumption mostly works out.
Speaker 1: It's a towering and underappreciated achievement of modernity that we
Speaker 1: mostly do trust the database keepers and that they mostly
Speaker 1: are trustworthy. Part B, What if you don't like it?
Speaker 1: Section one Distrust. We don't always trust them, and they're
Speaker 1: not always trustworthy. Sometimes they just aren't. There are banks
Speaker 1: you can't trust to hold your money for you, and
Speaker 1: places where you can't trust the rule of law to
Speaker 1: regulate them. There are governments you can't trust not to
Speaker 1: seize your money from the banks, or falsify election results,
Speaker 1: or change the property registry and take your house. There
Speaker 1: are social media companies you can't trust not to freeze
Speaker 1: your account arbitrarily. Most people in the US most days
Speaker 1: live in a high trust world, where it's easy and
Speaker 1: reasonable to trust that the or mediaries who run the
Speaker 1: databases that shape our lives will behave properly. But not
Speaker 1: everyone everywhere lives like that. Even in the US, trust
Speaker 1: can be fragile. The two thousand and eight financial crisis
Speaker 1: caused huge and lasting damage to a lot of people's
Speaker 1: trust in the banking system. People trusted banks to do nice, safe,
Speaker 1: socially productive things, and it turned out they were doing wild,
Speaker 1: risky things that caused an economic crisis. After that, it
Speaker 1: became harder for many people to trust banks to hold
Speaker 1: their savings. Also, though you might have a philosophical objection
Speaker 1: to trust, even if your bank has an absolutely unblemished
Speaker 1: record of keeping track of your money, that might not
Speaker 1: be good enough for you. Your bank is to you
Speaker 1: a black box. How do I know you'll give me
Speaker 1: my money back. You could ask the bank, and the
Speaker 1: bank will say things like, here are your audited financial statements,
Speaker 1: and we are regulated by the Federal Reserve and ensured
Speaker 1: by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corps. And we have never
Speaker 1: not given back anyone's money. And you'll say, yes, yes,
Speaker 1: that's all fine, But how do I know you don't?
Speaker 1: Trust is built into the system a prerequisite. You might
Speaker 1: want proof. This is probably a modern desire, or at
Speaker 1: least a desire that's more intense and easier to satisfy
Speaker 1: in modern times. In a world without the Internet, without Wikipedia,
Speaker 1: without links, without open source software, et cetera, you had
Speaker 1: to take a million facts on faith every day. What
Speaker 1: were you going to do? Look them all up? Section
Speaker 1: two compose ability. Even if you're generally cool with trusting
Speaker 1: the keepers of modern databases, you might have a more
Speaker 1: technical objection. These databases are not always very good. Lots
Speaker 1: of the banking system is written in a very old
Speaker 1: computer language called cobal. In the US, people still frequently
Speaker 1: make payments electronic transfers between electronic databases of money by
Speaker 1: writing paper checks and putting them in the mail. The
Speaker 1: US stock trades take two business days to settle. If
Speaker 1: I buy stock from you on a Monday, you deliver
Speaker 1: the stock, and I pay you on Wednesday. This isn't
Speaker 1: because your broker has to put stock certificates in a
Speaker 1: sack and bring them over to my broker's office, while
Speaker 1: my broker puts dollar bills in a sack and brings
Speaker 1: them over to your broker's office. But because the actual
Speaker 1: process is a descendant of that, it's slow and manual
Speaker 1: and sometimes gets messed up. Lots of stock trades fail.
Speaker 1: Don't even get me started on the property registry. If
Speaker 1: you buy a house, you have to go to a ceremony,
Speaker 1: a closing, where a bunch of people with jobs like
Speaker 1: title company, lawyer mutter incantations that let you own the house.
Speaker 1: It can take hours. If your model of how a
Speaker 1: database should work comes from modern computers, the hours of
Speaker 1: incantations seem insane. There should be an ap I. You
Speaker 1: might think. There should be an application programming interface allowing
Speaker 1: each of these databases to interact with the others. If
Speaker 1: your bank is thinking about giving you a mortgage, it
Speaker 1: should be able to query the property database automatically and
Speaker 1: find out that you own your house, rather than send
Speaker 1: a lawyer to the county Clerk's office, and it should
Speaker 1: be able to query the Department of Motor Vehicles registry
Speaker 1: automatically and get your driver's license for identification purposes, and
Speaker 1: query your brokerage account automatically and examine your assets. Modern
Speaker 1: life consists of entries in databases. What if we updated them?
Speaker 1: What if we rewrote all the databases from scratch in
Speaker 1: modern computer languages, using modern software engineering principles, with the
Speaker 1: goal of making them interact with one another seamlessly. If
Speaker 1: you did that, it would be almost like having one database,
Speaker 1: the database of life. I could send you money in
Speaker 1: exchange for your house, or you could send me social
Speaker 1: reputation in exchange for my participate patient in an online
Speaker 1: class or whatever, all in the same computer system. That
Speaker 1: would be convenient and powerful, but it would also be scary.
Speaker 1: It would put even more pressure on trust. Whoever runs
Speaker 1: that one database would in a sense, run the world.
Speaker 1: Whom could you trust to do that. We'll be right
Speaker 1: back with more from Bloomberg Business Week Special Crypto issue
Speaker 1: written by Matt Levine a narrated by Mark Ledoff, partsy
Speaker 1: Digital Cash. What if there was one database and everyone
Speaker 1: ran it? In two thousand and eight, Satoshi Nakamoto published
Speaker 1: a method for everyone to run a database, thus inventing crypto. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that's what Satoshi thought he was due ing.
Speaker 1: Most immediately, he was inventing bitcoin appear to peer electronic
Speaker 1: cash system, which is the title of his famous white paper.
Speaker 1: What Satoshi said he'd invented was a sort of cash
Speaker 1: for Internet transactions, an electronic payment system based on cryptographic
Speaker 1: proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to
Speaker 1: transact directly with each other without the need for a
Speaker 1: trusted third party. If I want to buy something from
Speaker 1: you for digital cash bitcoin, I just send you the
Speaker 1: bitcoin and you send me the thing. No trusted third
Speaker 1: party such as a bank, is involved. When I put
Speaker 1: it like that, it sounds as if Satoshi invented a
Speaker 1: system in which I can send you bitcoin and nobody
Speaker 1: else is involved. What he actually invented was a system
Speaker 1: in which lots of other people are involved. Section one,
Speaker 1: Before we continue a digression, What are you even reading?
Speaker 1: Why are you reading it? And why am I writing it? Hi?
Speaker 1: I'm Matt. I'm a former lawyer and investment banker. Now
Speaker 1: I'm a columnist at Bloomberg Opinion. In my day job,
Speaker 1: I write about finance. I like finance. It's fun to
Speaker 1: write about. It's a peculiar way of looking at the world,
Speaker 1: a series of puzzles, a set of structures that people
Speaker 1: have imposed on economic reality. Often those structures are arcane
Speaker 1: and off putting, and it's satisfying to understand what they're
Speaker 1: up to. Everything in finance is a created on top
Speaker 1: of a lot of other things. In finance, everything is
Speaker 1: weird and counterintuitive, and you often have to have a
Speaker 1: sense of financial history and market practice to understand why
Speaker 1: anyone is doing any of the things that they're doing.
Speaker 1: Now back to Mark Lidorff, a professional actor who, lucky
Speaker 1: for us, also happens to be an editor here at
Speaker 1: Business Week. Thanks Matt. For the past few years, the
Speaker 1: most polarizing thing in finance has been crypto. Crypto is
Speaker 1: a set of ideas and products and technologies that grew
Speaker 1: out of the Bitcoin white paper. But it's also, let's
Speaker 1: be clear, a set of lines on arts that went
Speaker 1: up when Satoshi invented bitcoin. One bitcoin was worth zero dollars.
Speaker 1: It was just an idea he made up. At its
Speaker 1: peak last November, one bitcoin was worth more than sixty
Speaker 1: seven thousand dollars, and the total value of all the
Speaker 1: crypto in circulation was something like three trillion dollars. Many
Speaker 1: people who got into crypto early got very rich, very fast,
Speaker 1: and were very annoying about it. They bought Lamborghinis and islands.
Speaker 1: They were pleased with themselves. They thought crypto was the future,
Speaker 1: and they were building the future and being properly and
Speaker 1: amply rewarded for it. They said things like have fun
Speaker 1: staying poor, and in g M, I not gonna make
Speaker 1: it to people who didn't own crypto. They were right
Speaker 1: and rich and wanted you to know it. Many other
Speaker 1: people weren't into crypto. They got the not entirely unjustified
Speaker 1: impression that it was mostly useful for time or for
Speaker 1: Ponzi schemes. They asked questions like, what is this for?
Speaker 1: Or where did all this money come from? Or if
Speaker 1: you're building the future, what is the actual work you're doing,
Speaker 1: Or if you're building the future, why does it seem
Speaker 1: so grim and awful? And the crypto people often replied,
Speaker 1: have fun staying poor. And then this year those lines
Speaker 1: on charts went down. The price of one bitcoin fell
Speaker 1: below twenty dollars. The total value of crypto fell from
Speaker 1: three trillion to one trillion dollars. Some big crypto companies failed.
Speaker 1: If you're a crypto skeptic, this was very satisfying, not
Speaker 1: just as a matter of schadenfreude, but also because maybe
Speaker 1: now everyone will shut up about crypto and you can
Speaker 1: go back to not paying attention to it. For crypto enthusiasts,
Speaker 1: this was just a reason to double down on grinding.
Speaker 1: The crash would shake out the casual fans and leave
Speaker 1: the true believers to build future together. In a sense,
Speaker 1: it's a dumb time to be talking about crypto because
Speaker 1: the lines went down, but really it's a good time
Speaker 1: to be talking about crypto. There's a pause, there's some repose.
Speaker 1: Whatever is left in crypto is not just speculation and
Speaker 1: get rich quick schemes. We can think about what crypto means,
Speaker 1: divorced a little bit from the lines going up. I
Speaker 1: don't have strong feelings either way about the value of crypto.
Speaker 1: I like finance. I think it's interesting, and if you
Speaker 1: like finance, if you like understanding the structures that people
Speaker 1: build to organize economic reality, crypto is amazing. It's a
Speaker 1: laboratory for financial intuitions. In the past fourteen years, Crypto
Speaker 1: has built a whole financial system from scratch. Crypto constantly
Speaker 1: reinvented or rediscovered things that finance had been doing for centuries.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it found new and better ways to do things.
Speaker 1: Often it found word sways heading down dead ends that
Speaker 1: traditional finance tried decades ago with hilarious results. Often it
Speaker 1: hit on more or less the same solutions that traditional
Speaker 1: finance figured out, but with new names and new explanations.
Speaker 1: You can look at some crypto thing and figure out
Speaker 1: which traditional finance thing it replicates. If you do that,
Speaker 1: you can learn something about the crypto financial system. You can,
Speaker 1: for instance, make an informed guess about how the crypto
Speaker 1: thing might go wrong. But you can also learn something
Speaker 1: about the traditional financial system. The crypto replication gives you
Speaker 1: a new insight into the financial original. Also, I have
Speaker 1: to say, as someone who writes about finance, I have
Speaker 1: a soft spot for stories of fraud and market manipulation
Speaker 1: and smart people putting one over on slightly less smart people.
Speaker 1: Often those stories are interesting and illuminating and especially funny.
Speaker 1: Crypto has a very high density of stories like that,
Speaker 1: and so now I write a lot about crypto, including
Speaker 1: quite a lot right here. I need to give you
Speaker 1: some warnings. First, I don't write about crypto as a
Speaker 1: deeply embedded crypto expert. I'm not a true believer. I
Speaker 1: didn't own any crypto until I started working on this article.
Speaker 1: Now I own roughly a hundred dollars worth. I write
Speaker 1: about crypto as a person who enjoys human ingenuity and
Speaker 1: human folly, and who finds a lot of both in crypto. Conversely,
Speaker 1: I didn't sit down and write forty words to tell
Speaker 1: you that crypto is dumb and worthless and will now
Speaker 1: vanish without a trace. That would be an odd use
Speaker 1: of time. My goal here is not to convince you
Speaker 1: that crypto is building the future and that if you
Speaker 1: don't get on board, you'll stay poor. My goal is
Speaker 1: to convince you that crypto is interesting, that it has
Speaker 1: found some new things to say about some old problems,
Speaker 1: and that even when those things are wrong, they're wrong
Speaker 1: in illuminating ways. Also, I'm a finance person. It seems
Speaker 1: to me that fourteen years on, crypto has a pretty
Speaker 1: well developed financial system, and I'm going to talk about
Speaker 1: it a fair bit because it's pretty well developed and
Speaker 1: because I like finance, but no one should care that
Speaker 1: much about a financial system. A financial system is well
Speaker 1: a series of databases. It's a way to shovel around
Speaker 1: claims on tangible stuff. It's an adjunct to the real world.
Speaker 1: A financial system is good if it makes it easier
Speaker 1: for farmers to grow food, and families to own houses,
Speaker 1: and businesses to make awesome computer games. If it helps
Speaker 1: to create and distribute abundance in real life. A financial
Speaker 1: system is bad if it trades abstract claims in ways
Speaker 1: that enrich the people doing the trading but don't help
Speaker 1: anyone else. I yeh uh. A salient question in crypto
Speaker 1: for the past fourteen years has been what is it
Speaker 1: good for? If you ask for an example of a
Speaker 1: business that actually uses crypto, answers you'll get are mostly
Speaker 1: financial businesses. Well, we built a really great exchange for
Speaker 1: trading crypto. Cool, Okay. Sometimes these answers are plausibly about
Speaker 1: creating or distributing abundance. Crypto lets emigrants send ribittance as
Speaker 1: cheaply and quickly. That's good. Often they're about efficient gambling.
Speaker 1: Gambling is fun. Nothing against it, But a financial system
Speaker 1: that was purely about gambling would be kind of limited. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: crypto's most ardent boosters say, crypto is about building real
Speaker 1: useful things. Crypto will redefine social relationships and gaming and computers.
Speaker 1: It will build the metaverse. Crypto is the vital component
Speaker 1: of the next leap in the Internet. Crypto will build
Speaker 1: Web three to replace our current Web two. Maybe if
Speaker 1: you ask for an example of a business that actually
Speaker 1: uses crypto, you'll get a ton of real lucrative financial businesses.
Speaker 1: Then some vague theoretical musings like, well, maybe we could
Speaker 1: build a social media network on Web three. It's still early.
Speaker 1: Maybe someone will build a really good social media network
Speaker 1: on Web three. Maybe in ten years, crypto and blockchains
Speaker 1: and tokens will be central to everything that's done on
Speaker 1: the Internet, and the Internet will be even more than
Speaker 1: it is now central to everything that's done in human life,
Speaker 1: and the crypto early adopters will all be right and rich,
Speaker 1: while the rest of us will have fun staying poor,
Speaker 1: and school children will say, I can't believe anyone ever
Speaker 1: doubted the importance of doge coin. I don't want to
Speaker 1: discount that possibility, and I do want to speculate about
Speaker 1: it a little bit maybe sketch a picture of what
Speaker 1: that might mean. I'm not going to give you a
Speaker 1: roadmap for how we'll get there. I'm not a tech
Speaker 1: person and I'm not a true believer, but it is
Speaker 1: worth trying to understand what crypto could mean for the
Speaker 1: future of the Internet, because the implications are sometimes utopian
Speaker 1: and sometimes dystopian, and sometimes just a modestly more efficient
Speaker 1: based layer for stuff you do anyway. Plus the finances
Speaker 1: cool and it's cool now. Coming up next, you'll hear
Speaker 1: more from Matt Levine's special Crypto issue of Bloomberg Business Week,
Speaker 1: narrated by Mark Leadoff. Section two a second diggression, Names
Speaker 1: and people. Before we go on, let me say some
Speaker 1: things about some names. First, crypto, this thing I'm writing
Speaker 1: about here, there's not a great name for it. The
Speaker 1: standard name, which I'll use a lot is crypto, which
Speaker 1: I guess is short for cryptocurrency. This is not a
Speaker 1: great name because one, it emphasizes currency, and a lot
Speaker 1: of crypto is not particularly about currency. And two it
Speaker 1: emphasizes cryptography. And while crypto is in some deep sense
Speaker 1: about cryptography, more people in crypto or not doing a
Speaker 1: ton of cryptography. You can be a crypto expert or
Speaker 1: a crypto billionaire, or a leading figure in crypto without
Speaker 1: knowing much about cryptography, and people who are cryptography experts
Speaker 1: sometimes get a bit snippy about the crypto people stealing
Speaker 1: their prefix. There are other names for various topics in crypto.
Speaker 1: Blockchain tokens, web three defy the metaverse, and they're sometimes
Speaker 1: used broadly to refer to a lot of what's going
Speaker 1: on in crypto. But it's not like they're great either,
Speaker 1: so I'll mostly stick with crypto as the general term. Second,
Speaker 1: sa Toshi Nakamoto. That's a pseudonym, and whoever wrote his
Speaker 1: white paper has done a reasonably good job of keeping
Speaker 1: himself herself for themselves pseudonymous. Ever, since there's a lot
Speaker 1: of speculation about who the author might be, some of
Speaker 1: the funnier suggestions include Elon Musk and a random computer
Speaker 1: engineer named um So Toshi Nakamoto. I'm going to call
Speaker 1: Satoshi Nakamoto Satoshi and use he him pronouns because most
Speaker 1: people do a related point other than maybe Satoshi. Basically,
Speaker 1: everyone involved in cryptocurrency is a hilariously outsized personality. It's
Speaker 1: a good bet that if you read an article about crypto.
Speaker 1: It will feature wild characters. One story in Bloomberg Business
Speaker 1: Week last year mentioned sending billions of perfectly good U
Speaker 1: S dollars to the inspector Gadget Co creators Bahamian Bank
Speaker 1: in exchange for digital tokens conjured by the mighty ducks
Speaker 1: guy and run by executives who are targets of a
Speaker 1: US criminal investigation. Except this one, there won't be a
Speaker 1: single exciting person in this whole story. My goal here
Speaker 1: is to explain crypto so that when you read about
Speaker 1: a duck guy doing crypto, you can understand what it
Speaker 1: is that he's doing. Thank you Matt Levine, and thank
Speaker 1: you Mark Ledoff. As a reminder, if you're looking for
Speaker 1: these episodes in the Crypto Feed, will be publishing them
Speaker 1: every Sunday through December. If you'd like to read this
Speaker 1: issue in print form, you can head on over to
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash the Crypto Story. This is Bloomberg Crypto,
Speaker 1: a daily podcast from Bloomberg and I Heart Radio. For
Speaker 1: more shows from I Heart Radio, visit the i heart
Speaker 1: Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Send us your comments, questions, or suggestions. For the show
Speaker 1: to Crypto at Bloomberg dot net or find us on Twitter.
Speaker 1: We're at Crypto. The supervising producer of Bloomberg Crypto is
Speaker 1: Vicky Vergalina. Our senior producer is Janet Babin. Our producers
Speaker 1: are Mohammed Faruk and Sharon Barriro. Our associate producers are
Speaker 1: Ty Butler and Moses on Them. Desta wonder At is
Speaker 1: our engineer. Original music by Leo Sidron. I'm Stacy Marie
Speaker 1: Schmal We'll be back tomorrow the a in Astan at
Speaker 1: the y sid