 awfully quiet in here, just trying to understand what's happening. Well, we're just waiting for a couple of minutes before everyone joins. As you know, Kiriti is the vice chair of the group, so he's concerned that there is silence. How do I say your name? Sorry, is it Haohan? Yes, that's correct. Very rarely that people get it right on the first try. Okay. I'm pretty excited to hear a lot about AMM, so I'm doing a bit on token engineering myself as well, so I'm just really charged about trying to understand a little more about your value proposition and how you intend to solve some of the biggest problems in the world. We seem to have a pretty good audience here. 21 is the magic number, so we're going to start in a minute. First, I'm going to start recording, so I mean, I've already started recording, sorry. There are two things to say before we start. One is that we do follow the Linux Foundation's antitrust policy, so we are bound by that antitrust policy wherever we are, so if you do not wish to follow that antitrust policy, please get off the call. That is one. The second item is the code of conduct, which is that we all agree to abide by the Hyperledger code of conduct, which boils down to one thing, which is that we are not going to be disagreeable to each other even when we are disagreeing, so in a nutshell, and if you're not speaking, please go on mute because otherwise it's highly disruptive to the proceedings. I want to introduce now Haohan Zhu, who's the CEO of Epiphany and Roxy, two projects that I have written about and which you should know about. He has his legs firmly planted in both traditional finance and in the world of DeFi, so without waiting too much, let's start talking about how, I mean, Haohan is going to make his presentation. Thank you, Haohan, for showing up and let me bid you welcome. Hi, I apologize, I kind of just dropped because my internet connection went out, but I'm glad it sounds like I made it back on time. Yeah, you're right on the money with respect to, well, to use the phrase, you're right on the money. Okay, can you guys see my screen? Yes. Okay, all right, may I start? Yeah, let's give one more direction which is basically Haohan will go through the presentation and you can ask him questions after he finishes. It is not right to interrupt the flow of the presentation unless your question is so burning that you cannot restrain yourself. Anyway, without waiting too much, let's go here, Haohan, which is why we are here anyway. Okay, sure, sure. All right, so good morning to everyone who's tuning in at the moment. First of all, I want to thank Hyperledger and Dipin for giving me this opportunity. My name is Haohan, I'm the CEO and founder of two companies in the blockchain space, Epiphany and Roxy. Epiphany is a digital asset trading network. You can think of it as a change of privilege changes. We want to unify the fragmented markets in digital assets to provide traders the best liquidity and price discovery for digital assets. Roxy is a blockchain technology driven payment network that unifies the global payments systems so that central banks, payment companies and consumers can make the fastest, least expensive payment to anyone in the world. So that is a brief background about myself and my companies. So today I want to share some of my findings when building Roxy and discuss how DeFi protocols can bring additional benefits or even completely reshape the international business world. So as we all have heard, Bank of America recently joined PAXO's settlement service, which is an added proof of the entire financial industry on blockchain technology. But today I want to focus on how not only blockchain technology itself but also the blockchain applications can impact traditional finance. As some of you know, last year DeFi started to gain a lot of traction and it created a large impact on how traditional finance works. One of the most notable examples is how Uniswap a decentralized crypto exchange reshaped how crypto was traded by using its innovative automated market maker model to change the traditional central limit order book model, which equity and FX markets still use today. So last September, Uniswap surpassed Coinbase in monthly trading volume by nearly 2 billion. That is more than 10%. So this will be the agenda for today. For those of you who are very familiar with the first two parts of the agenda, please bear with me or just treat it as a quick review. Yeah, so to get into the topic, first I want to talk about how the international rhythm is where it works. So international rhythm is just another way of saying cross-border rhythm is a cross-border money transfer has many has many problems with different causes today. It is very slow, expensive, it's risky, it lacks transparency, and it's challenging for smaller banks to perform. So for the purpose of today's topic, I will focus on an expensive problem, which is partially caused by FX trading. I will explain where it is in the international process and how it can be improved with the DeFi protocols. So here's the image. Here's the image I borrowed from the internet to demonstrate the relationships between all the participants in FX trading in the international missed context. So banks constantly need to perform FX due to different business demands. So the FX may not happen every time that admitter is sending money. However, the bank usually quotes the admitter FX trade around the real-time market price. So to the admitter, it doesn't make a difference. Yeah, it'd be loose. How long? Yeah, I think we did. He may have an unstable network connection. He may have an unstable, yeah, maybe he's not even aware that he's off. Yeah, I'm going to contact him. Yeah, because sometimes when you're speaking, you're not aware. So this is kind of interesting because if we cannot manage a Zoom connection, how can we go to DeFi with maturity? Yes, so Mike, do you have anything to add to this? Because you're visible now, Mike Fertman. You're muted, Mike. No, except that it's a good thing that maybe that Zoom isn't the one running a DeFi platform, but we'll get a hold of it. But I don't think it has anything to do with Zoom. It has to do with local connectivity. Talk about decentralization in that sense that every one of us has sort of got their own connection. So if you have a poor connection, it's very difficult to take the conversation forward. Dan, you're unmuted. Is there any reason? Are you going to say something? Yeah, he's going to say that even for centralized networks is a challenge with network. Yeah, everything that relies on connectivity from unreliable sources is challenged. One of the things is that we have to talk about is, oh, how on your back? Wonderful. Oh, we were there. I apologize. This happens very rarely, and this is the worst time for this to happen. I apologize for that. Can you guys hear me? Yeah, yeah. We can hear you now. We can see you. We can see the screen. Yeah, I'm sorry. Where did you lose me? Here, when you're talking about the international remittance infrastructure as it exists today, that's when we lost you, about the fact that the banks have to court a rate, almost a real-time rate. Okay, yeah. I see. I'll just continue off there. I was saying there's no centralized exchange for FX, so FX works like an OTC market. Just like crypto trading, there's no centralized market that trades a certain FX pair. However, there are primary markets like London, New York, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo. A lot of trading today, it's done through there and through electronic messaging or trading system effects. Like this picture shows, the foreign exchange market has a lot of participants, banks, international corporations, central banks, investment firms, hedge funds, FX brokers, and investors, et cetera. It is by far the largest market in the world, with 6.6 trillion per day volume back in 2019. When you go to the bank and most online providers to convert currencies, you most likely won't get the market price that traders or institutions get in the market. The bank exchange house or the remittance company, whatever your point of contact is, will mark up the price so that it can make a profit. The US dollar to Mexican peso price is like 19.8, like today, somewhere around there. The market is saying it costs 19.8 Mexican pesos to buy one US dollar. At the bank, however, it can cost 20.5 Mexican pesos. Banks and online remittance services are allowed to add a markup and charge fees. The difference between the market exchange rate and the exchange rate bank charge or the bank make their profit. Sometimes this costs is higher because banks have to go to brokers, and brokers will charge an additional fee as well, which later on is imposed on to you as an end user. Since it is an OTC marketing FX trading, you do not get to see the exact market price at which your currency is converted by the bank. Although as an end user, you can open multiple bank accounts in different countries, you might send money to and trade FX market yourself. It is just too much hassle for an average person. Because of all I explained above, today, remitters are losing large amounts of money to FX spreads or just hidden costs that banks charge them or just charged by other institutions to banks that impose on to you. That is a little background on the FX trading in the remittance world. What is decentralized exchange using an automated market maker model and how does it work? An automated market maker is a type of decentralized exchange protocol where the liquidity of the market comes from pools of funds that are contributed by the users. The price of the asset mathematical formula instead of supply and demand in the order book model. Instead of using an order book like a traditional exchange, assets are priced according to a price algorithm. This formula can actually vary with each protocol. For example, Uniswap uses x times y equals to k, where x is the amount of one token in the liquidity pool and y is the amount of the other token. In this formula case of fixed constant meaning the pool's total liquidity always has to remain the same. Other automated market makers will use other formulas for other use cases. Uniswap was the first one to do this. For simplicity, I will use them as example to demonstrate how it works here. An automated market maker is very similar to an order book exchange in that there's many trading pairs. For example, Ethereum against USDT. However, you don't need to have a counterparty on the other side to make a trade. Instead, you interact with a smart contract that makes the market for you. The people who are actually allowing the smart contract to make the market are the ones providing liquidity into the smart contract. These people are called liquidity providers. Liquidity providers add funds to the liquidity pools. You could think of a liquidity pool as a big pile of funds that traders can trade against. In return for providing liquidity to the protocol, liquidity providers are fees from the trades that can happen in their pool. In the case of Uniswap, liquidity providers deposit equivalent value of two tokens. For example, 50% Ethereum and 50% USDT to the Ethereum against USDT pool. The amount of each token will be determined by the pricing algorithm at the moment. When a trader is trading on Uniswap, sorry, apologize, the amount of token that you have to put in will be determined by the pricing algorithm at the moment. When a trader is trading on Uniswap, they're actually exchanging funds with the pool of liquidity. Anyone can become a market maker in this case, so as long as the person has a crypto wallet and the rewards are determined by the protocol. For example, Uniswap charges traders 0.3% fee that goes directly to liquidity providers. In summary, what Uniswap did using automated market maker was that they decentralized the role of market makers to the people and allowed people to reap the benefits of market making and take on the risk, but in a much easier way. You no longer need the sophistication nor the capital to be a market maker. How can all this be applied to international means and make it better? If you understood the previous parts, you probably already have a rough idea. We can use the AMM protocol to facilitate FX trading and benefit the international means by eliminating intermediaries like market makers and pass the benefits to the emitters. However, the solution is not as simple as just taking the entire AMM model into FX trading. It has a few tweaks. These are something we've done in Roxy, so I just want to share them. One of them would using an external oracle instead of using an equation to price the asset to improve the pricing curve. These oracles can be market data providers used by major FX markets. By using the mid-priced data as prices prior to the market data, which is consistent with the real-time prices in the FX market, the price curve generated would be smoother and provided trading price closer to the current market price, which can effectively reduce trading slippage. On the other hand, reduce traders trading losses and also reduce impermanent losses. Automated market makers pass the reliant arbitrage algorithm to adjust prices usually. The external oracle also proactively flattens the price curve in the same direction to ensure that the area around the market price remains stable. This ensures that there's sufficient liquidity to be continuously available basically. In other words, most of the funds that are concentrated near the market price, which makes trading more active and increase the utilization funds. I illustrated in one of the early slides, remitters take on most of the cost that is charged between intermediaries by their first point of contact. Remitters are getting very little under idle capital. With AMN in place, we can eliminate intermediaries while passing benefits with their mid-script and contribute liquidity to AMN protocols and earn the profits that is earned by the FX market makers usually. For those who know impermanent loss of the AMN protocol, it would be minimal since the assets themselves do not fluctuate much in value, as much as cryptocurrencies. The returns are high since FX has high volume to liquidity ratio in this case. That is all for the content I'm presenting today and I'm very open to some questions. Thank you everyone. That's a quick walkthrough of this whole space in very rapid way. There are some questions which seem to have been answered on the call itself. I think the more interesting aspects of this is one is obviously how to deal with volatility. In your curve, the construction of your curve, we have obviously tried to smooth the curve out without rapid jumps and jerks. That is a characteristic of a crypto market. Can you explain that concept a little more? That seems to be the major innovation that your solution has compared to, let's say, Uniswap or something else. So for the automated market maker protocols, you can kind of, so personally I see that as two parts. One part is the automated market maker part, which allows anyone to provide liquidity. Another part is the pricing. It's how each one of these protocols do pricing. Most of them use equations. It's a constant product model. So in that case, in that case, K has to say constant. So X and Y, sorry, I'm trying to go to the slide that explains that. Yeah, X, Y are always changing because people are always swapping funds in and out of the pool. And the pricing algorithm is dependent on these variables as well. So sometimes this slippage can be very big, as you can imagine. When you make a trade, you can have impact on the variables in the equation and the price can be impacted too. And you don't want that to happen because generally Ethereum or any other popular crypto that's being traded in Uniswap have other markets as well. And they may have better prices. And this is a problem that happens in crypto just in general. There's too many markets for the same currency. And you're just going to get bad slippage wherever you are. But Uniswap with the pricing, it's a smart model, but it can make slippage a lot worse. So a lot of protocols have done things to use different equations or what we do. We just use an external oracle. So we basically, we would just use an external market data source, probably a very trustable source used by the major FX markets. So in this case, we have a better price curve. That's no longer dictated by equations. So when users putting funds, it doesn't necessarily have to be, like what are the equation tells you? It can just be the market price. So when you're being traded against as a liquidity provider, you lose less. And when you're trading, the liquidity provider actually provides funds to a ratio that's closer to the market price. Yeah. So this is Kirti here. Just a quick question. Could you explain the mechanism for the liquidity piece? So if you go on slide eight, I'm referring to slide eight. So what are LP shares? Sorry, I didn't quite understand that. Oh, yes. Yes. So LP shares. So for a normal user, the concept of LP shares is not as important. So LP shares are basically just like a receipt of your liquidity in the pool. Okay. Yeah. So if I transferred my LP shares to you, you can, you're entitled to the liquidity that I just provided. So whenever you deposit liquidity into your Uniswap protocol, they will give you some LP shares. The LP shares just equates to however much liquidity you have compared to the entire pool. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So this is pretty interesting because I'm looking at the balancer protocol, which is based on the value function. I'm trying to kind of understand this broadly. It's a very similar model. So did you say this uses a different function altogether, Uniswap pool? Yeah. I think balancer uses a very different function. Balancer actually is trying to improve up on Uniswap with the equation and many other aspects. But I think Uniswap, it was the first to do the automated market maker protocol. I think that is a cool part because not only does this change things in like ethics trading and like internationalness, but also it can be done in like equity trading or other trading as well. Because usually how the markets work today is like everything is pretty much done on the central limit order book model. You just see order book and the market makers are the ones like putting in these quotes. They're the ones for selling the trades. It's very crucial to have healthy market making, to have an efficient market in a lot of these, in all assets essentially. But automated market maker essentially completely reshapes that so anyone can become a market maker. So liquidity is provided in a very different way and everyone's rewarded for providing liquidity, just like how market makers are in traditional equity or ethics. They will get rebates or can do arbitrage. Yeah. Interesting. So also another point that I wanted to touch upon is all of this stuff is non-custodial, right? So this is non-custodial and completely defying nature because it is running on completely on contracts. Yes. So I'm not sure what you mean by custodial. So I think it is custodial by the contract. Yeah. But it's not about like no like single-party custody, you know, any of the funds. So like anyone can use this as long as, you know, people have a crypto wallet and when you send your tokens to the contract, the contract will give you LP shares in return to prove that, to receive for these tokens being deposited in the pool. And the contract now has all your tokens. Yeah. Which you can redeem anytime with the LP shares. Yeah. So the contract is, in a sense, an omnibus wallet? Yes. Yeah. You can think of it like that. Yeah. Meaning it aggregates all of the different people's assets in a limited number of wallets. I don't know whether it's one or, you know, let's say five or whatever. Yeah. So for example, like the liquidity pool contract, like the setup contract for the liquidity pool for like Ethereum against USDT, let's just say, has all the funds that liquidity providers for that pair provided into it. Yeah. And they like distinguish which funds sponsor who with the LP shares. Yeah. So it seems to me another way to look at this is a little bit like you're running an auction. And I guess the question is, is the auction continuous or is it timed? Because if it's continuous, there's definitely the possibility of favorably gaining market. I can put in a certain amount to sell versus a small amount to buy that will push the market, that has to push the market down, transact a small amount, and then remove the rest of my order and then come back and go the other way. I mean. Oh, no. Maybe I didn't explain it like very clear. Or maybe you can help me understand like I'm not sure how it works as an auction in this case, because like, because like when you're trading, you're trading against the pool funds. So there's no like actively like bidding or like asking, there's no like race in price, like, because actually like people are giving you prices, right? But the prices here are like given by the equation. Yeah. Well, the auction, the way that the auction price is determined is about by the volume that's been contributed on either side, I assume. There's a buyer, there are buyers in their sellers, and a certain volume at no price. And then a price is determined based on, you know, the liquidity, the balancing of liquidity. Right. I mean, if I'm a buyer and you're a seller, and maybe it means misunderstanding, be honest. If I'm a buyer and you're, sorry, if I'm misunderstood, then maybe a re-explanation is the right choice rather than an example. Yeah. So, so yeah, there's no, there's really no like buyers and sellers in the protocol. So, so during any transaction, there's, there's only like two rows, just a buyer, just so like in the buying situation, just a buyer and the liquidity provider. Like that's it. Yeah. So like there's no, there's no counterparty on the other side. So, so how, so let's just say right now, there's no buyers or sellers at all. And they're, they're like, for simplicity, I'm just like oversimplifying the example. So like, there's a bunch of liquidity providers who all provided like tokens through the pool. And by the way, when you provide liquidity, you have to put in, you have to put in both tokens. So when you're providing liquidity for the Ethereum against USCT pair, you have to provide both Ethereum and USCT pair. And however much you, however much you provide is determined by the pricing equation. So after a bunch of liquidity providers provide the funds into the pool, a trade, a buyer or seller comes in. When you're, when you're buying Ethereum, you have to, you're buying with USCT, right? So you have to put USCT into the pool and take Ethereum out of the pool. So you're exchanging with the pool. Yeah. And how much the pool thinks you should pay for Ethereum? It's determined by the pricing, by the pricing equation. Yeah. So yeah. Money, maybe you can answer some of this stuff about how it's different from an auction because you are the expert. Yeah. The interesting thing is that in a centralized exchange, you are, there is a price at the exchange. In the AMM protocol, you are looking at, as if I'm a buyer or a seller, I am looking at an external price to come up and say, oh, this is better for me to buy our cell from the, from the liquidity pool. So that works as long as there's an external reference price, right? If, for example, if all centralized markets goes down, argument's safe, where is the reference price? Even for the case of automated marketing? Correct. Yeah. Because why would I want to buy, forget about the liquidity provider? I'm a trader. I look at the reference price elsewhere and I see what's in the pool is favorable to me if I buy or sell Ethereum. So then I accordingly make a decision to put dollars and take out Ethereum or put Ethereum and take out dollars. That's because I have a reference price from most likely a centralized source. Oh, I see your question. Yeah. Yeah. So I think, I think I kind of briefly mentioned, so like, in order to have like price that's healthy in the AMM protocol, these protocols kind of rely on like arbitrageers a lot of times. So like, so you're 100% right. Because there's no reference price. And like the price, the price of like Ethereum in the AMM protocol can essentially be like very, very far from like the centralized markets. However, arbitrageers will take advantage of this. So that's why like when Uniswap first came out, there were a lot of like people who are trying to copy Uniswap, so it's open source. So like, so like people just made Uniswaps and like they like the contracts were like Ethereum against USCT pool. The prices were like insanely far. Like Ethereum can be like a thousand and the pool can just be like 800. That's just because like people haven't discovered, oh, there's a new, there's a new like, you know, fake Uniswap out there. But like as soon as people discover there were these like smaller Uniswaps out there, they just started doing arbitrage into these pools to facilitate trading volume. So like part of the reason why Uniswap became like gained so much trading volume was because of that, because of your point. Yeah, there's no reference price. Like there's no external reference price. So like the price here's determined by the algorithm. So it constantly deviates from, you know, whatever reference, referencing exchange people are using. So like arbitrageers are constantly taking advantage of this. But right now, today's very hard to do that. The market is relatively equal because, you know, Ethereum gas fee is too high. Every time you place a transaction into Uniswap, you need to pay gas fee. Yeah. So there's relatively like very little room for arbitrage. Yeah. So to add to refer to the original part of an auction, this is a continuous market, a contiguous market as opposed to an auction where there is a set period comes in, everybody contributes and then the price gets set. And that's when, you know, the auction really kicks in. This is somewhere between, let's say an auction and a centralized exchange, because in centralized exchange, assuming that it's got a lot of liquidity, it's continuously executing here, there can be moments of illiquidity in an AMM. However, I take your point as more and more AMMs gain power and it becomes almost behaves like a centralized exchange. Yes. Yes. There's like a lot of things. Yeah, AMM is just like a very different animal than, you know, centralized market. Like some like, because most of the transactions, all the transactions are on chain. And when you see large trade, you can essentially front run the trade with like more gas fee. That happens actually. So there are like thoughts that monitor trades like it's going to uniswap and they will like pay with higher gas fee to front run that large trade. Yeah. And also you need, yeah, sorry, go ahead. No, no, no problems. The gas piece is more of a temporary phenomenon. I wouldn't worry too much because you have layer two solutions coming on. And also, so it's more of, you know, how, how reliable these pools are compared to a centralized exchange. Yeah. I think, I think, yeah, the pools are relatively more reliable because it's on the contract. And, and, and, you know, like the contract's already pre written and there's no, you know, private keys to a contract. So it's very difficult to hack the pool versus a centralized exchange, like market makers or anyone on the exchange can get hacked. So that's like the issue with the centralized exchanges. So like, by in terms of pricing, yeah, the, like the pool, it can, it cannot be very reliable depending on the equation. That's why uniswap cannot be three. They were trying to improve. They came up with this thing called price bands. You can choose what, like within what price bands you want your pool to be working. Yeah. So that means some kind of a high water and low water marks that allow for trading to happen with your, with your, you know, whatever you put into the pool. I mean, I think the main point is whether centralized, decentralized, or else, else wise, the two operating principles, which is liquidity and price discovery operate no matter what. And if the deviation happens, then there are meant to be either bought based automatic trading or actual human arbitrage that will take care of that opportunity and drive the price to the mean towards the right price. At least that is the idea. But when there's huge volatility, this can, you know, this can be overthrown, right? I mean, that's a whole problem with today's market, too. I mean, there's, I'm not talking about DeFi, but any market where you have, if you do not have the relationship between liquidity and price, proper price, then you have, you know, like Dan mentioned, oh, I can always offer, you know, a small amount in one and then the large amount, try to drive the price in various directions. So are you aware of any such sort of feedback loops, negative feedback loops that will cost the market to swing wildly? And have there been such occasions in inside AMM protocols? Yeah. So first of all, I think if I understood correctly, so like offering more on one side and the other, the protocol wouldn't allow you to because when you're, when you're the pot, so like when you're offering liquidity into the pool, it's based on the price. So you can just choose like when the market price for you, let's say it's like, you know, like a thousand right now, you can just choose to offer an arbitrary amount of Ethereum and an arbitrary amount of USDT to the pool. Like however much you want, you put into the pool is like determined by the protocol. So the protocol will tell you at this moment, if you want to, if you want to put in 10, you can get into the pool, you have to put in at least this much USDT. Yeah. So when you are contributing to the pool, you're kind of, it's kind of like a market maker, you're like an adverse selection, I guess. So you're kind of agreeing that it's, you're kind of agreeing that like this is the price that I want people to trade into Uniswap and utilize my funds for. So like, so when you put funds into the pool, the price is pretty much already like predetermined like the moment you do it. And then when volatility happens, so volatility on A&M protocol actually happens like in quite a few different ways. I'd say since it's very different from like traditional markets. So in the traditional market, volatility can happen due to like a huge discrepancy in like supply and demand, in like short amount of time, and like other things as well. And that of course will also affect the A&M protocol because of arbitrariers. They will constantly try to you know, equate the price between the between a centralized and decentralized. Yeah. So and also in the protocol, volatility can cause by another thing, which let's say if one day everyone really hated Uniswap, I just think like there's a huge security risk and they start removing funds from the pool. And all of a sudden now when traders come in, they realize that there aren't enough funds in the pool to trade against. So it's going to cause a lot of slippage. And all of a sudden like the constant model would change if the constant, so there's less in X and Y. So like constant will be like smaller and the prices will get affected too. So people removing funds from the pool would also affect the price because like now people are less inclined to trade because there's less liquidity and that can cause volatility too. Yeah. But the formula that X multiplied by Y is equal to K, a constant, presupposes a exchange rate between X and Y, right? I mean, otherwise. Yes, yes. So does that get constantly adjusted? Or how frequently does it get adjusted? Meaning obviously the price of Ethereum versus USDT is a changing amount. It is not constant. Yes. So like whenever trades happen, I guess, your question. So in that case, how do the liquidity providers have to act? Like does fund get withdrawn on one side because that ratio now changes if I'm the liquidity provider? Oh, okay. I see your question. So like when that changes and you haven't provided liquidity yet, like and this happens quite often during like volatile times when prices change all in your new swap. So like when the prices are changing quite frequently, you're trying to provide liquidity and you submit this transaction to the contract. The contract would tell you, oh, there's not sufficient amount of token on the other side because like at the time when you provided liquidity, the price was this. But when the timing hits the contract, it's like the price is something else. The contract is kicking back your transaction. So like, yeah, like a lot of times it doesn't work. Like when the market is volatile because the gas fee, your pain is probably also less. So it has to delay. Yeah. So to your question, when you already provided liquidity and your liquidity is in a pool. So let's say when you provided liquidity, you have, you know, like, you have like a thousand USCT and one Ethereum. And as like price, as the price goes up, like you can, as the price of Ethereum goes up, you can end up with like, so sorry, let me just start over again. So like, let's say you have like a thousand USCT and one Ethereum, and that's like 1% of the pool, right? And people are trading, people are buying Ethereum, and the pools, the pools having more USCT and Ethereum is getting taken out. So right now, your 1% of the pool is probably like 1,010 USCT versus like zero point however many Ethereum, but that's still 1% of the pool. Yeah. So that's how your liquidity would, how your portion of the liquidity would change as trade happens. And now, yeah, and those of you who know in permanent loss, this is like how that happens, because now you no longer have 1,000 USCT and one Ethereum, you just have 1,000 and however many USCT, and zero point whatever Ethereum and the price if you have changed. So your total dollar value also differs from what you had in the beginning. Yeah. More small slippage in an liquidity provider, there is a risk that when the price changes, even when you want to withdraw, you could, there is a slippage cost, slippage, you will lose some money. A lot of it is compensated by because of the fees you collect, because of the fees from the pool, transaction fees in the pool gets distributed, but still potentially you could lose some money as a liquidity provider. Not only that, there's a whole other issue of tax issues, because you were originally as a pointer or you put in one Ethereum, now you're going point A, and there's a price difference you're buying and selling. I don't know how that has an impact on your tax issues. On tax issues, you said? Yeah, on tax. Yeah, but basically, you're no longer getting back the original tokens, you're getting a completely different ratio of tokens when you pull out of the liquidity. So it creates its own tax issues. Yeah, I'm actually not sure how tax will work for Uniswap contract, and actually in the past couple of weeks, I've spoke to a couple of accountants because I use Uniswap quite a lot. And it seems like the fee you generate would just be interest, but since you're interacting with the contract, and sometimes when you're removing your funds from the contract, like you said, like the value of things can be very different, it's sort of like a very complex derivative. I guess, yeah, so I'm still not sure how it would work. Yeah. How does it all apply to the FX market? I mean, how do you apply this AMM protocol, you know, coming back to what, how is it going to be exactly similar? Because in the marketplace of FX, it's a big bank that has the liquidity today because of the way the flows happen. Mm-hmm. How will this, your proposal will change that equation? Yeah, so yeah, so first I want to point out one thing about AMM. So in permanent loss, it's actually like a huge downside in AMM, and this happens mostly in like trading pairs like a stable coin against some like other crypto when like the prices change a lot. But one trading pair that's always done really, really well, uniswap, it's a USDC against USDT trading pair, because essentially just two stable coins trading is each other, right? And there's essentially zero risk, zero in permanent loss on the trading pair because it's just $1 to $1 USD. So like this trading pair has quite amount of volume also. So like if you stake in this pool, your returns are somewhere around like 8% to 10% every year, which is very, very good compared to like financial markets. So like I realized that AMM protocol actually works very well on like very stable access, which like fiat is relatively stable, like most countries. Yeah, and in FX markets, so like you said, banks are most timely liquidity providers, but if you look at how the market works, remitters or like the end users, like people with that savings, they kind of banks, they put their money in the bank. But like sometimes bank will leverage these money to like market makers and like other traders as well. And like these people who leverage money from the bank, which are yours, are getting like a crazy amount of benefits in the FX market, because they like make money trading or market making harbor. And banks also get benefits by providing liquidity to the market, either the FX market themselves or they lend that money to market makers in the FX market. So this essentially changes the whole game. So like end users who originally deposited money in the bank for the bank and those institutions to reap the benefits, like now that model has changed. The end user can now just have a crypto wallet and directly market make themselves and directly FX trade themselves into the pool. So they're trading, so they're utilizing funds that's being deposited by other users as well. And for end user, you're also putting in funds without the users to trade. You're getting much more return than what you're doing with your money at the bank today, just in the FX trading context. Yeah, so that's kind of my thought process behind that. I'm not sure if I really clarified that. That's good. It comes to the point. I mean, I just want to highlight that our hedge funds are now trying their feet into this marketplace. They're using, always creating a separate hedge pool for the institutional market. Is that something that you would be also thinking in similar terms? Yes. I follow pretty closely on DeFi. So yeah, that's something I'm thinking of. Like you said, I think that proves how well the end-end model works because it's very hassle-free. You just need the capital. You don't even need the sophistication of market makers. You don't need certain algorithm to be market making. So I think it's a very good model. I'm definitely thinking about that. I don't mean to talk about Roxy too much. But for us, every node or every partner that we work with has to be KYC. Even for consensus layer, which is our Roxy chain, we use an alliance chain model. So every node, we have to KYC every node. Because in the in the, you know, in the finance world, we need to fulfill the compliance needs. I just wanted to go back to the point on what you're proposing for the remittant, the remitters to then just be using the swap function as, because they would ultimately act like unknowing arbitruers. I mean, there'd be a central, there's a central place they could go to, which is called the currency markets, as they understood now, or they'd be looking for, I assume, a better price on these things and sort of acting as the arbitrar as their traffic is coming, is coming through. Or are you proposing that they should be liquidity providers? Just because I was thinking two reasons, they don't generally have both of the currencies, or they're trying to like submit, remit the fund. Yeah. Yeah. So like a couple of things I want to answer there. So like first, first, there are ways to provide liquidity. So you need swap, you have to provide both the tokens. There are ways to provide liquidity where you can provide only one side. And for us, we're doing that. Yeah, I think it's actually already finished. So you can provide liquidity on just one side. How it works is actually pretty complex. So maybe I won't like spend too much time into that. It's in our white paper, but yeah, but you can, yeah, you can provide liquidity to get more returns. So that's that. But if you just want to remit, there's more to it. So if you think about it, the reason why this plays so well in international needs is not because it's just a new model for trading. It's actually because how DeFi works. So if you think about it, traditionally, when you're actually going to the FX market to exchange from the currency, you need a bank account that holds that currency. Not all bank accounts holds more than one currency, right? Like in the U.S., like your bank account probably holds like can hold like Euro and a bunch of other stuff. But in most of the countries, it can't hold more than one currency. But in crypto, this works differently. So instead of using like an account-based paradigm, like where you have to open an account for each type of asset, in crypto, it's actually a token-based paradigm. So your account essentially is your wallet can hold multiple type of assets. So this changes things dramatically. That means in your wallet, you know, like ERC 20 wallet or whatever other chain you're using, you can have like a stable coin of Euro or USD or like of any other type. So when you're exchanging to the pool with a USD stable coin, you're already getting back the Euro stable coin in your wallet already. You don't need like a bank account to actually send the traditionally effects. You probably need like an account that holds a Euro to send it elsewhere or to just own it, to do whatever, to spend it, to do whatever you want. But in crypto, the token-based paradigm actually changes that by a lot. So that's why like another point I want to say that's been probably interesting in this. Yeah, so that's all like when CBDCs come out, like we'll really see like a good adoption in this. Yeah, because like when interoperability happens, like in a single wallet, people can hold multiple types of currencies, which is really, really good. Yeah. I just want to follow up. So if you're going to only buy one so that you're not going to get the liquidity pool token, because you're not going to actually own or will you get the liquidity pool token, even if you put one token in? Because the liquidity pool token represents a share of the pool. Yes, yes. Your liquidity pool token, yeah, not only represents the share of the pool, also it's kind of like a receipt of your participating in the pool. And you're going to the fees. Yes, yes. And yeah, so like there's other protocols also have liquidity tokens. So like a curve, balancer, a couple of other exchanges as well. They don't use a constant equation and you also don't have to, and a curve also, a curve even uses like three tokens in the pool or like four tokens in the pool. Yeah, so they can all work very differently. So like you can still provide one side and get liquidity. It maybe just represents your share differently. Yeah. Yeah, I'm just thinking about from the benefit of the remitter, because they're going to put one in and they're going to get a share based on a calculation that would give them the share of the liquidity, the portion of the pool based on a formula, I'm assuming. And then, so that's, I was just thinking about how it like economically might really improve upon what is currently the structure, because there's also intermediary functions inside of this. Yes. So you've gotten rid of intermediaries, there's those intermediary transactions that are still occurring. Yeah. Yeah, that one has like a fee attached to it. Yeah. Yeah, I think there's a lot of components in there. Yeah, I think what's happening here is that this is actually fiendishly, well, maybe not fiendishly, but complicated. We have just touched upon, you know, some of the concepts and Mark, money and QT and others have, you know, tried to get at the details of this. And this is, you know, in order to read about the Roxy, you can read their white paper or you can read my interpretation of their white paper in Forbes, which talk about the intermediate currencies and so on. And we are at the top of the hour. So unfortunately, we have to, we have to, you know, finish the session and get off, but we can always extend it by a few minutes, depending on, of course, how one's time and everybody else's time. The, I think we have to follow up on this and we have to do a deeper dive into the AMM stuff, but with an open call like this, it's very difficult because we don't know whether the same people will show up in the next call, whether we need to go over the same ground again, you know, it's always like that. So maybe we'll have a backgrounder that people are required to read before, before we start on the, you know, how the intermediate currencies work and so on and so forth. You know, it's, it's quite complex because the crypto economics of it is also, I mean, you know, applying the DeFi paradigm to FX trading is a very novel concept. And that's why we have it here in this capital markets, especially in this group. Of course, it can be also extended to other types of assets, which is the beauty of the capital market space that you would be able to try, trade, let's say, Tesla stock for USD, but I don't know whether you can still trade Tesla stock for IBM stock. I mean, that's, that's going to be a different thing altogether. You know, that's almost like making those assets interoperate in a novel in different ways. Because we always go to the intermediate currency, fiat currency, meaning selling Tesla for USD, then US using the USD to buy IBM, you know, something like that. But all of this is very interesting. And I think we have to continue this conversation later. And I want to thank Haohan for showing up. If there's anybody else who has anything else to add, we'll be glad to hear that. Thank you. Is there any anyone who wishes to talk about something similar, but, you know, in a short period like 30 seconds or something like that? Well, I guess right now we end the session and we'll continue our conversation on Balancer, on Avi, and of course, Roxy. And thanks to Haohan and to Eric. And we'll keep in touch. Thank you. Yeah, no, thank you for having me. Really. I'm sure people probably have a lot more questions. So my telegram and my contact info is here. And also for both of my companies also here, I do enjoy it in free time answering people's random questions about crypto trading, high frequency trading, or just blockchain or DeFi stuff in general. So feel free to DM me on Twitter or just reach out to me on Telegram hours long. Yeah. But really, thanks a lot, everyone, for being here and being really engaging as well. And yeah, again, thanks to Vipin for having me and Hyperledger for the opportunity. Yeah. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Vipin. Eric here. I really appreciate it. Thank you. And we'll meet again soon. Kirti, you have something to say? No, not at all. Thanks, everyone. Cheers. All right. All right. Thanks, everyone. Have a great day. Bye-bye.