All right. GM, everyone. Welcome to today's Spaces. My name is Pete Humiston, and I'm the CMO here at DeFi Development Corp. Thank you all for joining us today in our monthly business recap, where we're going to be going deeper into how we're thinking about the business, the market, and where we're headed from here. Joining me today is none other than Dan Kang, Chief Strategy Officer here at DeFi Development Corp., and Joseph Onorati, Chief Executive Officer here at DeFi Development Corp. As you all probably already know or can guess from the title of today's Spaces, we're going to be diving into just what we accomplished in June, unpack some of the key themes. Then we're going to, of course, open up for questions to be answered by the community.
As always, if you have a question, don't hesitate to drop it under the pinned tweet on our profile. We'll do our best to get to as many as possible. Just a quick reminder for today, our discussion may include forward-looking statements. These involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially. Please refer to our SEC filings for more details. We undertake no obligation to update these statements except as required by law. All right, with that, let's get into it. DK, Joseph, GM, how you guys feeling?
Doing well. Can you guys hear me okay?
Yep. Joseph, can we do a quick mic check? Maybe you're so excited you forgot to hit the unmute button.
That is, in fact, what happened.
Yes. Figured.
GM.
GM. Cool, guys. Well, I guess before we get into DFDV specifics, would love to pick your guys' brain briefly if you have anything. If not, we can keep it moving. As it relates to Sol itself, I think there's been a lot of renewed excitement in the ecosystem as of late. It's been translated a bit in some of the price action. We've had some notable figures in the industry call for a bottom. Is there anything out there that's got you guys excited or could perhaps explain the price action, or do you think the market is starting to discount?
It's all about tokenized equities volumes, which I believe Joseph wrote about in our last shareholder letter. It's been really nice to see the good traction there. I mean, there's just been an absolute explosion of volumes in recent weeks, right? I think last week of June, Solana itself saw somewhere around $1.2, $1.3 billion of volumes in one single week. I think the daily record was somewhere north of $600 million. For context, you typically see Nasdaq-listed securities do about $600 million on average. Still a long ways to go, but obviously really good traction there, and it's really nice to see that picking up very, very hot momentum and seeing explosive growth.
I totally agree. I think that's the key driver as well.
Certainly. I will point out, we highlighted earlier in the month that last June, or last month rather, Solana actually put up close to 3.8 billion transactions total, making it the most active month of all time, which is pretty remarkable. Surely attributed to, as DK and Joseph alluded to, tokenization RWA, but we've also started to see a little of revival in the trenches, too. There's a number of meme coins, namely ANSEM, that has caught some of the attention of the broader market, and I think that's also somewhat reflected in some of the price action, the on-chain metrics, et cetera, which I think really epitomizes why we're bullish here at DeFi Development Corp. on Solana. It really is the chain that can do it all. Quite the barbell over the past month. Tokenization on one side and meme coins on the other.
Interesting nonetheless. Cool. Let's just shift focus into DFDV. Guys, any key operational or financial highlights for June 2026?
I guess I can start. We touched on, in the last Spaces, that we would be more focused on cost reduction, and this has continued to be a focus where we've found at least some savings, especially on the legal and accounting side, where we're trying to do more stuff in-house instead of using third parties, which were some of our larger expenses. That's been a big focus for us here and the team. Anything you want to add or touch on there, DK?
No, I expect we'll be able to hopefully quantify some of those savings when we publish our shareholder letter next month. June itself was obviously turbulent across the crypto, and let's just say broader .io space. You saw Bitcoin retrace, Solana retrace. I have my hypotheses, by the way, as to why Bitcoin retraced, and no, it's not because of Michael Saylor and Strategy. We can walk through some of those macro dynamics. I think we have some questions on this later, but as far as specifics in June, we also did publish the SOL Boost Framework. Call it our levered Solana framework, if you will, and then the Solana Reborn piece, which we can touch on as well. In any case, I expect we'll have much more to say at earnings as far as specific operational updates.
Good deal. Yeah, I think maybe I'm speaking for the team, but I think we're optimistic that Fable 5 might be able to reduce some costs. We'll see, I guess.
Yeah, I think it's doing a good job. Maybe to expand and to repeat some of the stuff that I said last month. To lay out the accounting and legal spend, without numbers necessarily, just high level. How do I put this? Okay. We've participated on-chain to draw additional yield to the treasury, right? We deploy the SOL on-chain, we run a stake looping strategy, we run our own validator, and we did the change of control back, it was 15 months ago, I suppose now. I think we've got the good understanding of how the accounting for all this works, and we've got a routine. We've got the tools in place to make this, we think, almost as smooth as it can be.
To get it there required a lot of work with our auditors and with third-party accounting and legal firms to write memos on the tax treatment or the GAAP treatment of these assets and to get a tax position on a number of them. Maybe one way of thinking about it is there's one-time costs to get that system set up. Now that it's set up, we can continue running some of these strategies, the stake looping strategy or purchasing discounted locked SOL or running our own validator, and continue the proper accounting treatment of the assets in those various scenarios. That was expensive to set up. That's hopefully part of the cost reduction, right? We had these initial upfront costs to get that off the ground, but to keep it running is much lower cost, hopefully going forward.
Great. Yeah, thanks for the additional color. Sorry, I might have gotten cut off, but great. Thank you, Joseph, appreciate the additional color on that front. Guys, were there any other material changes in strategy or priorities-
Yeah.
Since our most recent update?
Yeah, we should talk about Treasury Accelerator. DK, are you prepared to pick this up or I can take it?
I can chat through it. For those who didn't catch the news, we effectively shuttered DFDV UK. I want to reiterate that our initial investment in this was pretty low at SOL 1.7 million. Look, we don't like losing money ever, but at the time we made the investment, it was called somewhere around 40, 50 basis points of our single treasury. Given the, what we've called before, asymmetric risk-reward profile, we were pretty willing to take on this experiment. Frankly, the regulatory hurdles over there proved to just be more challenging than we anticipated. Team thought it would just be better to shutter and move on. Something I'd really like us to be better at doing at DFDV is just know when to call a loss a loss and move on.
Again, the beauty of this bet was that the downside scenario played out, and we frankly just didn't lose that much. On the flip side, I'll say that we've had one Treasury Accelerator bet play out pretty well for us in ZeroStack. We spoke about that in our last letter. Then, of course, there's Allied Architects in Japan. I do want to set the expectation that I don't expect Treasury Accelerator to be a meaningful driver for us going forward. We've said that pretty much since the beginning of the program, that this was more or less a call option. It was never embedded in our SOL per share guidance, for example. It's not in our forecasts.
Think because there was just so much uncertainty on the regulatory environments and each deal had its own unique, let's call it structure, we didn't want to bake in any heroic assumptions. We just baked in zero assumptions for us as far as the core business is concerned. End of the day, I do want us just more focused here on the DFDV mothership, if you will, and doing what we can in preparation for the bull market, because the bull market is coming. That's all I'll have to say on that. Joseph, I don't know if there's anything you'd add on the U.K. front.
No, I think you handled it. Yeah. Thank you.
Oh, man, DK said the bull market's coming. I'm going to refrain from asking precisely what day, what calendar day does it kick off? I'm going to stay optimistic all summer.
The bottom is already here. The bottom is already here.
Good. Love it. All right. Well, let's move along. Guys, what about the potential preferred equity offering that we've talked about or shared some commentary on over the past few months? We've had some folks ask for an update on this front.
Yeah, this is the topic du jour, isn't it? I'm going to take the boring IR stance here and unfortunately say nothing. It's not because I don't want to say anything, it's just that there's a lot that bars us from saying more. I'll note we are watching STRK and STRF closely. It's been interesting to see those trade the way that they have over the last month. Frankly, as far as those instruments are concerned, I think you just need Bitcoin prices a bit higher for STRK to return to par and stabilize. You can just see what the effective yields are implying. There's some sort of level for STRK, I will say, where I think we would be willing to pull the trigger and move fairly quickly on our end. Obviously need Sol price acting pretty well too and stabilizing. Probably somewhere above the $80 level.
Never say never, but those are rough barometers for how I'm thinking of this. Joseph, I don't know if you'd add anything.
Yeah, I think that's fair. Look, if we went out to try to get a deal done for the preferred instrument, we think investors would look for pricing based on comps in the market, which I think makes a lot of sense. If STRF is trading down, the implied yield is up. An investor might ask, "Why should I buy your pref instead of STRF?" If the yield is, say, comparable. We expect that our cost of capital would be higher than Strategy's cost of capital, which I think makes sense. That's fair. We'd like to see STRF trade at or around $100 before we would want to take a deal to market, just because the cost of the capital's going to be higher when STRF is down.
Yeah, that's more or less it. Look, frankly, you have to ask yourself a very simple question of how do you offer something that is compelling versus the most overly collateralized preferred in the market from an asset-based perspective. How do you beat, quote-unquote, "the best collateralized pref on the market"? There's two ways. There's the fact that you earn organic yield on your underlying asset. That is a differentiated, let's call it, new credit-worthy vector that we have that Bitcoin DAT wouldn't have. Frankly, I feel pretty good that Solana, over the course of the next five years, is going to outperform Bitcoin. You obviously want a highly performing asset as well. Those other dynamics that Joseph and I mentioned are really at play in the short term, and those are the things we'll be watching closely.
Cool. Well, not to move terribly far away from that. The pref is somewhat contingent on SOL, which I think we feel good about, and then of course, STRK, which you guys mentioned. You also mentioned that we're following it very closely. I guess that said, would love to get your guys' just read on the volatility as of late. I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding in the market. It's a product that is very nuanced. I think there's also, of course, people taking advantage of the opportunity to engagement farm and just post negative stuff. What is your guys' take on the whole situation, and is there anything to be worried about?
Sure. I guess I'll take it. Maybe I'm not sure how much stuff I could say here. Is there anything to be worried about? I'm personally not concerned here. I would be a STRK buyer, personally, at these levels. It's not financial advice for anybody else. I'm bullish on the product and this kind of digital credit product, Saita, and hopefully eventually a DFDV preferred. Other DApps issuing similar instruments as well. An Ethereum one would also be an interesting product. I think the idea behind them is very compelling, and I think they'll continue to grow. Yeah, there's been short-term volatility. That's probably tied to Bitcoin volatility at its base. Maybe the instruments are a little slow to react for the market's taste. Like a monthly cycle for dividend changes or previously monthly dividends.
Maybe those had some impacts. I'm a long-term believer in these products for sure. You know what? I'd like to hear DK's take. I'd also like to hear your take on this, Pete. I think you got a lot of opinions in the area.
Oh, no.
I'm going to give a quick one-liner. I'm going to give all the quick one-liner. For all the consternation around STRK and what Saylor is doing and the strategy and the USD reserve and all the various theories that are out there, STRK started de-pegging towards the end of May when Bitcoin was above 70K. That's really it. It is as simple as that. If you actually just looked at the correlation, call it, between STRK's implied yield premium versus Bitcoin price, I'm citing a chart that one of our board members has put on his X profile, Tom Profumo. It explains the vast majority of the variation in STRK's spread, which kind of intuitively makes sense. Right. Bitcoin is higher, the value of the asset base is higher, and therefore the quote-unquote "credit worthiness" of STRK itself is stronger.
I really think this is just a function of Bitcoin price, and then you have to ask yourself what was driving Bitcoin over the last month, and I have my theories, but I don't think this is related to Michael Saylor going and selling a little bit of Bitcoin. That's not really what drove BTC price action.
Yeah, I tend to agree with DK and almost just want to not say anything because maybe there's no point. I don't know, I guess some 1,000-foot view take. I was kind of always of the belief that Bitcoin was already kind of in this A technical correction, if you will, running from $60,000-$83,000. It was a bounce following what was, knock on wood, a dip down to market low. What followed with that, I think, was this perfect shit storm, if you will, of price trending lower, Strategy making some moves that were a little bit questionable, Stretch starting to sell off a little bit, and market participants jumping at the opportunity to take advantage of the downside volatility and/or get out.
I think that just led to a massive FUD campaign, misinformation campaign, a lot of 50 IQ takes, that, I think, got us to where we are today. I think it was very much of the stress test that Stretch and Strategy needed to identify the chinks in the armor and ultimately come back with a stronger product and maybe a better balance sheet of sorts. I don't know. I guess I'll just end on this. I'm a big believer in markets, like you bet on people. Of course, the product matters, but the product is a function and a reflection of the people behind it. I would not want to bet against Saylor on a long timeline. I'm sure they'll figure it out. I remain super optimistic.
I don't believe that Bitcoin is going to crash to $20,000, for example, and trade sideways for 18 months, which is basically what will put Strategy in the pressure cooker, which I think they could still find a way out of if that were to occur, who knows? Time will tell.
Yeah. That's a good take, P. Look, people seem to forget, I think I'll have to go back and check the exact dates on this, but last cycle when Strategy had substantially less crypto on their balance sheet, the actual Bitcoin, the company, I think, nearly fell to the value of the converse. Maybe even been slightly below it. Don't quote me on that. This company is clearly in a much stronger position today than they were just four years ago, and they're going to be in a much stronger position four years from now than they are today. I think you're absolutely right when it comes to betting against Saylor, that is not, over the long term, been a winning bet.
Well said. Guy is a machine, to put it lightly. Cool. Maybe we could shift over, there was a couple pieces of content that we published last month, I believe it was June 30th, if I'm not mistaken. DK, you put together this really awesome SOL Boost Framework, how DFDV delivers leveraged Solana exposure. Can you walk us through the key principles of this piece and how it's shaping our approach to leverage and capital allocation?
Yeah. It's a great question. A little backdrop on this one. I've been thinking through some of the question of how to answer how is DFDV different from an ETF, right? I've answered this with various metaphors before. I've got a new one for you a little bit later. I tried to break this down into its simplest components, which is how do we answer the question of what you get when you buy DFDV instead of just buying SPOT or buying an ETF? I thought of this from the metaphor of two engines that drive this. Engine number one is leverage or intelligent leverage, if I want to borrow the Michael Saylor term. What do we mean by intelligent leverage? We've talked about this before. Convertible debt was really the primary driver over the last year.
This is debt that converts to equity before it has to be repaid, so long as you eventually end up trading above the strike price. I would say things that are non-recourse, unsecured, long-dated, low coupon, right? We really tried to highlight in this piece the quality of the leverage that you take matters as much as the quantity. With the key distinction here being that if you're an average investor and you wanted amplified exposure to Solana, there aren't really good, I'm going to say, risk-adjusted ways to take that on, without being exposed to, let's just say short-term volatility. The beauty of the DAT model is that you are able to take on an outsized amount of leverage without posing the same, let's call it near-term liquidation risk.
That was the first pillar is trying to articulate this notion of intelligent leverage and trying to help folks understand a little bit of how this translates into what we would call one of the components of the SOL boost factor, if you will. The second engine here is also SOL per share growth. The idea here is that even if SOL itself from a price perspective flat lines, if we're acquiring more of it, this could act as a potential catalyst for outperforming SOL, the asset itself. I told you I've used the speedboat analogy before, I'm going to use a different one today. I want you to imagine that DFDV is actually a farm and shares are deeds. One approach here is to just hope that the land that we're sitting on, the land of the farm, appreciates over time.
We obviously expect the land will grow, but we also grow the asset base, if you will, by adding more and more acres to each individual deed. How do we do that? There's the organic yield component. You can think of that as like the harvest that we reinvest into the farm. There's accretive issuance. Buying, I don't know, call it neighboring plots for less than they're actually worth. Convert buybacks or, I don't know, retiring competing claims on the land. I like this metaphor a little bit because it gets to the idea of SOL, of course, as a piece of scarce land, which we've alluded to in our DFDV model for valuing SOL itself. A share of DFDV is simply Amplified exposure to that, right?
It's amplified because of the debt we're willing to take on to purchase the land in the first place when people lose interest, as they have in crypto, I would say, over the last month. We like buying low. It's also amplified because of the things that we do to make that land grow over time. All bad metaphors aside, the principle underneath both engines is the same. Every action we undertake has to get scored on one metric, which is SOL per share. If a transaction grows SOL per share, we do it. If it doesn't, we don't do it. I think the framework we've put forward makes that discipline just a bit more legible so investors can really hold us to it. Yeah. That's all I'll say on that. Joseph, anything you'd add?
Love it. I grew up on a farm. Big fan.
I knew you'd like that one.
DK, do you want to quickly hit on the calculator too? The interactive calculator.
Oh, yes. Yes, absolutely. Yes. I do love the calculator. Idea here with the calculator, if you have not gone and used it, I highly encourage investors to go play with it. We wanted to show some illustrative paths on how our SOL Boost Framework, leverage, and SOL per share, and all these different factors effectively translate into a theoretical return on DFDV across, let's say, various SOL price scenarios over the course of the next five years. Actually comparing that return to various Solana alternatives. Again, based on DFDV specific factors, like our SPS growth and our leverage, also compare it to, let's say, a margin or a perps position. With the central idea here, again, being that our leverage and amplification is far more durable than options an investor could get on their own. This has a few consequences.
Number one is it's supportive of MNAV in theory, right? I think it also highlights the durability of our business and the exposure that we're also able to bring. Simplistically, how many options for amplified exposure actually exist in the market for Solana without taking on short-term liquidation risk? There aren't many. The idea isn't to show that DFDV or DATS more broadly are risk-free, right? Every DAT has its own, let's call it maybe idiosyncratic risk. The idea is to illustrate that even if SOL gap down to $10 tomorrow, our business survives. Right? We can't have it stay there for the next five years, but if it gapped down, we would survive. If you were in a margin or perps position, you would get completely blown out. I highly encourage you to check it out.
Please give us some feedback on it as well. It is on our website. It is on the calculator tab, if you will, if you go to our .io website. Yeah, it's a lot of fun to play with, and we even have a comparison versus, let's call it spot ETFs, and unlevered DAT alternatives.
Yeah, I love this. Man, we've been saying DFDV is levered SOL exposure for, I don't know, like a year now, right? This just laid it out really cleanly, in my view. Yeah, I think we Maybe I'm just like, "Let me pat myself on the back or whatever," right? Y'all did a great job putting this together, I guess, by me, I mean the company, did a great job putting this together, and I think it tells the story the way we've been trying to tell it, but it wasn't reflected in the website.
I think one of the coolest implications of this, for what it's worth, is that you get the amplification on the way up, but you don't actually necessarily get the amplification on the way down. Not to say this will always hold up at every single case, but I can even look at, let's say, BSOL, the ETF, which is down roughly 40% year-to-date. Then if you look at our stock, down roughly, let's call it 44% year-to-date. A little bit of underperformance, but given the leverage profile of the business, this is actually empirically kind of a surprise, right? Again, I think the offsetting factor here is that you have some SOL per share growth and we deployed the leverage in a very different MNAV environment.
The idea here is that if you are actually accumulating more of the asset over time, you can do NAV per share accretive things and take actions that don't just amplify you both ways, right? In some ways, you can also provide a little bit of buffer on the way down.
Yeah, just to add on to that, I think what the market still doesn't appreciate is that DATS, or I would say some DATS, the well-operated DATS, are going to be mechanically just a better means of leverage for the underlying than, say, like an ETF or some sort of other product that has a number of other ways that it kind of pulls out future appreciation from your portfolio and into the operator's pockets. I'll leave it at that. Cool, guys. There was one other piece of content that we published a little bit later in the month. It was the Solana Reborn blog post.
Pete, you should walk us through that one. That one, for those who are listening, actually, was authored by Pete, I thought it was a very good breakdown. I would love it if you could walk us through that piece a little bit, and maybe more specifically, discuss which of the various network changes that were discussed you think would have the call it most positive impact on SOL, the token, and then of course, definitionally on our ability to actually compound SOL per share over time.
Of course. Again, the piece is Solana Reborn, three network changes that could catapult SOL to new highs. I think these Solana Improvement Documents or SIMDs can also explain some of the recent price action for Solana. Basically, the TLDR here is that the blog post argues that Solana's value proposition isn't just improving because adoption is growing, but because the protocol itself is just becoming economically more efficient. We highlight the three Solana Improvement Docs or SIMDs as they're called. The first one being SIMD or SIMD, depending on how you want to say it, 123, that introduces protocol native block reward sharing. Instead of validators keeping all the block rewards, they can automatically distribute them to delegators.
That's going to make staking more attractive, improve validator competition, and is also just a major step forward in terms of institutional-grade staking, because that's going to allow reward sharing to become a lot more transparent and standardized. The other one, 550. This is going to accelerate Solana's disinflation schedule. It's going to double the pace at which inflation declines. When Solana was created, there was a terminal one and a half percent supply or inflation that was programmed into the network. The way to think about this one is just cutting the pace at which we'll get there by half. In simple terms, less SOL will get issued over time, and it's just going to reduce long-term sell pressure as we view it. The last one, 553, which originally evolved from 547. It's going to introduce resource-based fees that are burned.
Instead of charging a flat-based fee, heavier transactions with more computational power are going to pay more based off of those resources they consume, and those fees are then going to get burned. This poses the opportunity to increase daily SOL burns by a meaningful order of magnitude. While at the same time just making sure that Aligning the token value with the network usage, which I think was always one of the relatively reasonable arguments for Solana. It was like, "Look, there's high inflation." I mean, it wasn't as high as a lot of people were saying, but still very much a headwind. When you piece all these things together, I think it makes SOL demand greater and at the same time SOL itself a bit scarcer.
Depending on the assumptions you make, in three years' time or so, Solana could be deflationary, just depending on how the network grows and evolves. Of course, that could be sooner. I think a lot of people would be like, "Oh, whoa, three years, who cares? I don't care about any of this stuff. That's a long way out." I think that if all these were to get passed tomorrow, the market would start to do a really good job of discounting them accordingly, and you could still start to see, I think, a lot of momentum in the token. As we all know, when price goes up, it attracts not just users and speculators, but builders. It is the best marketing, and it is the best onboarder.
I think just to answer your question, DK, which one do I think is maybe most impactful? Together, all of these are super impactful, I think 550, which is accelerating the disinflation schedule, is probably the most meaningful one. Though 553 could at the same time, too, be just equally as big. I guess it's ultimately going to depend on what kind of network usage you see, and what kind of network usage follows.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'd agree with your take, by the way. It was a very helpful breakdown.
Cool.
I know we are coming up on time, Pete, did you want to hit one of the community questions before we hop off here?
Yeah, there was one question around how we close the MNAV gap to at least one times, which I think everyone at the company has different kind of views and takes. Guys, thoughts?
Oh, God. Why would you open the MNAV Pandora's box at the end of the call, sir? Come on.
Yeah, I know. I love it. That's my favorite part.
Look, my esteemed colleagues will tell you I spend all day thinking about mNAV, and I continue to believe everything comes back to one central argument. Can the company actually grow crypto per share faster than a shareholder could grow crypto exposure on their own? I could spend all day on this, but let's take quick inventory. The first source of mNAV premium, if you will, is access to the asset. I think in a world of ETFs and greater regulatory clarity, this is less of a driving force for mNAV premiums. I guess you could argue some investors would rather own the equity than the underlying crypto. Fine. There are also tons of DATs out there per asset, so still an issue. I think it comes back to the question I mentioned at the beginning, which is what makes you better than an ETF?
We touched on some of this already with the SOL Boost Framework, right? Accretive/intelligent leverage, which is simplistically borrowing at a cost that is below your expected asset return, in a structure that makes a lot of sense so you don't blow up, right? At terms and let's call it a scale that no individual can replicate, right? Converts, preferreds, et cetera. There's obviously accretive equity issuance, but that's a little bit of recursive logic, right? mNAV exists because of accretive equity issuance, but accretive equity issuance is only made possible because of mNAV, so that one's kind of on pause for us. I will say at the heart of both of those factors is what I would call volatility monetization. The equity volatility is in and of itself an asset.
It's what allows us to pursue the convert deals and structure them the way that we have in the past, right? Given the embedded optionality, which lowers the coupon and higher realized vol for us with an appreciating asset over time means cheaper capital. What else could theoretically drive mNAV? We've talked about organic yields. I expect that we'll have some premium above the base staking rate, but unclear to me, given some of the stuff that we've seen with Mythos and counterparty risk in DeFi, whether we'll be putting up 11%, 12% organic yields the way we did last year in Q3 with our 11.4%, for example. The last thing I'll say is, in theory, what could drive mNAV is an operating business, right? Cash flows. If you had an operating business that was spitting out growing predictable cash flows, investors might assign value to this.
It obviously creates a recurring way to accumulate more crypto. No comment on this specifically for us today, but I'll tell folks, imagine if Meta decided to plow all of their excess cash flows into a crypto asset, right? I'd expect they'd be trading materially above NAV and people wouldn't be valuing them on mNAV. If that's the toolkit, we spend a lot of time thinking about how to restore the premium, given those vectors and won't go into any more specifics on that. We may be able to discuss a bit more at earnings next month.
I think that was well said. Yep. We need to close it out.
All right. Cool. Thanks everyone for the time. Appreciate those who joined and the questions submitted as well. As always, if you guys have questions, comments, feedbacks, concerns, don't hesitate to reach out. We are open to any and all constructive criticism. Send it our way. Cool. Joseph, Dan Kang, thank you guys for coming on through. Appreciate the time. For everyone listening, we'll catch you next month. Hope to see you at the next one. With that said, in service of SOL per share growth, this is Pete and team signing out.
Thank you.
See you.