Episode 5: Clay collins, CEO of Nomics

The Road to Quality Data & Real Crypto Trading Volumes

iTunes | Spotify | Stitcher | Google Podcasts | SoundCloud | TuneIn | YouTube

This time I meet Clay Collins, the CEO of Nomics, a data company delivering professional-grade market data APIs. This may sound boring, but you will be surprised how truly intriguing and entertaining this talk gets.

We cover what Nomics does and how it sets the solid data foundations for the crypto industry to grow. Clay and I also talk extensively about trading volumes, fake trading volumes, and how Nomics fosters the adoption of best practices by crypto exchanges with its recently launched “Exchanges Transparency Ratings.” Clay also compares Nomics to CoinMarketCap, CryptoCompare, OnchainFX, and others.

Last but not least, we discuss Clay’s extremely successful podcast, his 4AM morning routine, and his expectations of how Bitcoin will overtake the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

This was one of the most educational and at the same time entertaining interviews I have done. I hope you find this conversation useful and enjoyable just like it was for me.

Other resources mentioned in the podcast:

Nomics, Flippening and Clays’s Contact:

Full Episode Transcript

(00:03) George Manolov:

This is the Borderless Crypto Podcast.

Hello everyone. I’m your host George Manolov and in this series, I bring you exceptional entrepreneurs, investors, hustlers, and thought leaders from the cryptocurrency and fintech space.

In this episode I meet Clay Collins, the CEO of Nomics; an API first crypto asset data company, delivering professional grade market data APIs to institutional crypto investors and exchanges. This may sound very boring, but you’ll be surprised how truly intriguing and entertaining this talk gets. We cover what Nomics does, how it sets the solid data foundations for the crypto industry to grow. Clay and I also extensively discussed trading volumes, fake trading volumes, and how Nomics fosters the adoption of the best practices by crypto exchanges with its recently launched exchanges transparency ratings. Last but not least, we discussed Clay’s extremely successful podcast, his 4:00 AM morning routine and his expectations of how Bitcoin will overtake the US dollar. This was one of the most educational, and at the same time, entertaining interview that I have done. I hope you’ll find this conversation useful and enjoyable, just like it was for me.

Please note that anything that I or my guests stay in these talks is for informational purposes only and should not be treated as investment advice. And although during daylight I’m part of the team behind the crypto lending platform, Nexo, at night when I do these talks, I share only my personal thoughts, which in no way represent Nexo’s opinions.

Now it’s time to get the podcast started in three, two, one.

(02:12) George Manolov:

Clay, it’s great to have you here on the podcast. Before we jump in deeper into Nomics and the exchange ratings that you recently launched, can you briefly introduce yourself to us? Tell us your story and how did you end up in the cryptocurrency space.

(02:28) Clay Collins:

First off, thanks for having me. It’s great to be here, I’m honored to be on the show. My background prior to blockchain was in the marketing tech space. I started a company called Leadpages, which is a landing page and conversion rate optimization platform. We grew that to over 50,000 paying customers. We raised 38 million in venture capital, and got to 150 plus people. At some point, when we started exceeding 120 people, I realized that I think I have no business running a company with probably over a hundred people, at least with that company, which was my very first startup. But it was an incredible journey. I learned a lot.

One of the things that I’m proud of achieving while working on there was that we acquired an email service provider and ecommerce CRM called Drip, which is on a really nice tear here and growing at a fast clip.

At some point I went to the board; I told them that I think I probably shouldn’t be the CEO anymore. We hired our COO at the time, now he’s our CEO, he took over my role and I became the board chair, then I left to start Nomics with Nick, my cofounder.

I got involved in cryptocurrencies in early 2013. I’m really interested in money and how money works. I’m really interested in computers. And so this was a nice combination of those two things, it instantly clicked with me. Everything had been digitized; pictures, music and movies, it just made sense that money would have a digitally native instantiation. It’s been just a fantastic journey, so that’s how I got involved in cryptocurrencies.

I can speak a little bit about Nomics as well since you included that in the question. Nomics is a market data API company. As a trader, I was looking at data and I saw that it was really just a nightmare. So many of the boring basic things that are required to generate data that can power a real-time trading environment, power quantitative strategies and allow you to confidently backtest were just missing. So, we started Nomics; we’re an API first company, nomics.com runs on our own API, and the goal here is to provide the best pricing data and the best market data available anywhere., and I believe that we’ve accomplished that.

(04:57) George Manolov:

That makes total sense to me. High-quality data is obviously needed for the cryptocurrency space to evolve and for more sophisticated trading players to enter the market. Can you explain a little more about how did you start? Can you describe the Nomics universe as it evolved and what it is today. For example, a few questions that come to my mind are, where do you get the data that you provide on Nomics that people can access via your API? Then this data that you get cool, what do you do with it? Do you massage or work with it in some way? And eventually, who’re your customers that use that data?

(05:40) Clay Collins:

Fantastic questions. There’s so much to get into here.

(05:44) George Manolov:

I’m looking for more of a big overview, it doesn’t have to go into too much details.

(05:55) Clay Collins:

I get where you’re coming from. At a somewhat fundamental level, there’re 3 problems that we solve. The first problem is data inconsistency; there’re a lot of normalization problems across the space, so for example, you’ve got instances where the same symbol is used to refer to different tokens, let’s say you operate a real-time trading environment or you’re an arbitrageur, and you see that on one exchange that BAT, basic attention token, is selling at one price, and on another exchange you see that BAT is selling at a another price and there’s a nice spread, so you execute a trade. It is possible that one of those was referring to basic attention token and the other one is referring to BAT token. So, you’ve got inconsistencies with token symbols.

You also have inconsistencies in how data gaps are reported. So, on some exchanges, when candles are down or when markets are down, they’ll just simply persist the last candle, they literally just repeat the last candle. A candle, for those who aren’t aware, is OHLCV – open, high, low, close and volume for a given period of time. So, one minute candle might be the opening price at the beginning, what was the closing, what was the high price, what was the low price, and what was the volume. In many cases you will see exchanges persisting the last candle when markets go down. Other times when markets go down, there’s no trading activity or a variety of things happen, they’ll simply report zeros across the boards, and their report of open, closed, high, low and volume will give you values of zero. So, that’s another issue.

Another issue revolves around time zones; a lot of exchanges will report time in UTC when they’re providing data, other ones will report in Korean Time, and sometimes they’ll give you a time without even telling you what the time zone is. So, you have to reconcile that. And not only will they give you data in different time zones, but they’ll give you data with different levels of precision; some will price the second, while others will price the millisecond.

A part of what we do is that we take data that comes from a variety of sources and we normalize it so that if you see a symbol, that symbol across the database means one thing. If you see a time, you know that that time is in UTC. If a market is down, there is a consistent way of reporting that. So, that’s probably the most boring problem that we solve.

The second problem that we solve revolves around data accessibility. Let’s say you have a strategy or you have an idea, or you have a hypothesis of a trading strategy and you want to backtest that strategy to see, at least historically, if that strategy would have been a winning strategy. If you go to most exchanges, for example, let’s say you go to Bitstamp, Bitfinex or Binance, and said; Hey, I want all of your bitcoin history, it is very unlikely that you can get that data in a period of time that’s meaningful, that enables you to evaluate the strategy and then execute, unless you have a whole bunch of time to backtest. But because these exchanges have rate limits, and they should have rate limits, which means you can only get data from them so many times per second, in some cases it can literally take a month to find these rate limits to download enough data that you can evaluate what’s happening. Then when you do get it, it often has gaps in it and there’s a whole host of problems. So, the second thing that we solve is data and accessibility; you can get all the data from us upfront.

The third problem that we solve revolves around decentralization. When we first started, if we integrated with, or if we were ingesting data from, five exchanges, we were getting 50% of the trading volume on any given day. Today, in order to get 50% of the trading volume on any given day, you need to be ingesting data from at least 50 exchanges. So, over time, we’re seeing this doubling of exchanges, almost year over year. That means that in order to know what’s going on, you have to be getting data from more and more sources, and each of these sources is giving you data in a different format, they also have got different time zones and a whole bunch of issues. It used to be that if you were a developer at a quant fund or a hedge fund and you want to know what’s going on, then you just download data onto your own computer from a few exchanges and then you can find opportunities in the dataset.

Now, in order to find opportunities in the dataset and to meaningfully know what’s happening in this space, you’re probably spending a good chunk of your time just integrating with new exchanges, being a data janitor and cleaning it up. Quant funds that used to have a dedicated person that could find opportunities are now finding that this person has to spend much of his time just cleaning up data and integrating with new exchanges. One, they’re paying that person too much for that. Two, that person then becomes a flight risk because that isn’t what he signed up for; he signed up to do data science and to find interesting things in the data.

There’s a lot more that we do besides that, but I think that describes the major categories of problems around data.

(11:11) George Manolov:

If I have to summarize that, essentially, you get the data from as many exchanges as possible out there, then you make it consistent and super easily accessible for anyone at the click of a button.

(11:24) Clay Collins:

Yep, we also keep up with the space and we’re constantly adding new exchanges rather than having to write a new integration each time. We just launched Binance Jersey last week, which is the first exchange with fiat pairs, rather than someone having to go and hookup that new integration, a customer of ours can just say, hey, I want the Binance Jersey data, then they just get it.

(11:49) George Manolov:

All right. I guess a lot of people, as they’re listening now, would be thinking, but there’re other companies which are doing similar things as well. I’m not sure if they’re doing exactly the same, but companies which come to mind as providing similar type of services, like Ourcoin, CoinMarketCap, CryptoCompare, OnChainFX and probably many, many other. So, how do you compare to those, product-wise or customer-wise?

(12:17) Clay Collins:

For institutional customers, I don’t know that any of those are real competitors, but yeah, I can speak about how we compare. Let’s start off with CryptoMarketCap or CoinMarketCap, that might be a good place to start. CoinMarketCap gets the majority of its data from tickers, and there’re a lot of issues with tickers. I wish I could share my screen here, but tickers are crappy candles that come in whenever they’re computed, and you get them.

If you think about data quality, there’re a bunch of different levels. The highest quality market data is probably trade data, which means you’re getting every single trade that’s happening on an exchange. A little bit worse, but still okay, data is candle data, so that’s for a given trading pair; what’s the open, close, high and low. They’re usually the minute’s candles, they’re our candles, and they close at these defined boundaries. And then you’ve got the worst available type of data, which are tickers, and tickers are kind of 24-hour-candles, except they don’t close at specified boundaries. They just close whenever, and they give you a ticker which is the opening price and the closing price during this 24-hour-period, the high and low and the volume. What exchanges have found is that, you can hide a lot of wash trading and a lot of fake volume inside of a ticker because it’s for a 24-hour-period, you don’t have to provide any data other than four to five data points and you don’t have to give any kind of fidelity other than like, hey, we have $1 billion in trading volume in 24 hours. So, you can just stuff that was fake volume, you can just shove it in there. So, it’s not really great data. One of the things that’s difficult about this kind of data is that, if you do want to get minute candle data from ticker data, it’s very likely sometimes that only one ticker closed during a minute period where you want to construct a minute candles. So, that means if you’re constructing a minute candle based on tickers; the open, close, high and low during that period is all going to be the same number. It’s a real problem. I personally don’t know any quant funds that are using CoinMarketCap to make trading decisions or for backtesting. That’s what I’d say about CoinMarketCap.

But I also think that there’s a discussion to be had here about pricing, pricing methodology and how we price. So, let’s talk about that for a second. You can get into these really circular patterns with pricing, I’ll give you an example, I think a lot of people don’t realize what really goes into pricing an asset, so let’s say we want to price an assets like 0x, there actually is no USD price for 0x, unless there’s USD trading pairs, but there’re a whole bunch of trading pairs, such as; 0x to Ethereum or 0x to whatever might exist out there. There can be multiple 0x trading pairs on multiple exchanges. So, how do you price it? You might start off with all the 0x trading pairs like 0x to Ethereum, but then the question is, how do you price Ethereum? Because you need to price Ethereum in order to price your 0x. So, do you include all the Ethereum pairs to price Ethereum?

Let’s say you have an Ethereum pair, like Ethereum to Tether. So, How do you price Tether? Because now you have to price Tether, so you can price Ethereum, in order to price 0x. So, how do you get the price of tether? Do you use markets like Qtum to USDT to price Tether? And if you do, do you really want the Qtum to Tether pair to be used to price Bitcoin or 0x?

(16:19) George Manolov:

I never realized how complicated this can get. But yeah, go on.

(16:19) Clay Collins:

It gets super complicated; you’ve got to figure out how you’re going to approach this. I’m not going to name names here or allude to them, but what we’ve seen with a lot of these providers is incredibly circular pricing where you’re using Ethereum to price 0x, and using Tether to price Ethereum, and using Qtum to price Tether, then you get to a point when these prices are just so out of whack with reality, because nobody who’s trading Qtum to 0x, if that even is a market. Nobody who’s trading that is anchored to reality, you’re so far away from money where you understand the value of it and there’s great price discovery.

So, how do we price? We start by pricing Ethereum in BTC against fiat pairs, we’ll find every BTC to fiat pair and every Ethereum to fiat pair, and we’ll price Ethereum and Bitcoin based on fiat prices; based on money that people get paid in and buy things with in the grocery store. Once we’ve priced Ethereum and BTC, then we find trading pairs where Ethereum and BTC are the quote currency, and we’ll use Ethereum and BTC to price everything else. That’s essentially how we’ll do it. If you go to “nomics.com” and look up the price of Tether, it’s generally lower than what a coin market cap might report, and the reason for that is because we are heavily anchored to fiat when it comes to pricing.

So, there are a handful of USD to Tether pairs, and generally people who are buying Tether with US dollars are paying less for Tether than people who are buying Tether with Bitcoin or Ethereum. We’re very fiat anchored as opposed to being la-la land money, magic money or internet money anchored, when it comes to our pricing.

One place where we differentiate is data quality. I was talking about ticker, so if you’ve got first, second and third place, you’ve got raw trades which are the best. You’ve got candles which are constructed from raw trades and you’ve got tickers, which are absolutely the worst. We construct all of our own candles, so if an exchange has raw trades, we’ll build the candles ourselves instead of just asking the exchange what it is. Because we found in some instances that exchanges are actually reporting inflated volumes in candle data, and when we actually get every single trade that happened that is creating that candle, and compute it ourselves, we’ll find that they’re over representing their volume. And that also ensures that there’s a consistent way of computing candles across the entire system. Anyway, this is super nerdy data stuff. I hope people are getting something out of it.

So, differentiator one, data quality, we’re heavily oriented towards raw trade data. The second, our methodology for computing prices which gets you the most realistic prices possible. Those are two points of differentiation.

I think a third point of differentiation is just how we’re set up as a business and the product itself, which is an API first company. All the companies that you’ve mentioned aren’t API focused, and many of them make most of their money by selling CSV files. So, they’re literally constructed as an CSV ecommerce store, where you add a file to your shopping cart and check it out. That works well for research purposes and for analysts, but it doesn’t work well for fintech developers, quant funds, high-frequency traders nor the vast majority of the fintech universe. I think when it comes to having a squeaky clean API that adheres to modern development practices, does a lot for you and can integrate nicely with how engineers build software, that’s another point of differentiation. And I think we’ve been rewarded well for that. If you Google cryptocurrency, at least yesterday, it changes around a little bit. But if you Google cryptocurrency API, we’re usually first, I think I changed my title tag a little bit recently and we dropped down, but we were usually first for that term. So, I think those are a few different points of differentiation.

(20:44) George Manolov:

One thing I found curious when I was looking at your website, there was this FAQ section where you basically have this free version of your API and the paid one. So, you were very positive and even encouraging others to use the free version of your API so that they build websites and services such as CoinMarketCap. I’m just curious because CoinMarketCap is the biggest website out there, many people just use it, it’s the go-to-place. So, why wouldn’t people use you to have better data and then just go there, because they have the brand and it’s established the place already. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on this; what is their rationale to coding up to the ticker approach?

(21:44) Clay Collins:

There’s a lot to explore here. There’s a free version of our API. And the reason why is because there’re very prescribed set of use cases where someone pays for data, and most people do not want to pay for data. So, rather than trying to convince everyone to pay for data who maybe couldn’t pay for it or there’s not a business use case for it. If it’s just for personal use, then they can use the free version which is limited. But I think that for most people who are just doing basic fintech apps, such as creating an iOS app or something like that, it’s probably going to be fine.

But if you live and die by your data or if it’s good data versus bad data is going to create a competitive advantage for you or give you a trading edge or something like that, then you’re probably only going to be satisfied with our paid API. People who are paid customers, we frequently say to them, we have no issue with you competing with nomics.com, our own CoinMarketCap competitor, build a competitor to us and we don’t care if you beat us. I’d rather have the next company that beats CoinMarketCap, whether it’s us or someone else, be using our data and our API, I’d rather they be a customer of ours, so we have no issues with that. At some point we’re probably going to open source our entire front-end website and just give it away. In addition to Android and iOS apps, we’ll probably just give it all away because at the end of the day we’re an API company and if we put out really good source code that shows people how to use our data and apply the data, that’s only going to enhance the API business.

In terms of why do people go to CoinMarketCap versus someone else, I think CoinMarketCap’s time is limited. They run a lot of shady ads, I honestly think that their product hasn’t grown a lot historically and they definitely are incumbent to beat, and I think it’s just a matter of time. I think it’s great that they started and it initially sounded like it was a hobbist project, but I think eventually the pros get involved and the space starts getting commercialized, things start growing up, and then real engineering teams and real business operators eventually prevail. But who knows? I could end up in a pretty humbled place three to four years from now. But then, that’s what I believe.

We’ve tried to go 360 in terms of how we approach professionalizing the space; our phone number is on the homepage; basic things that people take for granted. We have a phone number. If you go to the about page for us, you’ll see our names and faces, you can’t go to CoinMarketCap and see anyone’s name or face, there’s no phone number to call and everyone’s anonymous. Maybe that works during the crypto anarchy days of this space. But if you’re trying to build a viable business, the story changes and the standards become higher.

A little bit about ourselves, we’re backed by Coinbase Ventures, Digital Currency Group and CityBlock Capital, and I think we are part of the professionalization of the space.

(24:51) George Manolov:

Definitely looks like it. On this topic that you’re sharing, from my personal experience and the problems and discussions that we’ve had to at Nexo, even the data that comes from a lot of these incumbent companies is not enough for us, and sometimes we just need better data because we need it for our business. For example, the way it works for us is that we have coins which we accept as collateral options for our instance credit lines, so we need to have access to markets and to know what is the liquidity and the volumes of any particular asset that we support. So, when it comes to Bitcoin, Ether the few biggest coins, that’s kind of okay because their volumes are good. But when it comes to even getting out of the top 5 or 10 coins, you need to know the data and you don’t have an easy way to get correct data.

I’d be curious to learn more about this. This is a great transition into the big topic of fakeness which is a big theme, I would say not just in crypto but everywhere; there is fake news, fake people and there’s fake volumes here that we are facing, and I definitely think that this has to be solved one way or another. Everyone knew that there were fake volumes. First, there was this report in February that I came across from CoVenture that basically identified some supposedly top exchanges which have 99% volumes that are fake. Then very recently, Bitwise came up with this report saying that 95% of all of the Bitcoin trading volume is fake. So, what is your response to that as a data company? And how do you address the fakeness of the operations of exchanges?

(27:36) Clay Collins:

Yeah man, there’s so much meat on this bone, so to speak. As a data company, we looked at the Bitwise report, which we’re pleased about. We hope their ETF gets approved, we liked Bitwise, and of everyone who’s put in applications to run an ETF, I think theirs is perhaps the most impressive and I liked it. They’re a crypto native company, so I hope theirs is the first one approved, I hope there’re also more, but I hope theirs gets approved. So, they identified 10 exchanges that they felt had real Bitcoin to USD volume or Bitcoin to Tether volume. I stared at those exchanges and thought, what do most of these have in common? And what I noticed was that what they primarily had in common is that they all provided historical, gapless raw trad data as opposed to candle data or ticker data, which aggregate things. If you’re looking at a candle, you’ve got the open, close, high and low, but you don’t have every single trade that happened during that period. So, for the most part, 8 out of these 10 exchanges are pretty transparent. And sure, you can have fake volume and offer historical raw trade data, but just like being audited by the IRS or any kind of audit, at some point if you provide enough data points with enough history, and again 8 out of these 10 provided complete history, you’re going to get caught. So, certainly if you are engaging in shenanigans, you do not want to be providing historical raw trade data.

Then, we looked at the suspect exchanges; those were exchanges that Bitwise explicitly called out as doing things that look pretty shady. We found that out of around 20 exchanges, only 2 provided historic raw trade data.

So, we’ve got the good group where 80% is providing highly auditable data, and of the bad group, you’ve got what it looks like around 90% are providing the worst data type available, data which allows you to stuff all kinds of crap in there and not have to report it.

So, we started seeing this data transparency as a proxy for good behavior. Now, this isn’t the ultimate standard, just because an exchange is transparent, it doesn’t mean that they are universally engaging in good practices. One of the things that we’ve got as a result of our data transparency ratings is that, people are coming to us and saying, hey, you gave this exchange an A, but they do this thing that I don’t like. What we’ve said to those people is that these are not business ethics ratings and they aren’t customer approval ratings. These are data transparency ratings, because we’re a data company, we have no business speaking to a whole bunch of other things, but we do have some business speaking to data transparency, and humans are not making decisions about these transparency ratings; they’re made by a machine that looks at the data that is made available by that exchange and then assigns it a score.

What I felt was needed after reviewing the Bitwise report is a system that is updated on a day to day basis. Because Bitwise said that there’re only 10 exchanges that have good volume, but that could have changed the next day. It could have been that the next day, there’re more exchanges that are doing great things or it could be the day after it came out,

(30:17) George Manolov:

It stopped caring.

(30:50) Clay Collins:

Yeah, one of the exchanges stopped caring, it’s like, hits like, hey, Bitwise says we’re great, now let’s start stuffing volume into these candles. So, we wanted to come up with some kind of rating system that was updated and basically showed the auditability of the data provided. But I think that this rating system is going to change over time, we’ll start incorporating machine learning to start detecting fake volume in real-time. But what we’re saying about these exchanges is that they’re highly transparent, they provide a high-quality data and they don’t appear to be hiding stuff.

(30:51) George Manolov:

Really cool. So, you’re also planning on building on top of it. Today, you basically have five ratings, or I would say six. You have these five ratings; A, B, C, D and F, with A being for top performer and F for fail, then you have + which is for the ones who have themselves integrated with you.

(31:14) Clay Collins:

We wrote a spec that ideally describes what exchange data would look like. If an exchange comes to us and writes their own integration with us, then it means that we are absolutely getting all the data that we want and we’re getting it in the format that it should be served up in. And that it adheres to all of our standards for data quality. So, if an exchange gives us data in a very specific format that we’ve defined, then they’re a +. But if they’re generally giving high-quality data, we’ll give them an A. But an A+ is reserved for people who are giving us data according to our spec.

(31:50) George Manolov:

Got It. One thing that I noticed and would be curious to hear your thoughts on this; among the exchanges that you listed as transparent, was Bithumb right?

(32:02) Clay Collins:

Yep.

(32:03) George Manolov:

I was just reading the report that CoVenture published a couple of months ago, and they gave explicitly the example of Bithumb as an exchange which actually has a lot of questionable practices, and for multiple reasons, they concluded that there is significant risk trading there. So, how do you reconcile that? Because the examples and arguments which CoVenture gave us were really strong. For example, they said there was this period of time when Bithumb supposedly started this airdrop campaign, they said that a huge amount of new people came into the platform, so that’s why the volumes jumped. But then when you looked at the Alexa analytics, you see that there was actually a lower amount of visitors that came to their website. So, that didn’t make any sense. Then, when they looked even deeper into the trading data, they saw large spreads and high volumes, but at the same time low volatility, which they interpreted as evident that something’s wrong here, and that there’s probably more wash trading happening here than real ones. So, how do we reconcile that? The idea of these ratings, in my opinion, is that, these exchanges are legit. And then I see a very well argumented report, which actually says that this exchange in particular is not legit.

(33:29) Clay Collins:

We’re not saying that these exchanges are legit. We are saying these exchanges have highly transparent data practices, which is a completely different things. We’re speaking about data quality and the investigability of these things.

First off, I don’t doubt that CoVenture is doing great work. They’re investors in us; they invested in our A round, I know the team over there. I am personally an P in their active fund, so they’ve not only invested in us, but I’m an investor in one of their funds. So, I’ve nothing but the utmost respect for those people and for that whole group. Maybe instead of transparency rating, we need to call these data transparency ratings, which we do in the article, but we don’t on the web page because we ran out of text space.

Let’s say you go to a business and you say show us your books, and one person comes in and says, all right, so here’s how much revenue we did everyday. And you go to another business and say, show me your books, I’m auditing your business, and they say, oh, here’s every receipt for anyone who ever bought anything from us and here’s every receipt for everything we bought. That’s the difference between exchanges that have a low rating, those are the ones that are saying, hey, we’ll just tell you what we did everyday, and the businesses that say here’s every single receipt for anyone who bought something from us and for everything we ever bought, so that second group is the group that’s getting an A rating.

Now, in this audit scenario, could the group that’s providing every single receipt for everything they bought and sold be selling drugs? Yes. Could they be not issuing refunds? Yes. Could they be doing fraud? Yes. But because they’re giving you a complete paper trail, you’re much more likely to catch it. So, they are being more transparent, and that is all that this rating system is right now, which is that we’re speaking to the auditability of the data on their platform.

Going back to the CoVenture report, it does not surprise me that CoVenture identified Bithumb as engaging in these kinds of activities, and probably one of the reasons why they found it, is because Bithumb is providing such complete historical data, and I don’t know why they would be doing that. One thing that we’re going to be adding, and these things are evolving over time, it’s like fighting spam; when you think about how spam works, people send an email which says porn, Viagra or whatever, so Gmail or whoever’s doing the spam filtering,

(36:13) George Manolov:

This’s just became explicit.

(36:14) Clay Collins:

Oh, no, no, no, I didn’t say a curse word. So, they start filtering for certain words, and if you have these words in the email, then it’s going to go to the spam folder. Then, spammers got better and they started using a “0” instead of an “o” in the word porn, so Gmail or whoever starts filtering for that, then the spammers are like, okay, well you caught us there, so now we’re just going to put the word in a picture and we’re going to send the picture or we’re going to have a combination of Cyrillic and traditional Latin letters or whatever they’re going to do. The truth is that all of this stuff is like spam and that, it’s an arms race and it’s never ending. The war against spam is never over, there’s always something that makes it into your inbox with some kind of phishing scheme. It’s never going to be perfect and it evolves. So, this is our version one. This is in terms of ratings for exchanges, I think of the ratings that exist, I like ours the best, I think it’s the most comprehensive. CoinMarketCap doesn’t have one right now, OnChainFX doesn’t even have exchange listings right now, and CryptoCompare are not rating them. So, I feel like we have a great version one in place. It’s not perfect, it’s never going to be perfect. We’ve got an A+, but we’re thinking about creating an A- for exchanges that we are dinning for a variety of reasons.

Honestly and I kid you not, for every single one of these exchanges, someone has come to me and be like, hey, Binance, I had this terrible experience, I can’t believe that Binance is on here. It’s every single one of these, someone had an issue with, so people have strong opinions with exchanges, when they start adding KYC/AML, and block you from withdrawing your funds for a couple of days, and then people get really, really angry with centralized exchanges. So, none of these are without flaws.

And I think it’s interesting to note that the Bitwise report, which everyone is holding up as being awesome, identified Bitfenix as being an exchange with actual volume, and Bitfenix is currently being investigated by New York State for shenanigans around Tether and 280 million or whatever’s going on. So, the truth is that both of those things could be true, Bitfenix could have actual volume, they could be engaging in a ton of bad activities, and they could have a high level of data transparency, all at the same time. So, there’s not going to be a catchall for everything on this list being good. But I think with respect to our criteria, I feel like our ratings are good and we might introduce the A- to like downgrade things that are obviously doing bad things, according to law professionals, the criminal justice system or what have you.

(38:59) George Manolov:

I totally agree with you, you could have one company or one actor who’s good at one thing but really bad at another. And that’s absolutely normal, it’s probably just a natural human bias, which we have to constantly fight. It’s note because somebody has some bad features, you shouldn’t attribute this badness to the whole entity, you have to make clear distinctions between what exactly you’re talking about or why do you like or dislike a certain exchange or what is good or bad for a certain exchange. So, that makes total sense.

Another thing which I really liked about your approach is that you are trying to establish this new standard for transparent operations. I don’t know what are your plans in the future, but maybe you’re planning for a more general standard for what a legit exchange is. So, what is your plan on that? How do you plan on incentivizing exchanges to actually follow good practices, so that we get rid of fake volumes?

(40:13) Clay Collins:

Great question. We have a huge bias here, all things being equal, we want exchanges to provide more data and we think it’s better for the space, but it’s also better for us. We are clearly biased as a data provider that gets data, at least some of our data, from exchanges. We definitely want the exchanges to be transparent.

What we do is when we are ranking markets or exchanges, we’re sorting first by data transparency and second by volume. So, you don’t just win if you create a bunch of fake volume and say you have more trading activity than you actually do. Right now, I’m going to do this in real time just to see what’s going on. So, I’m going to CoinMarketCap and I’m going to exchange, and I’m sorting.

The first exchange by volume today on CoinMarketCap is Bitmax. What the hell is Bitmax? I don’t know. I’ve never used Bitmax, I could probably call everyone I’ve ever met who trades cryptocurrencies and I don’t know anyone who’s ever traded on Bitmax. The next one is Bitmex, okay, that’s legit. The next is FCoin. What the hell is FCoin? I’ve never even heard of that coin and I live in this space. FCoin, what on earth is that! So, That’s the third highest exchange by volume. The next is OKEx and Binance, I know those. Number 6 is ZBG. What the Hell is ZBG? I have no idea what this is. And then Digifinex and BW, and then FatBTC. Then you got a CoinBene which I like calling CoinBean, which is in LBank.

Nobody’s heard of the vast majority of these exchanges. If you’re looking at this ranking and let’s just say I want to find Coinbase, Coinbase on this list is number 43. BitFinex is number 37. And Binance is number 5. It’s ridiculous.

But if you go to our exchange rankings, we are sorting first by transparency and then by volume. So, our top five exchanges are Binance, HitBTC, BitFinex, Coinbase Pro and Kraken. Those are our top five exchanges. Now, you might hate some of those exchanges, but I bet you’ve heard of all of them, none of these are coming out of left field. These are established players and these are not sorted by judgment calls, but they are sorted by us looking at our database and seeing what they’re giving in terms of fidelity.

So, if you want to appear at the top of the sort on our exchange list, if you want your markets to appear at the top of the sort, let’s just do what I was doing before for Bitcoin market. So, I’m going to go to CoinMarketCap, I’m on the website right now, I’m going to Bitcoin and I’m looking at their Bitcoin markets and I’m sorting by volume over 24 hours. So, I’m going to read off the top 10 exchanges for Bitcoin volume on CoinMarketCap. Okay. The first one is Bitmex, okay, you’ve heard of that, The next one, FCoin. Okay. The next one is Negocie Coins, and that is BTC to BRL, I don’t know if that’s a Brazilian currency, I’ve never heard of that coin or Negocie Coin. Next one is CoinBene, which was the all-star of bad actors in the Bitwise report. Next BW, again, I don’t know anyone that’s traded on BW. ZBG, then Coineal, IDAX, then Coinall, and then it takes until you get to 10 or 11 to get to OKEx and Binance, okay, but all that is down the list.

But if you go to our rankings sorted by volume, the first market is Binance, the second market is BitFinex, the next market is Coinbase Pro, the next market is Bitstamp, followed by HitBTC and Kraken. The feedback that we’ve received is that this data is much more meaningful and relatable and it actually means something when people look at it, versus being like an all-star sorting of people pumping volumes, it’s like all the cheaters are at the top of the list.

(44:28) George Manolov:

Honestly, I don’t know if anyone gets anything out of these rankings, specifically the exchanges rankings. The cryptocurrencies ranking is fine for the average person, even if you are not a professional fund or trader, but the exchanges don’t really make any sense to me and I don’t know if they make any sense to anyone.

(44:49) George Manolov:

Hey, this is George jumping in here for a bit just to make it clear that shortly after I had this talk with Clay, CoinMarketCap also announced their own data accountability and transparency alliance alongside with some of the leading cryptocurrency exchanges out there. To me, this is great news as the fact that pretty much all major data players in the cryptocurrency space are taking resolute actions towards promoting best practices when it comes to reporting of trading volumes. I mean, this is only good for the whole industry and I believe it can only benefit everyone who’s involved in the cryptocurrency space. And with that news, I also expect and hope that some of the inconsistencies and strange results that we see on the CoinMarketCap rankings at this point and that Clay pointed out will soon be part of the past as well.

(45:49) George Manolov:

I have a final strictly company related question to Nomics which is, what are your biggest challenges, bottlenecks or what do you need to you move faster as a company? What are the things which could make the most difference for the growth of your business?

(46:09) Clay Collins:

It’s always a 100% focus. The reason why the opportunity exists like it does for us and the reason why we’ve been feeling customers left and right against the incumbents is because nobody is doing the boring basics right. And when you think about everything that most people that start a startup love about product, it’s, such as wearing a turtleneck, a New Balance shoes and trying to be Steve Jobs. So much of what we do would melt your face off. It’s so boring. I mean it would really bore you to tears. It’s about getting data right. I tried to make this discussion interesting, but if we were to have the real conversation, it would just be infinitely boring and we’d be talking about all kinds of tedious things that most people don’t think about until they’re absolutely dependent upon data, and then they find themselves wanting to jump out of a window because it’s so painful dealing with what they have.

So, what we’ve seen is a lot of people that just keep on adding more stuff to what they’re doing. They’re like, oh, we’re going to add GitHub analytics and now we’re going to add social data and now we’re going to add 20 technical indicators, and then we’re going to add a community where people can talk about this stuff, then we’re going to add news and then we’re going to add this thing and that thing and the other thing.

When I see other companies do that, I start feeling happy. This is really great for us. So, I like product and I like thinking broadly and I enjoy vision and all that stuff. But for us, this core problem of data quality still remains a challenge and we have so much more work to do, we have so much further to go that I think we’re constantly fighting the urge to add more. One of my favorite sayings is that most startups die of indigestion rather than starvation and I think that’s true of companies in this space that, could go really broad or go really deep. I saw on Twitter the other day, there’s a guy named Dharmesh Shah who’s one of the founders, and I believe still the CTO, of HubSpot; they’re a public company which worth 4 billion or something. And his tweeted essentially said, your customers don’t want you to build new features, they want you to nail the features that they bought your product for in the first place. And I think in most cases that’s really true.

So, the biggest challenge for us is just always staying true to our product objectives, which is better quality data, transparent methodologies, being a force that encourages the entire space to provide more transparency and nailing the API as a product, that means the docs are good, the end points are good, response times are fast, the error rates are low, and making sure that we have more data than anyone else.

When we first started all of this, it would take us a few weeks to add an exchange. Now, we can add an exchange in 10 minutes because we’ve built systems around this. So, for us it’s really about focus and not getting distracted and staying true to why we started.

(49:13) George Manolov:

By the way, this reminds me of my first guest, Jamie Finn from Securitize, who said pretty much the same thing, just in different words. He said, you as a company are defined mostly by what you don’t do. Because many companies try to just do everything, while Securitize and you have a very clear focus, and you refuse to go any other way.

(49:43) Clay Collins:

I agree with him. I think he’s right.

(49:45) George Manolov:

All right. So, with in mind and with your approach and your attitude of not being a boring data company, I would like to explore a little more about why did you decide to start the Flippening Podcast. As some of our listeners may not know you, aside from being the CEO of Nomics, you also have the Flippening podcast where you talk about investing in Crypto and themes connected to investing in Crypto. So, what was the reason for you to start doing this, and to continue doing it as well? Because as you said before we started this recording, this is really taking a lot of your time.

(50:24) Clay Collins:

I have a podcast called the Flippening, it does pretty well, it’s usually in the top 150 in the business section on iTunes. Our average podcast episode is getting anywhere between 30,000 and maybe 40,000 to 50,000 downloads. We crossed the 1 million downloads mark a while ago. So, it’s gone well, but it’s also been a huge pain.

(50:47) George Manolov:

Thinking a little bit about who we wanted to be as a business, I know a lot of data companies have a huge media presence. Not only are they putting out data, they’re releasing reports, they’re breaking news, and they have a whole team of analysts. We decided early on that we were going to be a product and an API company and we were not going to be a media company at the end of the day. So, we don’t have a daily newsletter and we’re not blogging left and right. So, the one thing that we do is that we do this podcast and it’s been a lot of fun. We put out a documentary on security tokens and security tokenization.

(51:24) Clay Collins:

A Lot of podcasts are topical and conversational, and our approach, which is good for us, is really focused on deep dives on specific topics; we did a two part deep dive on OTC desk trading, we did two parts a deep dive on investing in smart contract platforms, we had a two part deep dive on tokenized debt, we added a three parts deep dive documentary on security tokens, and on and on and on.

The reason why I did this is because I’ve got quite a bit of experience creating content in a past life, and I realized that topical content eventually gets old, and when you interview famous people that might be fun at the time, but they’re usually not famous forever. So, we wanted to create this evergreen reference content that hopefully would stand the test of time and people could return to again and again to learn about large important topics in the space. So, that really is what drives the podcast.

There’s a couple of reasons why we do it. One is that it’s a fantastic customer acquisition channel. It’s the only podcast that I know of that is truly focused on institutional investors and on old time investors and essentially full-time professionals in the space. As opposed to having more of a consumer audience, we’re highly focused on institutional investors and those are incidentally people that buy the product. In every podcast, we have an ad for our API. We usually have one title sponsor, who’s an external sponsor, and we have one internal sponsor, which is us, and it absolutely gets this customer. So, that’s great. I can say that to advertisers is, every episode we put it out, we get at least one new customer and our product isn’t cheap, at least the higher tiers. So, it’s customer acquisition, it’s the only media thing that we do. It’s the only thing we’re known for in terms of communicating with the space.

Another reason is that it keeps me from like bugging our engineers all the time and pestering people, and I really enjoy asking questions. I love asking questions and getting to learn about new things in the space.

At the same time that I hate the podcast, I absolutely love it as well. It takes so much time. It costs us anywhere from 1500 to $3,000 to produce every episode. We have transcriptions made before and after, and we do pre-interviews, it’s a whole thing. We just hired someone full-time to join us, and half of their time is just working on that damn podcast. So it’s the one thing that we do, so we figured we might as well do a good job at it. And it’s been a fun journey.

(54:10) George Manolov:

Yeah, it sounds extremely good, as I can confirm. I haven’t listened to literally all of your episodes, but quite a few, specifically the security token documentary which numerous people recommended to me. I can definitely say that this particular one, but I’m sure the other ones as well, is a very good intro to anyone who wants to get into any of these topics.

Just curious, and I’ll probably cut this out. You said that the security token documentary, for example, took you really a lot of time, so if you’re to do this from scratch or when you’re doing similar things now, how would you do it differently?

(54:52) Clay Collins:

Great question, and you can leave this in. I think the key with doing an audio documentary is to get a sense of the structure ahead of time. So, when I did the security token documentary, I interviewed a bunch of people, and I had all these interviews lying around, and when you’re publishing an episode, like the one we’re doing together right now, what’s nice is that the timeline is just the conversation. You don’t have to storyboard or construct a timeline and weave all the things together. When you’re creating an audio documentary and you’re cutting back and forth between people and someone interjects and has a comment and then you cut back to the main person who’s being interviewed and then you weave to something else that someone said, there’s no natural flow to it all. So, you need to get all the episodes transcribed, you have to break them up into meaningful chunks and then you have to cut them up and reassemble them together in a way that makes sense over two to three episodes and it’s a lot of work.

I think what I would do next time is that I would, to the extent that I can, because sometimes there’re gems that you don’t expect, map out the whole thing ahead of time, beginning to end, over all the episodes, I would know where the transitions are ahead of time and I’d probably do more pre-interviews to who has what to say about what. Then, everything would hopefully just click into place and it would make the editing a lot easier, hopefully. Who knows? But that’s the intent.

(56:25) George Manolov:

That makes sense. All right, great. We look forward to future documentaries that you will be publishing.

Another question that I really want us to learn about or get your input into, you have been very successful with your business ventures, as you described Leadpages, and Nomics is obviously going very well at this point. You also mentioned in our prior conversations that you tend to be a very early riser, would be very curious if you could briefly describe how your day looks like and why do you get up so early and what’s your routine so to say?

(57:08) Clay Collins:

My entire life, I have not been an early riser. You did have that right that I’m up super early in the morning. That happened when I had kids. I think two things happened recently that affected this. In a past life, I’d get up at 9:30 in the morning, I’d stay up until 2:00 or 3:00 AM and that’s when I’d go to sleep, and that’s how I used to live my life. Then, I got married and I had kids, I love them and it’s the best thing that I did not expect would be great. I didn’t know, I thought that this would suck. But it’s like what everyone says this, it’s like best thing that ever happened to me.

I’m up in the morning because that is the only productive time that I have. I am absolutely committed that at the end of the workday, around 5:30, I’m going to be home and I’m going to be feeding my children dinner. Then, I am with them until they go to bed at around 8:00 to 8:30, and then because I am up so early, that’s when I go to bed. So, the only way to get to work the hours that I work is to get up at 4:00, 4:30, sometimes 5:00 ,but I get up at that time.

So, the first thing that happened is that I had kids, and the second thing is when I was younger, I was diagnosed with ADD, but I never took Adderall or any of the attention deficit disorder medications. And now I do, I don’t think it’s too weird to say, but yeah, I take Adderall. So, I get up, take an Adderall and I’m definitely up, and I like it quite a bit. I don’t know that I could go back to the thing I had where I stayed up late and got up late. I very much prefer this, and I think I’m a lot more productive as well.

(58:47) George Manolov:

Okay, cool. I’ve never heard of this particular type of people going to bed at 8 or 9, but why not? I’m gonna probably try this at some point as well. I used to be an early riser when I was younger and now I switched the other way around. But maybe I should just get kids, and I’ll be forced to switch.

(59:13) Clay Collins:

I should also add something that’s this is often la-la land or wo-wo territory, but I get up in the morning and I meditate, I recently do this thing called the Wim Hof method. Originally, I started doing it because I thought it was gonna help me lose weight. Wim Hoff is this Dutch guy who holds the record for swimming the longest underwater and he climbed Mount Kilimanjaro in shorts and nothing else. He’s just done all these crazy things, and so he trains people how to adapt to cold exposure. I thought; oh, this is really great, I’ll just take super long cold showers and I can burn more calories. But one of the things that he teaches you to adapt to cold is a breathing pattern called, I don’t know what it’s actually called, but it has to do with purposely hyperventilating and doing a number of things.

I’ve always tried to meditate in some form or another, but I do this and then I meditate, and I can meditate for as long as I want to. And each time I do this breathing exercise, I go deeper and deeper and deeper and add some kind of crazy spiritual experiences as well, which I won’t talk about. But that’s a huge part of my life now, is getting up the morning and doing that stuff.

(01:00:26) George Manolov:

Wait, so do you take a continuous cold shower? Is this what this practices is?

(01:00:30) Clay Collins:

Yeah, I take a cold shower. There’s three components; It’s cold exposure and breathing exercises, which you do separately, but you also do it when you’re being exposed to the cold, and the breathing exercise is also a combination of hyperventilating and then holding your breath. So, I’m at this point now where I can hold my breath for two and a half minutes. He can do it for six minutes, I would really like to get to three.

The third component is these exercises and then there’s also meditation. I don’t think it’s a cult, it’s just been something that’s been practically helpful to me.

(01:01:04) George Manolov:

Yeah. Surely, you just try and see how it works. Awesome. Cool. Very, very, very interesting.

A few final questions here. I was just curious when you said very early on that you entered the crypto space in 2013. Who was the trigger when you realized that this is going to be huge, this is the next big thing, and digital money makes sense? Did you listen to somebody? Did you read something?

(01:01:36) Clay Collins:

Well it wasn’t one book, although I did read Digital Gold early on and really enjoyed that. I think it’s a really well done narrative account of the early crypto days and I found that compelling and interesting. But I don’t think there was only one thing. There’s someone that worked at my previous company that I started who was a cryptocurrency miner, and there’s someone whose intellect I really respected.

Even in 2013, a long time had passed. I think it started in 2009. So, from 2009 to 2013, the network had never been hacked. Hashing power was growing and it was just a really compelling time to be involved in this space and still is. But no, there was nothing that pushed me over the edge. I really enjoyed the Bitcoin Whitepaper and found it interesting. I really like having non-seizable money. There was just so much about this that just clicked in terms of everything that I had come to believe about the world and how the world works and decentralization over time. There’s nothing about this movement that doesn’t seem spot on.

I went down the proverbial rabbit hole, I was that guy who like unshaven and tired because I had been up all night reading some stuff, it was exhilarating and it’s never stopped being exhilarating, and it’s a huge social movement.

The reason why the podcast is called the Flippening is because I don’t think it’s not about Ethereum or Bitcoin, it’s about replacing the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and I hope the replacement is BTC, or I hope it’s crypto. I hope that the crypto total market cap exceeds all fiats combined. I think it will, it’s just a matter of time. But what an amazing time we all live in and what a huge opportunity. Everyone is going around like, oh, Bitcoin is worth $5,000 and then it’s $10,000 or whatever it is. Who cares? I’m not going to give investment advice here, but like we are in the early stages compared to where it’s going to be.

(01:03:48) George Manolov:

The thing with Bitcoin or crypto replacing USD, that’s going to be huge, and honestly, I also would like to see this. I think it makes total sense.

The thing that sometimes disturbs me is how will this happen and will this happen all of a sudden, will this result in more destruction than actually creating something positive? What’s your take on that? Because the US dollar is the blood of the financial economic system today and changing it, bearing in mind that when it became the blood after World War II, the world was so much more not connected and everything was so much smaller, so such a huge disruption when we’re so much more advanced is potentially terrifying.

(01:04:39) Clay Collins:

I completely agree. First off, the first thing you said was how long is it gonna can take? I think it’s going to take a long time. My parents recently bought their first thing on amazon.com which was started 24 years ago and even though a whole bunch of people are prime members, the vast majority of commerce in the United States does not happen online. So, it’s a very long transition. Certainly the ramp up has been amazing. amazon.com is one of the most consistently growing year over year companies that has ever been around. They’re sinking their teeth into everything, but 24 years and most shopping still doesn’t happen online. I think it’s going to take a long time, frankly.

And what is it going to be like? I think it’s going to be fairly non-revolutionary in the scheme of things because it’s going to happen slowly.

Someone asked me, hey, when do you think the Bitcoin ETF is going to get approved? I think the Bitcoin ETF is going to get approved when enough people at the SEC hold Bitcoin, then they would want this to exist too, because they’re holding it and they want it to go up. So, I think when enough people at the SEC can front-run the increase in BTC prices that results from the ETF, that’s when we’re going to have it.

A lot of people picture this crying, gnashing of teeth and social upheaval, but I think that it’s going to happen little by little, people are going to buy some here or there, it’s going to be speculative. They’ll get some on Coinbase, from a friend or whatever. Then, by the time it flips, no one’s going to actually care, because hopefully everyone’s gonna have enough of it, that it’s not this big thing.

When I think about who the losers are going to be, it’s not going to be the rich people. I think that rich people are going to be fine because they’re always fine, I also think that poor people in places like Argentina, Zimbabwe and places that have had a lot of currency instability and understand the value of Bitcoin, they probably sold everything for bitcoin a long time ago. When this happens, it’s going to be the middle class and the poor people in countries that have historically had stable currencies. So, it’ll be poor people in Britain, United States and places with pretty developed economies that have always been able to trust this and they didn’t understand it because they haven’t seen crazy inflation and they didn’t have spare cash to buy in early, and that’s unfortunate.

(01:07:03) George Manolov:

Okay, great, Clay!. This was a really, really fun conversation for me. Honestly, one of the best I had so far, and it was truly educational as well. I would like to end this off with where can people find out about you The Flippening Podcast, and Nomics of course.

(01:07:25) Clay Collins:

I’m on Twitter “@ClayCollins”. Nomics is just at nomics.com, as in the suffix of economics. For The Flippening Podcast, just search for The Flipping Podcast in wherever you get your podcasts, we’re there. We also have some forums at forums.nomics.com if you want a chat. Yeah, there’re lots of ways to reach us. And for the most part, unless you reach out with some crazy vague business proposal or something, we respond to everyone who emails us, who is truly just looking to engage because they liked the content. We get a lot of weird people that are just writing for the first time, “I love Flippening. Hey, can you buy this thing from me?” So, no. But the vast majority of people that email us, we respond and we’re happy to engage and always appreciate folks cocreating awesome stuff with us.

(01:08:09) George Manolov:

Great. Okay, Clay. Thanks a lot again and I’m sure we’ll talk again soon.

(01:08:15) Clay Collins:

Absolutely. Thank you.

(01:08:18) George Manolov:

A couple of things before you take off. First, if you enjoyed this episode, be generous and share it with your best friends. They deserve it, they will appreciate it and they will be grateful to you.

Second, I named this podcast Borderless Crypto, because I have been fascinated by the speed with which crypto has been breaking financial borders, just like the Internet empowered us to communicate and share information with anyone anywhere, 24/7/365. Crypto is empowering people of any country to transact freely, to invest in all sorts of assets and to access capital to grow their economic status. I’m super pumped to be part of this financial transformation. That is why I’m doing this podcast, to spread awareness about crypto and to accelerate the removal of economic borders. If like me, you want to see a borderless financial world, help me spread the word about crypto even faster by spending one minute to rate this podcast, write a review and subscribe, so that more people learn about crypto and in this way, together with you, we accelerate crypto adoption.

Finally, if you have any suggestions, feedback, or anything you want to tell me, send me a message on my Twitter handle @BorderlessBTC. Thanks for tuning in and I’ll see you again soon.

georgemanolov Written by:

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *