Mike Townsend:Today's guest on Around The Coin is Rishi Khanna. Rishi is the CEO ofStocktwits. Stocktwits provides real time stock and crypto international marketdata to over 8 million members and their community. They were started in 2008.They've been around for a while. Rishi and I cover a lot of ground across AI.

We talk about international markets, investment strategies, therole of governments. Hope you find this conversation interesting and valuable.If you do, please give us a thumbs up or a share wherever you're listening tothis podcast. It really helps us grow. And without further ado, here is RishiKhanna.

Mike Townsend: Great.Rishi, thanks for hopping on. I'm excited to chat with you more. You startedStockTwits, which I was saying in our pre show, is one of my favorite apps. I'dlove to just get the quick background on what inspired you. To join, build,work on, and maybe just describe StockTwits, give us the blurb.

Rishi Khanna: Yeah,sure.

StockTwits was founded actually back in 08, 09. And so it'sbeen, been around, since kind of that first wave of kind of the, social therise of social and whatnot. I've been actually a user since about 2010, and Ijoined the company as CEO in during 2020.

Quiet year, not much happened in 2020. But for me, I think oh,I guess for the audience, that doesn't know, I mean, StockTwits is one of theoriginal social platforms focused on the retail, investing, and tradingcommunity. Think of it, in the simplest way, started as a verticalized Twitterthe, the founders of StockTwits back in 09 invented the cash tag, which is nowubiquitous, kind of across the world of investing and trading and and over theyears, we've kind of evolved to, hopefully deliver more value to our community,and I think to your question of what excites me about building, why did I join,and stuff I think if you look at it, StockTwits has a highly engaged, justorganically grown and built community, and I think that's really important whenyou think about social when you think about community and social, there's a lotof companies that have come and gone across a lot of domains, And especiallyover our, over the last kind of, two or three years with the rise of, kind ofretail in, in the investing and trading world.

You've seen a lot of startups, get funded back in 2020 and 21and try to do the, the social thing and it's hard and most of them aren'taround anymore or have pivoted to something, completely different. And to me,that was, what was so exciting about, joining StockTwits is we have thistremendous community.

And how do we deliver more value to them, right? Beyond theconversation, beyond connecting about stocks, ETFs, crypto, just markets ingeneral, whatever it might be. How can we deliver more value? To them acrosstheir, investing journey, trading journey and, and that's, that's kind of whathas how, how I ended up here and what's been the driver for us over the lastthree, four years.

Mike Townsend: Sowhat's been the primary focus points of where you believe that you can add morevalue to the community?

Rishi Khanna: The wayI think about it and the way we think about it, kind of at Stocktwits is, Ithink about it from the investing life cycle kind of perspective, and it is, Idon't, I would use my hands, but we're on a small screen here, right?

But, it is like kind of, it is this like cycle where, it startsat this, ideation phase. Generally speaking, it goes from ideation to research.To Execution, to Management, to Ideation, to Research, to Execution,Management. And whether you're, investing in stocks, whether you're investingin crypto, whether you're investing in private companies bonds, whatever it isyou're generally going through that process.

The data sets you use are different, the sources of informationyou use are different, the types of information that matter, and that youprioritize are different, but the process, the life cycle is, very similar. Andfor us, we also want to put kind of community and that social layer at, kind ofat the heart of it.

Cause that is, no matter what, that is the heart of, ofStockTwits. And so how do we deliver value across that life cycle? Social andcommunity naturally kind of, I think, deliver across ideation for sure. Andresearch for sure. Hey, Tesla reported earnings and they reported X, Y, and Z,and here's what I think about it, right?

And you find your tribe and community that's talking aboutTesla and you can you share those things. But how do we further enhance thevalue that we're, we can provide to you? Because you're already spending, a lotof time on the platform, on StockTwits, whether on the app or on the, website.

And so whether it's in the research front. Execution, right? Sowe added, a broker dealer and the ability to buy and sell stocks and actuallythe ability to buy and sell options as well recently. And so closing the loopwith execution. Now, there's not a lot of creativity that goes in execution.

It's a highly regulated affair in the U. S. And so that's, thatto us is like somewhat of a commoditized phase. It's part of the life cycle,and then portfolio management, an area where I think, there's a lot of weaknessfor folks and coming from, I, I spent most of my career in the kind ofalternatives investing world and hedge funds and whatnot, and so portfoliomanagement is actually a very key element to, kind of delivering returns, andthose, we think about delivering value in the form of, tools, connectivity,data how to enhance kind of social conversations around that life cycle, ifthat, hopefully that makes sense.

Mike Townsend: Yeah,yeah, totally.

Where, traditionally, in, in the broader financial market,where is most of the money made? Is it on management services? Is it on onepart of that

Rishi Khanna: I thinkit's actually servicing the site like if you're asking like the broaderindustry right now you're at, and I'll stick to the broader kind of consumerside of the world, right? You look at kind of financial advisory, wealthmanagement, and especially given, so much of the wealth is with, the oldergeneration, the boomer generation and whatnot.

There's, a lot of it is around the holistic value deliveredbetween, financial advisors. A lot of it is, at the product level, right? SoETFs are a product. that generate fees, right? Whether it's, now some of themare really low, right? Two basis points or one basis point, so 0.

01%. But there are many ETFs and mutual funds and otherproducts that generate, half a percent. 1 percent fees. And so it is, kind of,that's where a bulk, when you look at the entire industry from a consumerperspective, a lot of it is in that kind of asset based fee world not, not tosay that, there's, interest and margin and those elements that are in theinvesting and trading world, those are, important revenue sources and that goesto that execution side.

But, when you, But when you think of the bulk of it, it isaround kind of a holistic management of the life cycle. And then, you break itdown into pieces across the, kind of the more fragmented value chain.

Mike Townsend: Yeah.

Tell, I'm going to make a statement and you tell me what youwould add or take away from it.

So I think of the, the purpose and power of the market ofinvestors as to make the most efficient investment decisions possible.Effectively allocating capital that's available in the market. If you add upall the people who can invest money, you want to put it in the places that candeliver the most value to humanity.

And some of that has to be in very safe returns, and some of ithas to be in very high risk high reward returns. And then StockTwits isbasically the information layer. So it's allowing people to determine where toput their chips. Based on the information that they're receiving and then theymesh that information with their entire life's worldview, Hey, I got, Tesladata income statement alone is just, is half the equation.

I have to mesh that with my computational method, which in asimple form might just be what I think in my head and I know, but maybe it's anadvanced model in an Excel document or some very complex software tool. Eitherway, it's serving the same function. to interpret the data and then make adecision.

If you think of the, the trajectory of where we're going as asociety, we have a bunch of new tools, AI is out there, we have highly advancedcomputational power, we have highly advanced social networks. Where do youthink we're going? What's the, what's the improvement potential for investinggoing forward?

Is it on... If that question makes sense, if you want to addanything to it. Go ahead.

Rishi Khanna: Yeah,there's, there's a lot of layers there. I'm glad you went there, but yeah,let's, let's unpeel the layers and I'll, I'll start kind of where you started.I think we generally agree like the purpose of our economic system, which is acapitalistic economic system and the markets are a tool within that is toideally most efficiently allocate capital to where it delivers the most valueback to society.

I'm not going to go off on my soapbox if we may have started tomiss the mark there on some things and that's a, that's a different thing.

Mike Townsend: Canyou take a quick tangent?

Can you tell, can you give me the bullet points on that? Like,where do you think we've made mistakes?

Rishi Khanna: Well, Ithink, I think one of the challenges that you know, and this is probably aunpopular or a limited view is, I feel like we've, we're currently in an eraof, Capitalism for the sake of capitalism.

Money for the sake of money. Meaning the end goal is actuallyjust... Money. And money is a tool, right? Again, if you really if we thinkback about systems and societies and history, money is meant to be a tool tohelp facilitate a marketplace, as efficiently as possible. But capitalism runamok is a problem.

And, and you see that with Kind of what's happening in the U.S. with it is very much becoming a barbell society, right? The wealth gap ismassively growing into haves and have nots and, it doesn't look like there'sreally any end in sight. And so that's, that's kind of the, the bullet point Iwas alluding to there is how do we make sure that capitalism is serving thepurpose to actually benefit humanity and society, right? And whether you lookat societies in the form of nation states and, with the boundaries ofcountries, or if you look at societies all of humanity and, everyone on planetEarth, that doesn't even matter because we're kind of failing at all levels.

But so that's where, are we in this era of capitalism for thesake of capitalism? That's kind of, a little bit what it feels like to me.

Mike Townsend: Wouldyou agree that that's it's failing to make the distinction between money andwealth, where wealth is the accumulation of, of actual value?

I have a house, I have a instrument, I have a all the thingsthat money can buy food. Yeah. I have transportation and then put dollars in abank account is, is potential wealth. It's that difference there.

Rishi Khanna: I thinkit's ultimately, I, I think, I mean, I think that gets toot a bit, but I thinkit's ultimately What are we trying to do for society and humanity?

What is the system meant to do? I think it's meant to makebetter quality of life for all of us, right? And regardless of, kind of whatwe're trying to do. So yeah, wealth there's nothing wrong with wealth and beingable to, hey, different people are going to, put different effort in intodifferent things and different, have different perspectives on a lot.

That's fine. So accumulating wealth in whatever that means toyou, whether that means... The big house or just, hey, having, a house and,being, food secure and, educated and healthcare and things like that versus thethen, okay, now we don't, give a shit about anybody else because we got ourhouse.

And so like now I just feel kind of want more and more andmore. And I don't, it doesn't matter kind of what, what the impact of that is.Yeah. But, we can probably go on this tangent for a while, but I'm happy tobring it back to the other side.

Mike Townsend: Yeah,yeah, yeah. Let me ask you this.

Do you feel that the segue forward is through social? If Ithink about what makes the investment markets better, and better is looselydefined, but I would think of it as more efficient, right? Money is spent onsomething that ends up delivering value to somebody. As opposed to just goingnowhere, people can talk about different decisions.

People can follow somebody else who is full time focused onthis, that's maybe using some algorithm or tool. Some people are benefitingfrom somebody else's work and then sharing in a cut of that. Traditionally asfinancial advisors, but I think that's more advanced now. Is there othermethods of intelligent investors intelligent investing that you're starting tosee with some of the dynamics of AI or social or something else?

Rishi Khanna: Yeah, Imean, I think it was AI is very new. And we can probably, definitely spend abunch of time talking about that. And we will, I'm sure. What I will say is, Ibelieve and I strongly believe that investing, trading, participating in themarkets is very much an apprenticeship game.

Meaning, you learn by doing and you then learn from, notnecessarily a singular, mentor, if you think about like kind of what weprobably traditionally think about what we read as kids in books aboutapprenticeships and stuff, right? Like the carpenter or something like that,but you know, a community of mentors based on, your personality, your style,your risk profile, all these things that also, by the way, change over time,morph over time.

And so I think why social is extremely important in a world ofinfinite access and virtually infinite opportunities is that, hey, you've, youlearn by doing and you, can find your tribe and community that you can shareideas with, learn from their mistakes, learn from their successes, how theythink about things.

A swing trader or momentum trader, or maybe I'm really justfocused on, I'm passionate about the cannabis industry and cannabis stocks.Those are all different tribes, or maybe I'm, a value value investor in themost traditional sense, which in our era sucked for a long time, right?

And now maybe coming back a little bit but, you can find thosetribes and, and I think that's what. The power of social and community isbecause it may not be your friends, right? It may not be the people youphysically have access to because, for a multitude of reasons.

And that is the, both the gift of the, internet and theconnectivity age that we're in. I mean, it's also, there's also obviously aburden and a curse side to it, but the opportunity to... actively participatein the markets and learn from, tribes and just exchange ideas. Learning isn'talways just, talk at me.

Learning is exchanging ideas, having conversations breakingdown whatever it is, whichever style and strategy and sectors and industriesand markets you're interested in. There is a community for you to connect withand talk to and that's, I think, the power of social and the evolution ofparticipating in the markets.

And what I'll end to kind of close the loop to your questionis, I do think, especially, in the US, like the markets are one of the lastremaining bastions of building wealth, of having an opportunity to buildwealth, because, a lot of the other routes that may have existed in the pastof, just, pure hard work and stuff have been I Devalued by like kind of justour system, right?

And assets build on assets and that's how you build wealth. Andso if you're not participating in the markets and one could argue today stockmarkets versus real estate markets, but you know, assets, if you're not able toparticipate in that, or if you've never been exposed and understand that that'ssomething you can participate in, you are at a disadvantage to building wealth.

And that's why I think, it's important, for everyone to haveexposure. It doesn't mean everyone should be trading or investing, in a full,hardcore, self directed way. But everyone should be educated about it,understand it, and have the opportunity to, if they want to dive in, right?

Hopefully that answered your question.

Mike Townsend: Itdoes. I,

I heard a statistic recently that and I could be slightly offon this, but I think it's trajectorially correct. If you're between the ages of20 and 40, I would say if you're between the ages of 40 and 60, there's a 70percent chance that somebody else has managed your money throughout your life.

If you're between the ages of 20 and 40, there's a 70 percentchance you're managing your own money. Basically, the trajectory is towardsyounger people managing their money away from financial advisors. I wouldimagine that trend is true because more information and tools, people have moreaccess with the internet.

Do you think the, what, what are the impacts of that? And maybewhen I think of the impacts from that, I think what are the new areas ofinvesting that hadn't come up before? You mentioned momentum investor, or ifyou're a niche investor, and, and then also like of the people on StockTwits,are they mostly just casual investors in this class?

Rishi Khanna: Sogoing to start with, I think one of the unique things about our community is,we have a very large community, we just crossed 8 million members over thesummer highly engaged audience, there's millions of people, come to theplatform every month but there's a pretty good distribution there and the firstlevel and that people always ask about is, kind of this investing versustrading thing, right?

Which are two very different, styles and strategies and aredifferent. And so our community obviously is, you Compared to general consumer,and platforms out there, we are obviously more skewed towards the activetrading side. That being said, our last survey we did, it's about 40 60.

So 40 identify themselves as, more active traders versus 60identify themselves as, kind of buy and hold investors type thing, right? Butit's, it's also the... The benefits that we have of a very large community. Nowsocial, also just kind of diving into that from the StockTwits perspective is,social is hard.

I mean, we know that social is hard when it's not just, kind ofputting up pictures and stuff like that. There's a reason... Twitter of all thebig platforms is kind of last right and I'm not even commenting on pre or postmusk or anything like it was just, Pinterest has been bigger, Snapchat isbigger, Facebook, all those are obviously bigger.

And because diving in and sharing ideas, like written ideas andtalking about it is hard. It's intimidating, especially in verticals where Youknow, we're talking about money in markets or, whatever it might be. And whenwe look at social, there's, there's that cohort of like really the, thecreators and the ones that are out there sharing.

And then there's the contributors that are participating, butmaybe aren't the, heavy volume folks. And then there's the consumers, right?These are, bulk of the user base is there to consume, take in the information,learn maybe the like posts and share things, but they're not gonna, And so it'sour, opportunity and, and responsibility to deliver value to that consumingcommunity, and connect them with the right creators and contributors and, and,connect those dots.

And so that's kind of how it reflects with our community. Tothe other part of the conversation that, you started with there, what isdifferent today? Ah, I think one of the biggest. Things that I've said beforeand and it's I don't think anyone would disagree at this point, but there's alot more options when it comes to investing your money.

Back in the day when I was growing up and my dad was doing hisportfolio, it was like stocks and mutual funds, right? I mean, like literallythat was pretty much it. And there weren't like, and everything was through thenewspaper. I used to, like in the 80s, I remember I used to take the stockprices out of the newspaper for my dad and put it in the graph notebook andstuff.

And, and the. Five or 10 stocks that he owned or made mutualfunds, whatever it was. And like I was his mint.com. Charting stuff there. Buttoday, not only do you have access to stocks in the US you have access toglobal market stocks. You have access to, options weren't.

That common thing for back in the 80s amongst the generalpublic. So you have options, you have alternatives nowadays, right? I mean, allthese platforms, whether alternatives are private investments like startups andthings like that the crypto world, right? Forex, futures.

There's all great platforms out there, real estate, whethercommercial, residential, fractional, etc, etc. I mean, the number of differentways for one, for you or I to choose to allocate capital. is, significantlylarger than it was before and the information available to us on all those,assets and, and securities and stuff is also much, much better.

And so that goes to, kind of where we started with theconversation around financial advisors and the distribution 40 to 60, versus 20to 40. I will say, I mean, my, my first just... More, kind of basic comment tothat would be, listen, as you get older and you just build more wealth, youhave less time, but you don't want to make sure it's managed well.

The, the cohort today, I think we have, we'd have to look atthis in a more cohort analysis based way. If you look at that 20 to 25 cohorttoday or 25 to 30, 20 years from now. What percentage of them will they havemoney managed by others? Now, 20 years from now, what is others?

Is it AI? Is it all machines and stuff? Or is it, still people?That is, that's, a trillion dollar question that everyone's probably scramblingto figure out and hope they have the right answer to. But, I do think there'salso, amongst the younger generation, not just in finance, but definitively infinance, there's a...

Distrust of institutions and there's a larger distrust of kindof the way it was, so to say, and and there's the ability to take moreownership. I think we're seeing that reflected. In investing as well as inother, other areas. And so how does that evolve, right? And how do, how does,how do we enable that to evolve?

And so platforms like StockTwits are there to help you be moreself-directed, right? And again, learn and share ideas and ideally, and ideallyhave fun and make money doing it right and build wealth, doing it. But there'sa ton of effort going on in the industry right now to figure out, hey, what is.

What does financial advisory of the future look like, right?Because it's probably not going to look like what it looks like, today for themost part.

Mike Townsend: Why doyou think there's such an attack from politicians like Elizabeth Warren who'sopenly declared war on crypto? The simple take would be the U. S. owns theglobal reserve currency. Have a tremendous amount of financial upside from thatreality, and the banks are influencing the politic politicians. And if cryptowere to come in and disintermediate the banking control and maybe the globalAncy Global Reserve, global reserve currency power of the U S D that preventsdown, that presents some downside risk.

And so you see this natural resistance. Do you take on thatdichotomy, or do you see something more going on as to why there's politicalresistance against cryptography?

Rishi Khanna: No, Imean, so let's, let's look at the underlying assumption of what you are saying,right? The underlying assumption of what you are saying is that adecentralized, digital currency is better...

Then a, fiat centralized, central government controlledcurrency. And there, there's I don't know that I believe that. I, I thinkthat's probably a better source for chaos than not. But I don't know that we'resophisticated enough to be able to handle that. So on that premise right there,right?

I mean, that, that's a premise that says, okay, if we believethat now. You can still have both sides of that kind of statement be true,right? So why do we, why are we seeing like government pushback and stuff? Idon't know that I'm like a, I believe in like the depth of that conspiracy ofsaying that, Hey, it's the banks and this and that.

I think there, I've spent a lot of time in crypto. I've done alot. I mean, like I'm pretty familiar with it and, just having thisconversation with folks two days ago that, spend a lot of time in crypto. Thechallenge is the industry largely has been about just price action and, quickwins and, building, big bags and getting out, right?

And so the actual value that's lately been, That's beingdelivered, right? What, real value is being delivered, and it's not going tohappen, it's not happening really at the coin level yeah, blockchain technologyis interesting, I think it's more valuable in a B2B setting than there arereally B2C examples, I think I was I was hopeful that gaming was going to be aninteresting place to get, a foothold.

I think what everyone's realized is building great games isactually really hard and it's really, kind of easy to build up hype and sell afew tokens up front and, sell a few NFTs up front and, and then, oh, we tried,sorry, we're just going to, take the few million we have left and, kind of cashout which is generally what we've seen over, over over the last few years.

I, I don't, I don't know that. I, I think, listen the, on thegovernment policy side, there's too many people that are uninformed, whetherit's the Elizabeth Warrens or not I think they're trying to, they come from aplace that the problem they're trying to solve is the wealth gap and theproblem they're trying to solve is the fact that, directionally from a wealthgap perspective and a sustainability perspective, the U.

S. We have a lot of structural roles. My opinion started, kindof in the 80s with Reaganomics and everything that happened during then thatkind of set us up for this, calamity where that we're heading towards veryquickly. But yeah, yeah, I don't think they have the right policies, but atthis point, I don't even know if they have the capability of putting rightpolicies in place.

Just. Because of the logjam of, that would mean people wouldhave to agree and have discourse and agree to disagree, but move forward onthings and not get everything that they want. So that's, if we're going toblend the economics and politics side of the conversation, which are, which isfair, because that's, that's reality, right?

We pick an economic system, we pick a political system and wehope they work.

Mike Townsend: Yeah,

I guess I'm somewhat surprised to hear you say that you'reundecided as to whether or not you think a global reserve currency managed bythe U. S. government is going to perform better in the long term than acryptographically backed Bitcoin currency combined with other currencies on topof that.

Rishi Khanna: Butagain, when you say perform, perform in what context? What's the purpose of acurrency? It's a tool. It's just a tool. It's not the goal.

Mike Townsend: Yeah.I guess I would define perform as have stability in a currency that's designedto have stability. If the, here, here's, here's, here's my linchpin of the, ofthe perspective is that if one or two people are capable of raising interestrates for effectively the entire world and controlling monetary supply for theentire world, that would be akin to a dictatorship.

From a political power standpoint. If one person has all thecontrol, then they might make the right decision most of the time, but, If youbelieve a democratic system, which is a decentralized voting mechanism, isbetter for government, then you would view a decentralized voting mechanism formoney to be also a more efficient

way.

Rishi Khanna: I thinkthat's very wrong, right? De Democratic voting is not the same thing asdecentralized. That would Decentralized would mean that everything we do isreferendum driven. That's decentralized and and that's, that's like adecentralized coin analogy, right? And again, it's not the, yes, okay, hey, wehave a Fed chairman and the Fed committee, and so it's a committee of howevermany people are in the Fed that vote to raise interest rates.

Today, the US is the global reserve. That doesn't mean it'sgoing to be the global reserve forever, right? Powers come and go and, in 50years from now, it may not be the US, right? And but going back to, okay, hey,we have, a committee that can change interest rates, by the way, that committeecan be fired, we can vote and change that committee in and out through ourgovernment, it's, we have to separate that the U.

S. is a global influence from how our system works, becausethose are two things that can move in different directions but then, hey, wehave the opportunity to vote on senators and house folks and presidents andstuff that, that actually change that system. And, and why do we have that,right?

Why do we have governments? We have governments because, humansare tribal primates and we need, we want to be organized in societies. What Iargue, and I used to say this two, three years ago with, with the rise of likekind of defi and everything with that was that we will have a trulydecentralized current global decentralized currency when we have a trulyglobal, decentralized humanity.

And I'm betting you one will never happen, right? Becausethat's not how humans want to be. And so when you say tools we need to governsociety, now does that mean we cannot have a global currency? Yeah. That'sattainable one day, but that's a whole different tribal problem. And this justgoes back to behavioral, behavioral psychology and how humans operate.

Can we just have no countries? Can we have no boundaries,right? Like theoretically. But does it seem realistic? And yeah, we could havea dominant global credit and that could still happen, right? It could,something like a USDC could eventually morph and, you could see there's thepotentials there.

I don't think it's something that happens in two years, fiveyears. There's also this level in society today, especially with younger peopleof impatience and they think everything happens like super fast. I was justreading the meme today. I don't even know if the meme was just. This issomething we covered on Stockington, our newsletter, where, the CEO of Costcois changing, and he worked his way up over 40 years.

He started, by working a forklift, and he's now the CEO ofCostco, but it took 40 years. I can tell you there's The young generationdoesn't necessarily have that same ethos and understanding. They're like, Oh,we should be able to be CEO in five years, right? Kind of thing.

And and there's, and that's a little bit of function ofinformation and society and technology and, everything that's happened. But Ithink the same could apply to currency. Does it mean that we can never have aglobal currency that is. No, I don't think it doesn't mean that, but I thinkit's, it's not as straightforward as, Hey, we just have a decentralizedcurrency because we don't like what, Powell is doing right now.

Because Powell won't be around forever, right? Powell will begone in two years. And then you can have somebody that's just going to takeinterest rates back down to zero. And you know what? That causes a whole shitton of problems as we've seen. And I don't, again, when I just come back to,we're, we're still people, we're still trying to govern people.

And it's not a vacuum of just money for the sake of money or,or charts for the sake of charts. And that's where, that's where DeFi anddecentralization struggles because it tries to disconnect things from howhumans work.

Mike Townsend: Yeah.

One thing I'm sensing in you that I also feel is that there'sno steady state solution for the world that will just work indefinitely.

And I think that's a fallacy that traps people into certainpolitical ideologies or even... Crypto ideologies or financial ideologies. Itreally is an adaptation based on the technology and probably the culture of, ofthe, of the world that we live in today. One of the, and so I think people lookfor what's a, what's a foundational model that can be applied across ongoingtechnological layers and across long periods of time.

One of them I think is the blend of, we'll call it power, inthe U. S. between the states and the federal government. Where it seems to workreally well if you can iterate a bunch of different experiments to figure outwhat's, what's the best way to structure a healthcare policy. What's the bestway to structure education policy or transportation or social security,whatever it is, run this experiment on a local state level and then you getsome, you get some data to come in and say, Oh, okay, Florida is doing well orAlaska, Alaska, whatever the states are, they're doing well and states payattention and they, they kind of copy each other and, and progressively movetowards what's working.

That would be one structural advantage to having instead of,China, which is just one policy top down for a billion people. I think thestructure of the U. S. in complement of the state and the federal governmentprovides a structural advantage. Potentially it's slower, but maybe it's morestable.

And I think of money as, you could draw a similar analogy,where if there's multiple layers of influence, you'll call it, then... It's, ithas a structural advantage for stability, and depending on your designcriteria, but if you wanted a currency that was designed for stability, itwould probably have one that's people could contribute to it, they could voteon the mechanism for it, we could, determine, in the case of Bitcoin, it's predetermined how much will be allocated into the into the pool, but I just draw avery, I just have a large skepticism for the decision integrity of Bitcoin.

The Federal Government across pretty much every department,including the Federal Reserve.

Rishi Khanna: I mean,a lot of people this goes back to the distrust thing I was saying, right? Manypeople do whether it's for the right reasons or not. I don't think anyone woulddisagree hey, being able to test things out in smaller settings and learn fromthat.

Assuming things scale the same way, I think that's one of thechallenges with that statement is, if it's going to work in Alaska, that has nomeaning that it'll work across the entire U. S., right? And I mean, I thinkwe're essentially seeing that because, of our system. But then why, why, withthat, why can't we learn?

From other countries, right? I mean, you want to talk abouthealthcare most countries do better than we do. We, and it's not a fuckingrocket science problem here. It's just a policy and politics problem. But wehaven't learned that, right? And, and it would be much better for us. It'd bemuch better for capitalism.

As a person that's been doing startups since 25, for 25 years,every time I start a company, one of the biggest things we got to think aboutis, oh, Healthcare is attached to a company. How do you, if you're going toquit your job, you're going to lose your healthcare to start a company. Ohshit, you got to worry about that.

I'm going to go change jobs and they don't have as goodhealthcare. Oh shit, I got to worry about that. Like what an asinine systemjust from a capitalistic perspective, right? Like why is my job and my abilityto stay healthy or receive medical attention? As well. Why is that? Why arethose two things attached?

Mike Townsend: Yeah.Holy crap. Dude, it, it comes from, it comes from a bad, it comes fromRoosevelt, 1942. After the war, there was incredible inflation. So he put in socompany, he put a wage cap and pe companies wanna get around the wage cap.

Rishi Khanna: I knowwhere it comes from and it's and it just, it's the unintended consequences ofan administrative decision, which you can still change, right?

It could have been right at the time. 'cause hey, you don'tknow better. And then you can change it, right? But we don't have that capacityanymore. Yeah, theoretically, could you learn from smaller experiments andstuff? I mean, I think there's... Most states I wouldn't live in in the US,right? Cause they're just, they're doing crazy shit.

So I guess what are we learning from those things? I don't wantFlorida's education system. Holy shit. I'm talking about a failed institutiongenerally, right? Texas is pretty bad too with the exception of some of theirfew big public universities, but that's about it. So what, yeah, I mean, yeah,you could, you can absolutely learn from experiments, right? That's how webuild companies and products. We try to do experiments and iterate and stuffbut that doesn't mean people are still different. Governments are, are adifferent thing, right? And policy is different.

We can't even agree on a policy. We can't, They can't even geta, somebody to actually run the house right now voted in what do we, let aloneactually pass any policy, right? We can't even start the process right now.It's, it's just kind of hilarious at this point.

Mike Townsend: Yeah.

What do you, what do you make of the of the... The memeculture. So what I mean by that is when people are creating memes effectivelyThey're creating ideas that are resonating with other people and those ideasResonate with other people because it feels like an unexpressed truth And thenof course through social media it reverberates at the speed of light across theworld and it's it almost reminds me I don't know if you ever seen a beehiveSometimes you'll see like a beehive that has a million bees on it and you'llsee these waves ripple throughout the beehive and it feels kind of like that'swhat's happening across the earth is that there's like a meme that hits andit's like this, it's like it just ripples across the whole world and it'salmost like everyone gets a slight.

Upgrade or change in their psychology and, and we're inresidence together. Yeah. Tell me what you think about that.

Rishi Khanna: I thinkthose are really interesting, right? I mean, they serve a few different to yourpoint they can be funny, they can express a, a hard truth in maybe a funny waythat, people, aren't willing to say directly or things like that.

But I think that fundamentally, I think. Memes are a sharedexpression, right? I mean, they become a meme because a lot of people, kind ofIt resonated with, right? And whether that means agree or not doesn't reallymatter, but but I think that's, that's that tribal nature.

That's, that's humanity I mean, that shows you globally, we canhave commonality just because, we're from different countries or backgrounds orthis or that doesn't mean we can't find those commonalities. Now, memes canalso be super isolated, right? Within just the community, right?

There's memes within the crypto community, within the tradingcommunity but you know, there's memes community, but and, but some of themescape. And get bigger and bigger. And I still love the, the Jordan crying one,right? Whenever that pops up again where people use, Jordan crying, as adifferent for, for various different memes or whatever, but I, I think, memesthat the expression of kind of commonality, like that's, that's a human truth.

And it goes to show you like, We have, we have a lot ofcommonalities and it's, and it can be both a good and a bad way to spreadsomething, right? I mean, cause, but that's any piece of information, right? Imean, anything can be used for good or evil. A meme can be good, it can be,evil, bad, whatever but that's just the truth, of, of us as humans and people.

Mike Townsend: Do youthink that you obviously are collecting a ton of data in the form of text? Andmaybe other forms of images on StockTwits. AI is obviously a new revolutionarytechnology that is differentiated by the access to large datasets. TwitterX hasclosed off the walls. I saw that StackOverflow, which is the world's largestrepository for developer research help, Q& A basically laid off 23 percentof their workforce.

And they attribute that to the, to ai Yeah. Growth of, of ai,which ironically, AI got much of its data from Stack Overflow. So it's, it'santhem effectively just a new window to the same information in a new way.Yeah. Do you, what role do you see stock t its taking with AI in particular,how, how you relate to protect or grow your dataset?

Rishi Khanna: Yeah,so I mean, I think the Stack Overflow is one of many very good examples of,hey, there are real, IP and copyright ownership issues, right? Because if youcan You know, go and scrape all of Stack Overflow and a few of other relatedsites and, and GitHub and things like that, so I'm an engineer by background,right?

And if you can go get all of that, that's a really amazing bodyof knowledge. And then, because computers can do a lot of things faster andgenerative AI models and large language models now have gotten to a point wherethey're really bad you can put companies out of business, right? Or, harm themmaterially.

I think that's a very real... Challenge. I mean, but there's agreat opportunity on the other side. I think the The hard thing and hey, thisgoes back to the whole distributed and the nature of information anddecentralization and things like that. How can you maintain fairness butdeliver the value to humanity?

I think we would probably both agree and argue that Hey, it'sobviously much better if you can quickly type something in and get the rightanswer in a way that you can understand it, within seconds versus, I used touse Stack Overflow a lot. You'd have to spend a good amount of time to find theright answer on there, right?

Yeah. Sometimes you found it in 10 minutes. Sometimes it tookme like two days to find the right answer. So from that perspective, I mean, Ithink we, we have to figure out how to balance it from a stock to itsperspective. We are fortunate, because we have, 14 years of, of messages andcontent and, information built up.

We have that asset there. Now, we're currently being a littlebit more careful. We're not like, just jumping in all in and oh, we're going tosolve things with AI and the world's going to be better. But we are, we are,going to express our, copyright and, IP rights against that information, but wealso want to figure out, hey, what's a good way to, utilize it, whether that'spartnering with, folks that have the, expertise and, and firepower to turn itinto a, social good, into something that, we can deliver value back To at leastour community, if not the broader, investing and trading community.

But you know, if we, if every site that had data and contentthat was of value just, was obligated to give it up then we'd very quickly, seethose sites eventually go away, right? I mean, if Stack Overflow doesn't have abusiness model because all their information keeps getting, scraped away, thenStack Overflow goes away and things keep going away.

And eventually you run out of things to train the models,right? And we have to be careful about both sides, kind of that, input, output,supply, demand, whatever the, analogy there is. But you know, I think for usit's an opportunity, but we're going to be pretty careful about it becausealso, in our domain we're dealing with people's money.

I mean, when you're... That's where I think, we want to bereally cautious with the, the, AI in financial services, right? I mean, I thinkthere are some obvious kind of use cases and support and, things of thatnature, but when you start, saying, hey, AI is going to help me invest rightnow at this point in time, I mean, in 2023, I think we want to be prettycareful because, the, we're not there.

I don't think we're there yet from a I And AI specifically, Imean, like this, AI has been used in finance for 20 years plus, right? Machinelearning and stuff. That's very different. When you think about, all thesequant strategies and different strategies of that nature, that's all.

I mean, AI is a very broad term, I think, In current, time, we,we speak of AI right now, what's hot is the generative AI world, LLMs andstuff, which are a, a subset, albeit a powerful one, but a subset of AI I don'tthink, we're there yet with LLMs, where we can just be like, oh, we don't needfinancial advisors, or we don't need, people to double check that the answerwas right because, if you ask okay, what is, Microsoft's Last da da da da daand if, even if one of those numbers is wrong and you're putting it into yourmodel, if you're an investor and whatnot, that, that's, that's problematicbecause people trust these things to be implicitly kind of correct.

Mike Townsend: Gotit.

So it sounds like you're defensively minded. You're aware thatother countries are facing a threat from AI aggregation of data and thendisplacing them through a new interface window. We'll call it with AI. Andyou've aggregated a ton of data, and you're thinking about how to best use it,and it's clear that there's a, probably a legal risk in launching an AI withinSocktwits because you're recommending financial data, or it potentially could,and that could present some risk.

I guess I wonder about this in the sense that, would I, would Irather have access to a million people actively talking? On a platform or wouldI rather have access to one person who's aggregated everything that's ever beensaid on that platform and combined it in the most sophisticated way?

Rishi Khanna: That'sa terrific question. I don't, I was going to say I don't know the answer tothat because I don't know that there is a answer to that. Meaning, I think,sadly, the answer is it depends on what your goal is, right? And so if you'rethere, there's value to finding a precise answer. But if your question is morekind of open and general yeah, I want to learn about investing.

How do I learn? Yeah, I mean today you could just Google thatand you'll get tons of different YouTube videos. You'll get, lots of differentwebsites. You'll get a lot of people offering you discords and stuff like that.There is all of those. But again, if I go back to saying, hey, that's, that'sabout tribe and community and connecting.

You want to find the right place for that and there's no oneanswer. There's no singularity to that answer, right? I mean, now if you areasking a factual question or a, a specific question that's like kind of, hey,what does, tell me the sentiment of the community across, Tesla, blah, blah,blah.

And their current earnings reports. Yeah if you can ask thatmore quickly without having to search that, now, that happens to be a questionyou can just go to the Tesla stream on StockTwits and see the sentiment meter,and you'll know the answer to that question right now. But, it's perfectly fairto say, hey, good interface for that be, I just, I don't even want it to go tothe Tesla page, I just want to be able to type that in.

And, get the sentiment or get, and with a blurb about, andhere's what they're saying about, Tesla's earnings this week or whatever. Ithink there's going to be a tremendous amount of value added from LLMs incommunicating with us. And, I just think we want to be careful, but, butthere's also going to be a tremendous amount just...

I mean, I think the big companies are much faster than us, butthat's, that's the benefit too to us, right? I mean, if, if institutionalinvestors have access to these big computers and, big things as they, as theyhave had for decades that is the beauty of technology is now I have the samepower that, any mutual fund, ETF, hedge fund, generally speaking has.

I mean, there's still, there's this not perfect symmetry, butbut I can get access to the information gap, the information asymmetry. Isclosing fast, and I think it just keeps going closing faster and faster andfaster. And that's the opportunity of, kind of a full level playing field.

Time is the other, yeah. Leveling function. That's, that's a,it's fascinating because

Mike Townsend: I,

I agree with both ofyour points. The one that you made earlier in the conversation about there's noforeseeable end to the wealth inequality growing, and then at the same time,there's this. Data asymmetry propagating across the entire world andinformation asymmetry.

Like effectively, whether I was born with a computer in Vietnamor born in Silicon Valley, like that, that is becoming like really, reallyundifferentiated in terms of access to the same economic potential. And yet wehave increasing wealth inequality. Maybe that's just, maybe we're looking at itjust within the United States.

One thought I've had is that The U. S. has, differentiateditself in the last hundred years by its technological revolution. And othercountries now are getting online, like India and other large countries. And sothe, the level, the, they're like, it's like at the Panama Canal, where theyhave the levees, or they, they open them up and they're like, locks comingtogether.

So maybe that's one context for how it could be. I just, Isometimes look, think about A. I., and I think what could, assuming I had thesame access to AI, how could anyone ever make a living betting on anythingother than what an AI, the most advanced AI would come up with? The onlyadvantage that a person would have would be something that's not, some data orinformation that's not accessible through computers.

Maybe it's like I'm interpreting the personality type of aleader of a company or some other

Rishi Khanna: Let me,Let me answer that with kind of what I've said before, but also going back tothe, kind of the wealth gap, right? So hey, information asymmetry, as thatkeeps coming down, that means the opportunity to, build large wealth in themarkets or wherever that information asymmetry is playing out is being reduced.

And and then secondarily we have a whole system designed togive, give advantages to those that already have the assets, right? And hey,for 60 years, from 1940, post World War II through, call it 2008, there was acohort of folks that had big advantages that built up large assets, and thenthey started making policy friendly towards themselves in, the 80s forward.

And so now those policies just, enable the, that asset to justkind of keep benefiting, right? And if your opportunities are smaller andsmaller, because everyone has access to the same information and sameinformation asymmetry then hey, I don't have the same opportunities to hitthose home runs and stuff that people could have done when it was quieter,right?

So that's, I think that's where those two things can be. Trueand are being true right today. That doesn't mean there's not still greatopportunities to build tremendous wealth in the US and like that is one placefundamentally where we are different than many other places. Not all others,but definitely many other places.

So just one, kind of on that now to your question of Hey, ifyou had this one God AI, right? Master AI, it was like the best AI in theworld. Why would you do anything? It didn't tell you. If you're asked somethingsuper factual, like how to build something where physics is important. I don'tknow, you probably should listen to that to a degree because that's okay,that's math and that's physics and that, but if you're, if you're doingsomething that is still rooted fundamentally in humans participating and humansmaking decisions, and this goes back to markets markets are still, at the day,if markets were entirely run by computers, like 100%, then yes, then that'skind of like whoever's computer is bigger is gonna win kind of thing.

But if we still have human participants in the markets, and,and, more of the markets and not, and for many years, by the way, I mean, quantsystems have been like 70 percent of trading volume. So it's not we haven't hada scenario where computers are driving. 70 percent of the trading volume, butthose computers are still programmed by humans, humans, right?

Those quant models are reflective of a human's, understandingof the data and the world. Now, some of them are much better than others,right? Like Jim Simmons and Rentech or, the two stigmas of the world and stuffthat have had, D. Shaw and stuff like that. But, there'll be the nextgeneration of those, and the next generation of those.

But if humans are still participating, that's where AI as oftoday, right? Now, who knows, again, how, how, do we hit singularity, right?Can, can a machine be a human, essentially?

Mike Townsend: Ithink one point is, yeah, it's, it's ultimately it's ultimately an imperfectsystem from the, from the computer standpoint, if the humans aren'tparticipating on the input level, but also on the management level.

As long as humans have control of the money, Then then there'llbe, then there'll be competing AIs for distributing that money. And what thatmeans is there'll be not just, not just like white hat distributing mechanisms.There'll also be like. Black Hat counterintelligence. What I mean, an exampleof that would be, Okay, your, Rishi is using an AI, and I'm using a differentAI, and my AI is going to create a meme that's I just saw you invested inApple.

You went big into Apple. I just created a thousand memes andpushed them out onto all my accounts on how Apple is evil and Apple, and, and,and there's like this, okay, now I'm, now I'm battling you. Now there's somecompetition happening not just on the, not just on the, Performance of thecompany, but on the evaluation of the performance.

Because as it's not just about the performance. It's about whatpeople are willing to value it at. Namely GameStop and, that's a perfectexample.

Rishi Khanna: There,there are, there are perfectly legitimate, healthy, okay, good ways to do that.But then there's also a ton of I mean, what you're also describing could alsojust be a simple pump and dump scheme, right?

Mike Townsend: For,Is that nefarious? Is pump and dump a nefarious tactic, do you think?

Rishi Khanna: Yeah, Imean, it is nefarious and it happens to also be illegal

Mike Townsend: but,why is it nefarious? Yeah, I mean, I think. Just make that, make that. I mean,

Rishi Khanna:falsely. Again, so you are falsely trying to put information out thereknowingly you know this is bad information.

Incorrect information you're putting out there to trick peopleagain. That's so should you be allowed to lie to people and trick people foryour own financial gain? Like in one world in one type of society. Sure. That'snot the world of society I or many others want to live in. That's why you needto have rules to the game.

Right? And that's why Pump It Dumps. are illegal. Like again,this, and again, I don't like, the free for all open society where anythinggoes and buyer beware and everyone has to wash their own back. That's just nothow most humans are built and nor, nor is that how most humans want to live.

There are definitively a pocket of those folks. But that's not.We have 8 billion people, or however many, I think 8, 9 billion now, right?That's not a really good organizing principle to have a functioning planet.

Mike Townsend: Why doyou think we haven't seen more effects like AMC and GameStop since those havehappened?

When those happened, that was like all the rage. It was such afascinating concept that the community could organize together to prevent, topresent an opposing financial force through the hedge funds.

Rishi Khanna: I mean,so I think, one of the key things to that was there was a fundamentally likepoor risk management at a large scale by a set of hedge funds that presentedthat opportunity to do that.

Most people aren't that. Let's call it sloppy with their riskmanagement. And so like those opportunities are not like so abundant, right? Imean, people are constantly scanning for short interest and things like that.But you know, most people, when they're putting on short positions and stuff,which are highly risky, right?

But necessary for markets to function and for price discoverybut are highly risky. They're doing it in a way that, hey, they can't getcompletely blown out like what happened, with Melvin and related firms. So Ithink that was a very unique thing spotted at the right time, right?

I mean, and I argue, so people will say, oh man, that shouldhave never happened, right? And this goes to kind of some of your, thecommentary around like in the government oh, how do you know GameStop shouldnever have happened? GameStop wasn't the fault of like WallStreetBets users andReddit and like those folks.

It was the fault of this bad risk management and exposure forthis arguably not terrific company, but that had good brand value and it was amoment of, Main Street taking on Wall Street in a fuck the man kind of scenariothat just all the things were right. Everyone was home at the time.

Everyone had stimulus money on the side, right? I don't thinkwe're going to see the conversion of that with all those things coming at thesame point. That was very much a Black Swan moment. For, for GameStop, AMC, onour platform, AMC actually maintained the number one most active ticker onStockTwits for 21, for 22.

I haven't checked the data yet, like where it stands this year,but it's probably still in the top five, if not top three, or potentially evenstill one. And so AMC, was another kind of example of that. We've seen it atsmaller scales, but that, that larger scale, like we would need all thesethings to kind of weirdly come together at the same time, but we've, we've seenit with bankruptcies, right?

You've seen it with the Hertz's and whatnot of the world, whereI get asked hey, how do you identify a meme stock or something? And I thinkthere's, a few different factors there. I do think one part of it is, is thatit's a brand name, right? I mean, like all these meme stocks we've had areconsumer brand names because.

We associate with that, whether it's, GameStop or AMC in themovies or Hertz and rental cars, right? All these things we're able to bed,bath and beyond, right? I mean, come on, who here didn't buy something forcollege, to bed, bath and beyond? I mean, that was like the that's, that's whatI identify bed, bath and beyond with, right?

Getting ready for college and stuff. I do think, you gotta bethis, public consumer brand. You gotta have. There's got to be some catalystthat, kind of pits aside the Main Street versus Wall Street kind of, contextthere, because that's a lot of what GameStop was about, for people in the endand by the people in the end that it didn't end up well for because if you'rebuying GameStop at 300, 400, it did not end up well for you but it, It wasn'tretail's fault.

There was now then there was poor risk management on the retailside, right? And for people that were going in, but you know, what the otherside is, you could argue that wasn't maybe just also. More an entertainmentbudget than an investing budget. And that's definitely not what the SEC wantsto hear.

That's not what regulators want to hear. How dare you makestocks, but Hey, you guys are like, you guys legalized the lotto and sportsbetting and stuff. So it's not like you really care about how like people losetheir money. Let's not get, you just, don't like the markets and exchanges are,they do have repercussions across a lot of other things. So I understand thatlike me betting on the bills, isn't now I don't sports bet, but I'm a big billsfan and, every year we're going to win the Super Bowl, but it's not going tohave ripple effects through pension funds and, endowments of hospitals and,whatnot.

So that's what I mean, I think.

Mike Townsend: Onethought and then one last question.

One thought is that when I think about one potentialmonetization strategy that you could implement is you have a ton of consumer,intelligent investor consumer data, and you could use AI in a sense toeffectively aggregate types of conversations that are happening.

And then allow premium subscribers to get access to trends,like what is trending? Because I imagine you're upstream from stock prices,right? People are going to be talking about something, and then there's goingto be a reaction in the market. And if you could see that okay, here's theGoogle trends or the Google analytics of what people are talking about, thenthat presents an investment opportunity and probably its own inner circle ofconversations in

Rishi Khanna: and ofitself.

We'll let you into the beta in the coming months. Yeah, that'dbe awesome. Yeah. Something like that. Yeah, I mean, we do know there's a lotof opportunity to help people identify. There is a lot of movement, right?Whether it's in the form of volatility, conversational volatility, and thingslike that.

Sentiment and trending don't always correlate with price. And Ithink that's the thing that everyone needs to learn and make sure. And again,nothing we do is about giving investment advice, and it's meant to be justinformation only and what not. But yeah, there's a lot of like really rich...Kind of signals to get out of it.

And then, let people decide how to, kind of use that or diveinto that, you can go on StockTwits today and go to the market section and seewhat's trending right now. Meaning what is, what stocks, what's the number onestock right now that's trending, I don't even know, I can look it up, but thatmeans Hey, it has an unusually high relative level of conversation and maybeit's because of earnings, maybe it's because of, some announcement they made.

Maybe it's because of something macro, right? If they are. Ifthey were an oil company and like their oil field blew up or something likethat, whatever it might be. Yeah, but I mean, I think that's, that's, that's avery real opportunity for us that we, we want to, kind of, give, give thatvalue back to the community and kind of premium subscription model.

And then a lot of things kind of related to that to make.

Mike Townsend: It's afun company to run, man.

Last question is just, how can, what would, what would behelpful for you? Is there anything in particular you're looking for or couldhelp StockTwits or Rishi? And where are you? Are you at X or Twitter?

Are you writing personally?

Rishi Khanna: I'm,LinkedIn and StockTwits are probably the best. I mean, I've, I've been on,Twitter, X, whatever we're going to call it, since 07, but I spend very littletime there these days. But, LinkedIn StockTwits like those are going to be the,the best places.

I'm on threads, but it doesn't feel like a lot of people arestill there. But it goes back to what we've been talking about. We've beentalking about AI a lot, and I think there's tremendous opportunity there forus. We're in a learning phase, though, right? I mean, and that's where I justcame back from a conference, and the big thing was, I'm like, hey, I just wantto talk to as many people that are, both much, much better experts on AI andhave the knowledge and perspective.

But also, coming from the angle of perspective of investing inmarkets and things like that. And so for, for us, we're all just trying tolearn, kind of, the AI thing and how can we Make sure that it's a positivecontribution back to our community at least, but ideally to the broader,trading and investing community and leveraging the assets that we have.

And maybe that's then also partnering it up with other folksthat have, other rich assets that we maybe don't, right. In the form of data orother, other contexts. But I think there's, there's a lot to do there, butwe're still, we're still learning and We're very early in that hype cycle,right?

I've done this startup thing for a while now, been through afew hype cycles, so I'm okay not, being just, jumping off the edge of the cliffhere right away and oh, we just got to put a product out because I think in ourcase, that's not the right decision. And we'd rather make sure, hey, let'slearn and and then give it the good college try.

Mike Townsend:Awesome. Thanks for spending so much time with me, Rishi. This has been anawesome conversation. I really enjoyed it.

Rishi Khanna: Yeah,man, yeah, we covered a lot of ground, had a lot of fun thank you very much andappreciate the opportunity. Talk soon. Alright, bye.

‍