Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
TeaSci | Ep2 | DeSci and DNA
Recorded: April 1, 2025 Duration: 1:13:39Space Recording
Short Summary
The discussion covers GenomesDAO's utility token, Genome, and SAFE Foundation's $25 million bid for a data set, reflecting ongoing fundraising and token launch activities. Trends in DeFi highlight larger companies becoming central hubs, while innovations in blockchain technology aim to decentralize genomic data transactions. Growth is anticipated as DeFi yields attract more users, potentially leading to a significant increase in customer acquisition.
Full Transcription
Hello, hello. hello hello hello winnie bringing you up
joshua how are you good afternoon aldo i'm doing great it's afternoon where you are or morning
it is afternoon and it's 4 p.m and we had an hour change on sunday so
the x settings say 5 p.m whereas it is 4 p.m so so so that was a daylight savings exactly
but no worries
I'm here, actually better
so yeah
all good
all good in the world and beautiful sunshine
even in Scotland at the moment
yes, I'm back in London
myself and it is
beautiful, we're going to get I think
two weeks of this they say so very
exciting okay guys we're just gonna share around the spaces as we said there because of daylight
savings we had a bit of a an issue and we're starting actually an hour early this time so
everybody here please feel free to sort of retweet tell everybody that we're we're in
the spaces and tag your favorite DSi folks.
Today we are talking about something that has become quite popular in the crypto Twitter DSi, in particular DSi news, which is very exciting.
So I look forward to getting stuck into that and getting some different points of view
from across the spectrum.
I know we have two very experienced people in the audience here today, Winnie and Aldo
at GenomeStile.
So let's share around for a little bit longer and give it one or two more minutes and then
we'll get started.
Okay.
New comers incoming. Hello Chrissy.
All right, I think we should start now just because it is seven minutes past the hour,
so people coming in will be interested to hear. So good morning, everybody. Good afternoon to those of you on this side of the world. Today we are going to be speaking a little bit about the DNA topic in the aftermath of 23andMe announcing their bankruptcy.
There's a lot of questions around what this means for the data in and how we at the dsci projects the dsci space can potentially
rescue some of that data capitalize on this moment and just generally moving forward what does dna
data look like in the decentralized science space how do we most effectively capitalize on that and
we have two of the most perfect guests possible for that we have winnie's joe and aldo
uh aldo from genomes down i won't introduce them for themselves i'll let them introduce themselves
uh but everybody so uh welcome to winnie if you'd like to do a quick soft intro yeah hi everyone
thanks for inviting me josh um joshua um i am the co-founder of Avanessa Labs.
So before Avanessa Labs, I actually started two companies.
One in particular was on cancer data.
So we do deal with a lot of different kinds of data sets, including some of the DNA data
relevant to mutation.
So happy to talk to everyone and also share some of the thoughts with everyone.
Nice to meet you.
Thanks, Willy.
And Aldo, over to yourself and give a bit of background about yourself and GenomesDAO
and why you're on their spaces.
Sure.
Hi, everyone.
My name is Aldo De Paap.
I'm the co-founder and CEO of GenomesDAO.
We are an infrastructure of virtual vaults that hold genomic data as such so that when it is
queried or surveyed for research purposes, it is done with the interest of everyone in mind. So,
the individual patient all the way up to the big pharma who might want to use it and we've got
loads of features on our infrastructure to ensure that that is done properly from end-to-end
encryption to a unique repeat consent protocol developed with the blockchain all the way up to
our own token genome which is the utility token that everyone receives if their vault is used.
Previously, I built another tech venture in education, a social impact venture that I'm
very proud of called TeachPitch.
And yeah, the journey with GenomesDAO has been going since 2018.
And last week was a big week for us because it kind of brought us back to our origin story, but more about that later.
Great. Can't wait to hear a bit more about the origin story.
So which one of you two feels confident in tackling the sort of setting the scene as to what happened recently with this 23andme bankruptcy and
what your understanding is what happened with the data and i'll give a bit of a backdrop which is
that i only found out about this sort of through the channels of dc but much earlier on a few years
prior i know that 23andme and ancestry.com were both individually bought out,
majority ownership stake bought out by BlackRock and Vanguard, respectively.
And this was something that I thought was really terrible at the time
when I heard it was happening, and I sort of assumed that a data breach
was on its way so that that data could be, you know,
the various things could be done with that.
And, you know, not too could be done with that and you
know not too long later only i think it was only eight months later i did there was a data breach
in i believe both so just for context you know these two companies are very important in the
genomics data space but over to aldo to talk a little bit about their more recent problems yeah
and i'm sure winnie winnie knows a lot as well so winnie feel free to to kind of uh come in when whenever uh additional facts need to be given but our version
of events is that uh 23andme uh is a company started in 2006 and they were one of the first
ones to bring genetic testing to the consumer right so So not through a lab or not done in hospitals,
but just with a home testing kit sent to your house whereby you could test it yourself. And
as a consequence, also receive the results of your genetic testing yourself and interpret those as a
quirky report, as a gimmicky report in the beginning mainly focused
on genetic ancestry so what what they you know what they you paid like let's say 200 dollars
and then you you would part with some saliva via a tube that would be sent to a lab
23andMe's lab and then you would in return get a report. What a lot of people weren't aware
of was that at the same time, 23andMe could keep your data. So they could basically, the sequenced
material was in their possession, and that allowed them also to commercially exploit your information and sell it on to third parties which they
successfully also did big deals with notable deals with Genentech and GlaxoSmithKline and
there are others that we've blogged about over the years but it was the deal in 2018, which is also our origins year, that kind of raised our eyebrows up to such a
level that we started the company. Because in 2018, there was a $300 million deal with
GlaxoSmithKline closed with 23andMe for the transaction of 5 million exomes so at 60 dollars each basically the the data was sold
to GlaxoSmithKline and that for us was the first sign in the market that there was an actual
monetary value to be given to your genomic information previously it was a little bit of a
of a give and take or it wasn't very clear whether we were
talking genomic data or something else but this transaction in 2018 for us was like okay
this unfortunately can only go one way which is the wrong way because now loads of people are
waking up to the notion like hey there's a commercial value to my information, and where is this going to go? If people smell money, then, you know,
this invites loads of other stakeholders
with perhaps the wrong intentions.
And, you know, that kind of snowballed further
into a bigger conversation from there.
So 23andMe already then, there was lots of scrutiny
around the business model of 23andMe
when they started doing that.
So, yeah, kind of our take to that, you know, now seven years later was, OK, let's try to build an infrastructure which is essentially the safe version of 23andMe.
So if the model of 23andMe is like, you you your your data is taken to a lab because
it is in that lab the lab is also the owner right that is wrong with the with the with the with the
current web 2 model um um uh and and uh um the the because it is in the lab, the lab can basically,
has all the power essentially.
And we say, well,
why not give that power back
by essentially uploading
the sequenced information
to an infrastructure,
giving certified ownership
back to the individual DNA owner
so they can trade with it
and they can give permission
over when their data is used, what will be done with it and they can give permission uh over when their
data is used what will be done with it etc etc etc um okay after that hey i'm gonna i'm gonna i'm
gonna stop you there so if we do we need to get a bit more into the the technicalities of what can
actually be done with web3 technology but before we do before we do move on to that i just want to touch base a little bit more on um okay so 23andme is doing some things with your data most people are unaware
that that was even happening and most people that are aware are unaware of what's being done
with that data and so i think that this is a really important thing is like okay their data's
being sold to whom we have some names genetic andetic and Collective Smith-Kline, but for what reason?
It's something that I think a lot of people are still very much in the dark on of,
why is my genomic data valuable?
I know it, you know, I understand that it is, but why?
And Wendy, can you shed some light on that about what, you know,
historically and even presently,
what people are paying for when they're buying this genomic data?
What are companies looking for? Why is it valuable? presently what people are paying for when they're buying this genomic data what what what are
companies looking for why is it valuable sure so i will start from my personal experience with my
first company um is that whenever pharmaceutical companies come to a data company for data
require require a request usually what they want is to, in our case, fulfill the clinical requirements to
recruit patients into a particular clinical trials. So that is the number one thing,
because this is lucrative business. Because for one patient, these data companies, as long as they
have access to patients, and also one more thing, pharmaceutical companies actually cannot direct access
to patients, they're just against the IRB.
So therefore they have to ask for a third party
to get access to patients or users
to recruit to a certain clinical trial that's ongoing.
And that can be worth about $10,000 to $100,000.
So for rare diseases, it can go up to $300,000.
Okay, so that's one way that in the past
we have experiences working and collaborating
with pharmaceutical companies where they require us
to give them the data
analysis reports about particular patients.
So in the 23andMe cases, if I remember correctly, back in 2015, when FDA was trying to have
a closed monitor to 23andMe, I believe that they're already doing things relevant
to, okay, well, in what patients have a particular kind of genetic disease risk, and therefore,
they can start monitoring these patients themselves.
And whenever these patients will get into a particular disease, if it happens, well,
I mean, they can just go ahead and then submit the information to the particular companies
for that.
So the second way that pharmaceutical companies who tend to like to use the data is for marketing
purposes.
So for example, in, in, again, in the clinical trial space, whenever they need to set up
clinical trials for a particular location, let's say, where do we have the most lung
cancer patients?
You know, in what states and in what region? for a particular location, let's say, where do we have the most lung cancer patients,
you know, in what states and in what region,
they will tend to look at where are the geographic
of all the patients are.
And therefore they can also get the data
from these data companies regarding where the patients are
and therefore they can set up their clinical sites
more precisely depending on where the patients are as well as also other factors as well.
So these are the two major ones that I have personal experience that pharmaceutical companies are willing to pay for a big money to require the data or access to the data.
Okay, and so just to summarize from what I'm hearing is that big pharma is willing to pay large sums of money for data because the potential pharmaceutical output of, for example, rare disease therapy will be many, many, many hundreds of times more than the cost of that one piece of data.
And so they buy wholesale data in order to see if they can use that genomic sequencing for finding answers, finding therapies which they can sell.
Is that about right?
Yeah, well, in 23andMe's case,
it's actually slightly different than cancer data, right?
Because the patients or the users in general
haven't had any diseases yet.
I actually wasn't sure maybe I would know better
whether 23andMe will have access to additional EHR,
which is the health electronic records
in hospitals. And if this is the case, then actually they can track the patients
until they have certain diseases. So that's a slight difference.
I do think 23andMe was in the process of making that move, right? So in the last years of their
existence, they were moving a lot more towards becoming a healthcare data company than, you know,
more than just being focused on genomics. And I think this is also one of the reasons, you know,
going back to your opening question, Joshua, I was like, where did they go wrong? I think they
were trying to do too many things at once. I read an article in the Financial Times about
Anne Wojcicki, the CEO and co-founder. She's very
ambitious and she had loads of plans, right? She had developed a department just for drug
development, you know, alone, like as an internal department within 23andMe on top of the sequencing
laboratory, on top of all the other research that is being done,
those are extremely costly exercises, right? And so she kind of gave herself too many tasks.
So that's one of the criticisms
that kind of always comes up.
It's like she might've been a tad too ambitious
for what the possibilities were.
Even if you have billions to your availability,
you do need to show substantial results,
which took longer than anticipated.
So that, I think, is one of the reasons that 23andMe,
the 23andMe model wasn't successful,
because they were trying to do too many things at once.
Another thing that I would like to add here
is that if you look at sequencing,
so the cost of genome sequencing
has come down at lightning speed.
So the first human genome was sequenced in the year 2000
at the cost of $5 billion.
That is now being done for less than $100, right?
In a consumer market.
And there are loads of new sequencing
mechanisms being developed that the latest was an article in nature that appeared just a few weeks
ago whereby people would be able to sequence your dna out of air right so can you imagine that and
they called it e-dna that that you know if someone is just goes around you
with a little vacuum and is then able to sequence your genome so so these sequencing techniques are
also evolving at lightning speed and that also puts at risk kind of the existing laboratories
because they are you know they have very costly machines they need to charge a certain price for
the sequencing but is the market still interested in that type of sequencing? And it's therefore also not only 23andMe, which is at risk,
but also Oxford Nanopore, which is the IPO darling in the UK in 2021, I believe. They IPO'd very big
with their nanopore sequencing technology. their CEO announced that they were for sale
because their share price had plummeted with 85%.
So this is also something to be taken into consideration that more and more the model
is evolving from, okay, we know the sequencing bit.
Now let's move to what can we do with the data and the data interpretation, which is
very similar to other moves you see
in the data economy that we live in.
Yeah, I mean, what we're seeing here is this sort of,
I mean, I remember briefly,
I wasn't particularly old at the time
when this sort of discussion was happening,
but I remember briefly some of the pushback
around the Human Genome Project
and the full-scale sequencing of human genomes
is like, you know, people being concerned, playing with God, all these sorts of things
that we hear when new technologies come around. And now the conversation has never really
come up about the fact that we are sort of sequencing fully everybody's genomes. And
that in itself is a discussion that I'm interested in as to what, you know, with this new technology
where it's essentially anybody could do it with the right kit with a small amount of startup what does that mean in terms of the safety of your genomic
data what can be done in a sort of nefarious manner malevolent manner with your data that
we're concerned about and i think it's too large of a topic for two people who are also quite
embedded in the space i think it might be a sort of distraction away from the actual technology
that you're building so let's not go on to that but i would
love to talk about it at some point in the future for sure yeah i think i sorry if i can i i can just
raise like yes there's the safety um so so it's kind of the formula whereby we say okay there's
safety there's security but there's also data sovereignty right and and so regardless of because
the safety is very important and we double down always on
safety but for me the reasoning starts with okay if this was this was my information i would just
want to know what's going on with the info and if anything is found out on the basis of the info
that i've provided to someone then i would like to know what has been found right because it could
also help me and i to give you an example, I always speak about this,
like, you know, my daughter is five years old now,
but before she was born, we did a test in Chelsea, Westminster,
a very renowned hospital in London.
And then they wanted to do DNA sequencing before she was even born
to see if she had certain syndromes, right?
And then they asked in that hospital, can we keep the information?
And then I said, well, what are you going to do with it?
And they said, well, it's for charity.
And I said, well, if all you can tell me that it's for charity, then no.
And they looked at me like, well, you are, aren't you the, you know, party pooper here?
But I said, well, you need to give me more information than just charity.
Right. So it's kind of, you know, I'm not going to make that decision
for my unborn daughter at that moment.
I didn't even know she was going to be a daughter.
You know, that's what we found out
with the DNA sequencing.
But I think it's kind of those things
about knowing what's going on with your data.
And that is a model that you see also on other levels,
not only in the healthcare or genomic spheres.
We are, as consumers, we want to know what's happening with our information.
We are entitled to that.
So let's start the conversation there.
Yeah, no, I absolutely agree.
Okay, well, look, let's sort of change gears a little bit now
and talk a bit more about what's happening in Deci itself right now.
And Aldo, I'm conscious that you have to leave.
So I want to put forward some questions that maybe, you know,
if you do want to answer, then feel free to do so soon.
But so one of the things that I'm aware of is that the data itself
that is under question here with 23andMe bankruptcy
and this potential acquisition of the data,
the data itself, there's some
question marks around it, whether or not it's actually useful or usable, whether or not
there's some sort of like legal regulatory compliance with the data itself that this
needs to be contended with.
Winnie, would you be able to share some information or Aldo, whomever, about this sort of aspect
of whether or not the data itself is actually usable by these companies?
Yeah, sure. I mean, from a consumer perspective, I do agree with Aldo.
I mean, everyone wants to know more about themselves, right?
So I think that is one of the incentives for people why they wanted to get a test done in the first place.
Even just knowing where my ancestors come from could be really informative for me in the first place, even just knowing where my ancestors come from could be really informative
for me in the future.
I mean, just for curiosity perspective, but then I think for myself, I care a lot more
about genetic disease risk that potentially is inherited in my genes that could potentially
affect my children's in the future.
So I mean, of course, those things for vision would be really helpful for consumers perspective
from both disease prevention.
So let's say, if I know I have ApoE,
which is one of the genes that some people have
that could increase the chances
of having Alzheimer's disease.
So in this case, if I know that I have that ApoE4
genetic mutation, then I will be more careful
about what I do in the daily life. I will probably
cut sugar. I will probably do more intense exercise. So those dose can be very informative,
despite the fact that maybe as a scientist or engineer myself, I kind of know it's not 100%
guaranteed that I will get a particular disease and a particular age, but those information will be really informative for me
to make any changes that will bring me health regardless.
So this is one thing I think that would be extremely helpful
for DNA sequencing, so anyone can get it done.
However, when it comes to academic, right,
when we talk about D-Sci,
does it really help like a big matter to science? I
would say yes and no. The yes part is what we already know. For example, like DNA, we do know
that there are some DNA mutations that happen to a particular regions of people. And those will be
very informative to government decision makers to kind of deploy southern regulations to protect people and also try to figure out why this happened to this particular group of people.
Maybe it's because of environmental exposure and whatnot.
But we don't know, right?
There are a lot of questions that we don't know.
And therefore, the answer for the no part is that for things that we don't know, we cannot claim that those will be useful until it's being discovered.
And that's why I think these are super important, because at least we need to let people know what is going on so that people can make and vote for the decisions for themselves.
And this is my opinion for how it's being useful for the data i agree and i think i think as a
as a foundation for just data in general and scientific data it these this is a foundation
that we should all be um sort of relying on which is that the data itself is open source and people
can uh verify at source all their data um i will have a question for ald, but I can't see if he's speaking or not. Aldo, are you there?
I think not.
Okay.
So yeah, this is a foundation that's very important for DSAI, which is the data management,
the sort of data openness itself.
But with this particular case, which is that the data was sourced by a private company in its origin and has been managed by that has you know has been managed by that private company what is what is the state of that right now because if it if it originated on the blockchain
and we were from the day one had a precise standard for data this would be a wouldn't be a problem
we'd fully understand all the risks and the benefits but because we're transferring and
potentially purchasing and bidding for this large data set and bringing it over to the blockchain
non-natively what are
the risks that we're taking on here like what is the quality of the data aldo do you are you able
to oh that you're a listener i invite you to speak um are you sort of aware because i'm hearing snp
chip which is an indication that it's actually not the most uh malleable data set winnie do you know
anything about that well i mean there are oh I'm not an expert in how they have
they transfer the data and whatnot. But I can speak a
little bit about the data validation, because it's
something that we are currently working on with the scientists
around the world that is trying to gather protocols,
particularly for long term research. So one thing is that
I mean, yes, if we think about the test
itself, right? 23andMe existed, like way back in, I believe, 20, 20, 2006. So back then, the
technology itself, if you think about that, like technology itself is probably already have a lot of fossil positives and and also positive negative right
so if you look back now the technologies 20 years later it's already better so there will be some
discrepancy because by technology itself okay so that's one layer of issues and then the second one
of course would be that as more data that we
have, and then there will be issues when they're dealing with transferring the data, and it
happened to us as well. So the question going back is that, is there an issue when they're
doing the transfer? I do think so. But the question is that it's probably going to be
controllable. And if we can control it, there will be some issues as well.
Like for example, with samples get lost, which had happened to be recently, by the
way, when I'm sending my samples to the lab.
But the question is like, how can we amend it?
I think that is a very important question.
And usually companies big like this, even for small companies like us, we always have
a contingency plan.
So it's very important to check whether these companies have that particular contingency
plan to help on solving the problems of like, for example, data loss during exchange and
whatnot.
And I believe it's probably a requirement if you are a company that is working in the
data space for all the regulations to ensure that the data exchange or transfer is safe with them.
Yeah, no, I agree. And that's something that we can actually look to employ at the ground level in Desai, as we mentioned, with the data,
but actually with the protocols and the companies themselves at these standards of data protection and sort of like fail-safes if samples are missing and if data is corrupted and such.
And that's something that I really hope to see proliferate across DeSci generally.
Aldo, you're back. Oh, no, he's not. He just was.
Aldo, you're back.
No? Okay.
No, OK.
So what we're looking at here is possibly Desai's first big problem, which would be if we could figure out a way to utilize this data set in a Desai manner and provide the protections that the consumers should have had 20 years ago. really they didn't have the technology for some of these things and certainly people were more uh let's say advantageous taking advantage of things back then with when it comes to data and
we're thankfully getting on the other side of that now um i want to talk a little bit more about the
actual acquisitions itself because there's been a lot of bids uh say foundation itself um it has
looked to bid the entire bankruptcy lot which i think is around 25
million dollars um that's a big that's a big thing and they're making it actually one of their
flagships to purchase with outright their 65 million dollar dsai fund to purchase 25 million
dollars for the data set itself and i um from what i understand this is a bid so that they can become
the on-chain data hub for
DeSai.
It's an interesting effort and I hope to see how that goes.
So Winnie, what else have you heard?
Are you and your companies at Avenisa looking yourselves to look into this purchase?
For us, no, because we are a startup.
So I would say that we don't have the 25 million to actually purchase data. That's one. And I
think second, just along with long-term research, I think DNA
data help, but we haven't actually found solid evidence
regarding DNA data will be highly correlated or causality
wise associated with longevity research.
So that is why I think if SAFE Foundation can get it and then we can get some collaborations
with SAFE Foundation, I think that would be great ideal at this stage for us.
But I would love to give a huge applause to any companies, particularly in DSi, to have
a wish and will to purchase 23andMe because I think that would be a huge deal for Deci, and it can build up a really good foundation for any Deci projects to come in, because in this case, we can build on top of those.
Yeah, I think that that's, you know, you just mentioned that you said you're looking forward to potentially, say, purchasing and borrowing from their data sets. And this, this kind of has the feeling of, of 2021, these larger DeFi companies, basically getting most of the trading volumes, which is creating most of the yield and then smaller companies, almost borrowing from that yield and creating derivative products and i think that might be how things work in larger projects managing to accumulate
enough capital or data would be the central hubs and then smaller projects building off
those data sets or those capital sets in order to create some kind of novel novel scientific
application which would be really awesome and that's kind of how I see things going. Iceberg, you've come up. Hello, please introduce yourself.
Thank you, thank you very much. I was just hearing about
SAE trying to ARB themselves into the data of 23 or what you guys were talking about, so
I was like a little bit excited and thinking it's a good move from a blockchain to do it
and get a head start on D-Sci and own some data
and try to delegate it through an own DAP
or own protocol that they're going to make
or they're going to use the ones
who are already doing the job or are ahead.
So that's very interesting.
So that was very interesting on that.
And I was hoping Genome to come back, but he'll be, I don't know, kicked out or rugging
on Twitter.
No, Aldo is actually dropping his daughter at school.
So that's something he has to do.
So he can't come back until I think his daughter's
been dropped at school so maybe he'll join before the end of the call
there
Okay cool, all good but it was a very
very good point
that you two guys were talking about
when they're trying to
their way up with
the data and that's
very interesting and for me
the most interesting thing is to have
control or have custody of your data and and that's very interesting. And for me, the most interesting thing is to have control
or have custody of your data and being trustless
and having the opportunity to trust the protocol enough
that they can manage your data from your DNA or whatever it is.
And if you guys can do it and pull it off in a good way and decentralized
way, that
would be very good because you
can see, you saw that example with
data that is getting
bought off from
other companies or maybe say
so. So like
that's the most important thing is
to have fully custodial of your data and have a trustless DAP or protocol that handles your data or your assets.
It doesn't matter because I saw it with DeFi and if it's going to be DeFi, then that's have to pull off in a good way. Another thing is how can you market yourself to the masses of the guys who like the countries who have been using MyHeritage or other privatized web to DSI companies and how they did it,
but market themselves as a web tree to try to hit that kind of customers to have more control and custody
over their data. That would be very interesting. And hedging, also hedging and using their data as
a yield bearing assets on DeFi. So that's opportunity too. But first you have to like
start to get customers and let them have that trust
and have their data and their MetaMask
and try to get used to it, of course,
but it's a possibility.
Yeah, I know.
And thank you very much for coming up.
Yeah, Winnie, you go.
Yeah, I think Iceberg mentioned a really good point.
Interesting point actually is that we should have a full custody of our data and I 100%
agree.
However, there's one pitfall in there actually.
We actually discussed a lot in our company whether we should actually have all the genome
data to be stored on blockchain because that could potentially bring threats to your DNA data,
because basically everyone can track, right?
So I think that is the question is like, what should be on-chain?
I think that's not a big issue because you have ZK-SNARK
and other protocols or other protocols to do in the privacy,
privacy blockchains who are doing it.
and like you have also JP Morgan and the conglomerate of the,
of the New York stock exchange is trying to mask their transactions and try to
come with a protocol like that.
So it's already,
it's already there.
You have different protocols or
different blockchains who are doing uh privacy so yeah so yeah i mean like this is this is actually
touching on a point that i'd like to you know i'd like to push the conversation in this direction
just because we have some some spicy ideas here um what we're doing with this technology in general
bitcoin or ethereum is allowing people from both sides of the aisle to decentralize, permissionlessly and potentially anonymously transact.
So that means criminals and the people, but also it means like the banks and everything like that.
So if whatever we can use it for, the criminals and the institutions can use it for.
criminals and the institutions can use it for. And this is the same for anonymizing data sets.
And this is the same for anonymizing data sets.
And so let's just assume that people have now started to upload their genomic data to something
like a GenomeSDAO, which has smart contracts, vaults that allow you to choose who has access
to your data and it gives you money for that. Now, what we're essentially doing is we're creating a genomic data economy. And my question to you guys is, because this is a fear of mine, if we create
a genomic data economy, who are the consumers of that data, right? And what are they actually doing
with that data? And now, right now, we understand that big pharma acquires large genomic data sets
for quite an expensive price,
turns them in, you know, uses them to do the research and find therapeutics or whatever.
But what if there are, in a decentralized manner,
open access to genomic data sequences?
And yes, you could remove the identity per se,
but maybe with TKs you could also maintain
what ethnicity these people are or whatever.
And then you can start to see very quickly how this turns into a fully anonymized almost keyboard warrior foundation
of people taking genomic data and creating potentially even you know let's say an extreme
a bioweapon for example genetically engineered bioweapons and such so what what does that future
look like when genomic data is open source,
essentially, or open access? You just have to pay a little bit extra. How do we solve for some of
these problems? And I've got some thoughts, but Winnie, have you got any ideas on the idea that
once the data becomes available, what happens next?
Well, that's actually what we do, right?
I think for us, particularly longevity research,
what we really want to do is to find personalized interventions for everyone.
So that's the use case for us.
We don't actually want to work with big pharmaceutical companies, per se,
because we know pharmaceutical companies have their own agenda agenda and it's really hard to convince them.
It's like, hey, let's give some revenues of yours
and giving to users.
So we would prefer to start from scratch
and it's actually doable already
from what we are developing right now.
But going back to a bigger picture
in terms of how we can use the data.
And I do think that in the future, there's good things and bad things, right? You've already mentioned
the bad things, which I am personally afraid of, like bioweapons, particularly if they
have discovered some certain genes in certain people that has more susceptible to certain
chemicals, these people will be in danger. And that is the danger that i was referring to regardless whether
we uh regardless whether we put this data um anonymously or not okay so that is my concern
yes because there will be people that will be hard they will be harmed if this data is anonymous
and that's why this is this is something that i think that we sorry this is something that i think
that's very important i just want to touch in on
this which is whether or not we anonymize the data or whether or not we secure it via smart contract
if it's available to be purchased it will be purchased and these are things that these effects
that you're mentioning which is isolating certain uh certain sort of genomes that are susceptible
to certain chemicals and then producing things that can do these are real applications so i think a lot of people who are very excited about
the proliferation of data and for example the very cheap cost of full genomic sequencing i think a
lot of people are maybe unaware or unwilling to be aware of these of these consequences and i think
it's something that the psi actually needs to take responsibility for as well, which is to say,
hey, we're allowing everybody to have the data,
but here's what could happen.
And here's why we shouldn't do it.
And I think that is something that Desai does have a bit
of a duty to enact on as well.
Yeah, I agree.
And I think one thing is that we can have a DAO format
where to govern how this data can go
and then people can vote for it.
I think that's great. The question is whether people actually understand enough in science,
especially for things that we don't know yet.
Hi everyone. Can you hear me?
Yep.
Hi, I'm so sorry.
Not very well.
Not very well?
Better now. I apologize.
I needed to pick up my daughter.
I've got her now.
She's at home.
So I can talk.
I do apologize for the silence.
Sorry.
I just want to say I'm back so I can fill in if you have any questions.
I appreciate the space has evolved and maybe we're at the end of things.
I just want to say I'm here. Yeah, just to catch you up, Valdo, things have taken a bit of a downturn. the space has evolved and maybe we're at the end of things.
I just want to say I'm here.
Yeah, just to catch you up, things have taken a bit of a downturn.
We're talking about bioweapons and how the free access
or the much more open access to genomic data can cause some eventualities
that people are not quite prepared for.
And Winnie was also saying whether or not people are qualified to handle
or to experiment with that sort of data um that's the sort of catch-up i don't know if you have any
thoughts on that generally which is things can get bad real quick when you start open sourcing
everything which is of course our intention to open source everything but what duty do we have
or what mechanisms do we have to stop it getting so bad i think i think what you're saying for me is one more reason is to subject it to more scrutiny than we have done before.
So really ask the hard questions around, as you say, the security of our data, where it is being placed, what is being done with it.
When I talk about decentralized technology, kind of the number one thing that I hear and see is the data sovereignty and the fact that I'm, again, the owner of my information so that I can make the decision where I would like to leave it, if you will.
Right. And that only with that permission, the entire process starts.
and that only with that permission the entire process starts.
For me, it isn't necessarily kind of like making it more of a commodity
and just leaving it in on more places.
But I do agree with you that we do need to ask the hard questions
as technology, specifically AI, further develops itself
and can do more interpretation also with our genomic data.
So, as with many things, it comes back to what, you know, which role do we as users, as human beings, what do we want to play in the process?
and kind of the things that I see when there are, for instance,
national sequencing initiatives or there are other direct-to-consumer
genetic testing companies, which 23andMe, by the way, is only an example.
There are many, many, many, many more such as 23andMe that have a similar model.
The way they get your data is by talking about what is of use to
the collective. So the health of a nation, the age of scientific wellness, you know, how all
people in Scotland where I reside are going to benefit from having my genome being put in a
database, right? So that's kind of the front-end language.
And then if you read further down the line,
you basically see, well, you know,
they've done well on the marketing of the front-end language,
but they've done very badly on when they speak about the security of your data,
how they can prevent hacks from taking place,
if they are able to commercially deal in your data, yes they can prevent hacks from taking place, if they are able to commercially deal
in your data, yes or no.
And that is at the moment whereby we're so disappointed.
The disappointment is in the fact that people or these companies or these organizations
are not being 100% transparent about it.
And the beauty of decentralized technology is that now the transparency is by default built into the mechanism, right?
It's a trustless system.
You don't need to trust each other with a contract, with, you know, promise, you know, scouts honor, I promise that I won't deal in your data.
No, there's no such thing as a promise.
There's like, if you're not going to deal
in my data then i will forbid you to because it is it is vaulted somewhere so it's just not going to
happen yep i agree i think this is um a lot of this comes around education around just like what
it is exactly people are participating in but i do think there's another layer of education which is what once you're participating you know okay where
it's going but like what is actually being done with it and what are some of the effects of what
what can be done with i think these are very difficult questions which industry you know that
for the sake of our industry please stop talking that kind of thing i i think that's where we're
at right now with a lot of these technologies because we are with ai in particular at this
breakaway point where those who don't really understand the gravity of what can be done with these technologies will be, you know, it's going to get scary.
So I think that's actually a part of our duty at DSi, in particular at DSi World.
One thing we're very passionate about is trying to speak truth to science to sort of say, you know, this is what's happening, but this is what could happen.
And we need to be very concerned about that.
Now, just in the last 10 minutes,
I wanna swing back right round
to specifically the DeSci acquisition of 23andMe.
And Aldo, when you were gone,
I had a little chat with Winnie
about some of the data that's potentially being purchased.
We touched a little bit on the surface,
but if you were sort of informed on it,
we'd love to get a bit more information
about some of the claims that I'm seeing
from all over the place,
which is why would anybody buy this data?
Firstly, it's available on the dark web
because it's been hacked quite previously.
Secondly, the data is outdated
and the methods that were used to record it
are also outdated.
And so essentially it's junk.
And if that's the case,
why are people trying to purchase it?
Oh, that's a big question. And I think every bidder might have different reasons for it. I would like to even take it one step back. Is the data even for sale officially? Because
I think the bankruptcy was declared under Chapter 11,
which is also interpreted in the media as kind of a trick to be able to continue the operations of your company under observation.
And again, if I read about the plans of the co-founder and former CEO, like her plan is to buy the assets herself.
So this entire kind of bankruptcy declaration, as well as this verdict of a judge that says that the data can be bought, for me, is all leading into
what the co-founder and CEO wants to do with it.
And I think that's something that we should be aware of.
I think some people interpret it for different reasons
as, oh, I can make a bit,
but I'm not sure whether that is really going to be the case.
I think this is all kind of an operational trick, if you will, of the co-founder and CEO.
Let me start there. And why people would want to bid, I think in the case,
for instance, in the case of the Sai Foundation, and I think that's a beautiful thing,
in the case of the Desai Foundation,
and I think that's a beautiful thing,
is it's, in my idea,
it's an extension of everything
that we've been talking about here,
trying to bring a new model
into kind of an organization
that we see from the Desai angle
as slightly flawed
and buying the data
to see what can retrospectively be done
and how it can be repaired, which is essentially only something you can say
after you've bought the assets, essentially, right?
After you bought the data.
Not everyone has wallets the size of the Psy Foundation.
So, yeah, you know, whether they're actually going to do it, yes or no, whether actually they will be able to, that's the second question.
But I do think with pushing out the press release, as they do, is they are advocating for technologies like ours.
So, like, well, we can do better, right, which is I'm all in favor of that.
So, yeah, I can speak essentially to the data.
I do think that if it's genomic data, it has value,
maybe not in the form as it is there today,
but maybe in what it can morph into tomorrow potentially,
what can be done with it.
But then also with the understanding,
you're going to be able to get the user's permission.
Because today, I believe the FTC also decided that if the data is being sold,
the new owner would need to adhere to the previous privacy pledge,
and I call it literally a pledge, again, talking about scouts honor,
that rules over the data currently.
So, yeah, I think it's a very good question.
It's like, what can you effectively do with the information?
I do think because it's such a significant database, there are definitely options.
But, yeah, what it will lead to, yeah, that's a question mark.
Yeah, something that we're sort of considering ourselves um just before we've got five minutes
four minutes left of this call and i want to shoot over to winnie and ask her another question but
before i do iceberg if you have anything you want to ask or say please do um anyone else in the
audience feel free to raise your hand and ask any questions to the great panel that we have here
um okay winnie you are from avenissa labs correct oh go on iceberg sorry yeah yeah
yeah i'm just saying that um it comes to always that this nice thing doing that say is trying to
arbitrage data and and trying to hedge it or trying to find something of it genomes I've been in your spaces
couple of times and we follow you for a couple of years and I know what you guys are doing so
it's one space I heard there was a lady that saved a lot of lives by having she hadn't patented her
DNA and her DNA was used to a lot of things wasn't it herself yeah no no this is um
the immortal life of henrietta lax and so yes yeah so her cells were being used cancer her cancer
cells yeah so so the main issue thing is like if you have control over your data and you have trust
to that protocol or that you are using and giving your data,
just like MyHeritage and 23 or all of them,
as long as the data is managed in a proper decentralized way
and a trustless way, then it's no problem.
It's no problem at all for the users.
You've got to have a competition
so users can have control
over their DNA and data. And yeah, that's the main thing I want to talk about. And the same thing I
said earlier also, because you can do a lot of things with that data. If you have something that
could be patented or used for a pharmacy to have a new type of medicine or whatever it is,
you can hedge your own data.
So that's the users, the retailers who want to have control over the data
so they can maximize the yield-bearing assets
for the maximum of their opportunities.
Yeah, I think you're absolutely spot on, my friends.
The beginning is the data. Then it's how, okay, how do you secure it? How do you verify it? How do you keep it anonymized? How do you generate money from it? How do you stack that money into more yield? And how do you start turning DNA into an on-chain fungible asset or non-fungible asset, which you can actually use to think about how much you can have to lend out or try to hedge it out to different DeFi protocols, Aave or Yearn or whatever it is. That's the new thing. If you combine it, if it's DeSci, you combine it with your data and you hedge it because you know it's worth what it's worth and everybody knows about it.
what it's worth and everybody knows about it so you just hedge it
So you just hedge it.
yeah no absolutely and i think that's that's the foundation of genomes down that's why and
for those that don't know actually genomes down was the first project i ever saw in design the
reason that i started these i want so for that exact reason i guess i saw the that is
big compliment um so winnie sorry winnie do you do you have to leave right now if not i will ask
nf why his question first and then I'll return to you before we leave.
I will have to go very soon,
but you can shoot one more question maybe.
I'll shoot the question to you first.
Sorry, NFY, give us just a moment.
So Winnie, yeah, you're obviously Avanasi Labs.
How, you know, what does data mean to you guys in particular?
What is your focus and what is your plan with DSi
and the data that you can potentially grab from this space?
Yeah, so just similar to everyone in DSi world
or in DSi in general,
we are taking seriously about data safety.
So that's the number one thing that we have to make sure
and to make sure that everyone
have their whole custody of the data. So that is one thing for sure that that's why we're joining
the movement of design. Second is that what we're trying to do in Avalanche Labs is to
accelerate longevity research. And one of the bottlenecks in longevity research is actually
solving the problems that everyone is trying to solve in the design space is that how do we get
data from around the world where people can get and not just contribute to the science but also
get certain assets or investment back as a head rate for any science research that they have
supported and that's what we try to do, but particularly in the longevity space. So in the future, we're happy.
Actually, we are in discussion with Aldo
regarding how we can collaborate,
particularly he has the genomic data
and on our side, we have the methylation data
and also all the lifestyle data coming from the wearables
and functional tests and whatnot.
We really wanna try to combine this data
in a decentralized manner and also encourage and creating the
protocols to help people to actually run decentralized experiments themselves so that everyone can
know the progress of scientific research by putting all the results on the blockchain.
And they also get benefits whenever we have an outcome that can also benefit patients
in the future that can benefit from know, benefits from their own data.
So that's our mission.
Wonderful.
Sort of community distribution, incentivization layer
where folks like GenomeStell might be collecting the data,
but you guys will be directly interacting
with those communities and building,
building the scientific community around that data.
Is that right?
That's correct.
Wonderful. Thanks Winnie. And by the way guys, if anyone needs to leave...
Have a good join everyone.
Yes, thank you Winnie, it's really great to have you.
And if anyone needs to leave, feel free to do so.
NFY, tell me your question.
No question as such, I just, you know, I was very curious about what's happening in the data space.
I just wanted to hear from Aldo.
Aldo, what's the update with 23andMe situation?
The latest update with 23andMe.
Let me speak from, because we've been talking a lot about 23andMe.
I think there are two kind of narratives at the moment.
I think one is the top-down approach,
whereby people are publicly or maybe not publicly
considering to buy the company, to buy the assets of the company
because of this Chapter 11 bankruptcy declaration.
My idea, my thoughts around that is that at this moment,
it feels like it is a kind of an avenue
that the co-founder and CEO has found to save the company
so that effectively the sale, it won't be a public sale
and that the bidders who are now considering might be disappointed because it's not the intention of
what the founder who i guess is still a majority shareholder or i i i don't know i i don't know I don't know too too much about I'm not an M&A experts
but I do think it's kind of an an an avenue that the co-founder has started
to gain back control over the company so it's not to my idea something that's
going to lead to a public sale but I might be wrong again I'm not an M&A
expert but this is what it reads like if I read the Financial Times and the Economist and kind of people that
are saying look here's what the CEO or the co-founder is trying to do right
time will tell so so that is the top-down approach the bottom-up approach
is a little bit where we are and that is essentially we are telling everyone who
has an account so the 15 million people who have an account on 23andMe is like we understand that you're disappointed
and we want to give you the experience that you deserve bringing back this your
safety your privacy and your data sovereignty and on top of that loads of
equitable features such as 50 odd health reports that we've running, so you can find out more about you, genetic
ancestry reports, reports around your carrier status, but also the ability to make some
money whenever your vault is being put in the midst of a research survey through our utility token genome.
So we have seized the opportunity to again reach out to all those 23andMe users
and telling them, come over, instead of deleting your account immediately,
why don't you before deletion download the VCF, which is the variant call format,
which is essentially the output of the entire sequencing done by 23andMe,
which is also available through your account.
Download that first, put it on your hard drive,
and then consider potentially vaulting it on genomes.io.
So we can then show you that the DSi experience is a good one and a better one,
and that's what we're here for.
So that's a little bit our approach and our kind of contribution to the conversation.
And I'm happy to say that we're successful.
So we're now in the thousands and thousands of users,
many of which are from 23andMe.
We're growing in hundreds each week who are joining us and are vaulting their VCFs. So we're happy that we've been able to kind of kickstart that growth,
which already happened in September last year, right?
So again, the 23andMe news,
this bankruptcy is just like the nail in the coffin.
There were already many other points in time
whereby people said like, well,, well, they're done.
So getting in touch with those disappointed users,
we've already been doing that since September last year.
Is that an answer to your question?
Sorry, before I keep yabbling on.
No, no, I think it does.
That's true.
It's a wonderful customer acquisition moment uh for you guys in
particular as soon as i saw that news i thought of you alden i thought wow i really hope that this
is something like a watershed moment where people start to realize and i will be honest i wonder if
if it would be because i think people are so used to ridiculous news uh these days that something
such as some as important as um a company that has taken everybody's genomic
data and is now essentially letting
the data be bought on the
open market, it just
skims off the top for a lot of people these days.
So I do wonder what it is that will
get that critical mass moment
for, for example, GenomeStat, where the products
exist right now. But
I've been looking at the charts, as you mentioned,
Aldo, that you guys are getting
more and more acquisitions on the customer side all the time.
And is that just spurred by good business, steady growth, or is there any particular
catalysts that you're seeing that are growing for you?
Well, I think we just double down on the message of safety and security.
You're very right to say that people are just with kind of news about data hacks and breaches
and exploitation. And we see that kind of a growing audience, not only kind of crypto aficionados,
but the kind of people from everywhere are basically saying, you know, what better measures
can I take? How can I take back control over my information?
So they're looking for solutions like that.
The biggest catalyst of the user that come in also comes in via Google for us.
So it's Google Ads, essentially, whereby we say,
hey, are you fed up with 23andMe or do you want a safe version of 23andMe?
What about this right so it's it's
it's um and and the last thing i'll say is um i'm i'm not sure because we had already started this
journey in september right so we are already on this journey of growth i don't know what it would
have looked like if we would have started this just last week.
I don't know.
It might have been, we might have failed, right? I don't know necessarily whether this is the moment for the users.
Maybe many of them were already doing something or finding a better alternative.
But at the end of the day, it's the stats that matter.
And those on our end are looking better and better.
So I think that's what we're happiest with.
Awesome.
A solid, consistent customer acquisition is something that we all need in this bear market.
And as the tides change, I mean, whilst you've been on this call alone, Ethereum's up 4% for those that are watching.
As the tides change, I think that we're going to see a big explosion in those customer acquisition numbers,
especially as the underlying of all of this, which is the DeFi yields, pumps everything and becomes much more attractive from people from the outside.
And that's the flywheel that I think the whole space is looking for, especially when it comes to the incentivized data sets.
There's going to be a lot of yield around for no good reason,
except until DSI, I think, is the thing to put that yield to good use.
So I'm really excited to see that.
And I think, Gino, you guys are going to lead the way on that as well.
Hopefully, hopefully.
And I think, I mean, we're in this together, right? That's also something that I kind of always want to emphasize.
I really liked, again, the role of DSI Worlds,
like, you know, you invited us to come on to space
and then loads of other people that, you know,
to have good opinions on that.
And, you know, I'm happy to do more
because it's about collaboration, I think,
to give significance to what we're trying to do.
I think we're too small to say, you know,
let's venture out on our own and kind say, you know, let's venture out on our
own and kind of, you know, try
to make noise. I think, you know, the collective
of our voices is going to
create the dent that we
need it to. So, yeah,
let's continue
down that path together.
One honest feedback to
Jelani, if you allow me to speak.
Jelani's not here it's just
right yeah yeah that's okay real quick just wanted to ask aldo this question aldo i think
one thing i probably you know just take this as a you know a feedback in good faith right
nothing against uh your genomes though i was just wondering that you know just because of you know like how we were
talking you know before uh how lisa has this crypto cowboy image and whatnot right
do you think you guys of course you know this is just a general feedback do you think that you know
having maybe organizing some meetups or doing some events in medical institutes or colleges
or hospitals would be good for uh just you know advertising genomes down more because i think
uh you know the bro you know in the end a business is just two things right it's product and
marketing and i think product side genomes now is you know solid
but i think it can definitely improve on its marketing side yeah i mean a hundred percent
i don't argue with people who say well you can do this on marketing and that on marketing and
so we're never in lack of any good ideas right and that That's, you know, in general the rule with a startup.
It's never about the ideas, it's about the execution. And the execution goes hand in
hand for us with putting a viable product out there, a product that works now for thousands
and thousands of people. And what you need to consider first and foremost is the cost
of getting it out there. So the majority of the investment that we have received and also the proceeds of revenues, because I'm happy to say that we are making
good revenue every single day, is reinvested in the tech stack, right? So that's because
we want to be there first with the technology. There's no point in going out there with a
technology that doesn't work. So then, you know, already offering disappointed 23andMe users, again, another disappointment with a technology, with a product that doesn't work, right?
So because Mark, my co-founder, and Chris, our chief operations officer, as well as Al and Simon, my other co-founders, who are five founders in total. This is not our first rodeo.
This is our second or even third tech venture that we're doing.
We wanted to make sure that the product works.
And I think that's where we've put all our efforts,
as well as our budget.
Now, in the next step, most definitely, you're very right,
getting it to marketing, getting it to the client, make sure there are budgets for that.
Travel around the world and talk to as many people as you like.
But you do need to make strategic choices because you only have that much money to make it work, essentially.
Right?
No, 100%.
100%.
What you're doing is super great.
Yeah.
So that is always a consideration because people also say
like you know the and and we try to be funny like we had some someone who's a part of our community
and makes loads of um great contributions but sometimes he i think he's a little grumpy and
then says like well they've got bad marketing nobody knows about them and then we write below
them not even you right they're kind of it's like, you know, we try to be creative with the means that we have available.
And, of course, in the next round, if all goes well, we'll scale
and definitely in more of a commercial marketing sales direction.
But the first steps of our journey in getting the product out there,
we have scaled into a tech stack a tech stack direction which is we feel
as a as a tech company that's where we first and foremost need need to be 100 percent and this is
actually this is a wider point that i think is very important actually which is what we're building
right now at dc world what ginosdale has been building for far longer than we have and a few
other projects in the space of building is something that is novel and powerful and relatively difficult to build but works on a small scale
right now but the difficulty is is like does it work on a big scale and you can't even really
stress test it you can do simulations on chain and such but you can't really even stress test the
system because there isn't an enterprise scale or mass scale number of people in crypto right now in
order to partake you know partake in these things and so what we have to do is a very strange thing
where it's like okay we have to build a technology which we believe will scale that works for a very
small niche community now so that it can be successful in the short term but when or if
you know the masses of non-crypto folks join, then this is something that will scale
to be like an enterprise scale, hundreds and hundreds of millions of users.
And it's a very strange situation that we're in because we're all sort of building technology
that we believe will scale and are just waiting for the moment for it to scale because we
are in a microcosm, in the macrocosm of the world economic environment right now.
And that will change.
And I think this year we'll see a change. Honestly, I believe that this year is, as most people do, a watershed moment for the adoption of blockchain generally.
But I think that Aldo and Gnome's DAO have done the right thing, which is to basically correctly maintain resources and build a technology that should be scalable and wait for the moment to arrive sensibly
for the people to for it to scale and i think that's kind of where in dsai in particular but
also in crypto generally i believe that's where a lot of us are at yeah and 100 i just want to
double down kind of you know when we talk to dsai there's there's almost a there's a clear
distinction between those who have a product and those who are kind of, you know, still in the magic wand phase, you know,
in the honeymoon phase of their white paper saying, you know, say no more.
We're here.
We're going to do everything for healthcare above and beyond.
And then there's no product at the end of it.
And this is not criticism because everyone needs to start somewhere.
But I do think you need to kind of see like, okay,
what is actually going to make the difference for those who are not in the crypto environment, not in the Web3 space, right?
That is the product, right?
So our survival and the fact that we have a product and in making the difference that we want to make as DeSci is all on the basis of our product. It's not on the basis of how much noise we make,
you know, hollow noise,
if we don't have a product to back up our kind of,
you know, everything we push out there on a communication level.
So, and that's really what we believe in.
It's like, let the users tell us what needs to be done.
Let them give suggestions for which features need to be developed,
let them give us the feedback, what works, what doesn't work.
The more feedback we get there, the better,
and that's going to sustain us in our growth.
Absolutely.
Right now, we're sort of shouting into somewhat of a void as a space,
and so as long as we maintain resources and build the product so that when people do arrive, I think everyone's going to do quite well.
And especially those who are here, you know, taking part in this space is if you're familiar with these systems at all,
and you're purchasing at these low prices, good tokens and such that, you know, no financial advice.
That should be a big turnaround because there's no one really here.
That should be a big turnaround because there's no one really here.
And there's a lot of technology here that's been taken many, many years in incubation,
in particular Geno's DAO has been around since 2019, did you say, Aldo?
2018, but I think we finalized the essence of our tech stack at the end of 2020.
So four years of growth and product design with you know with some
some adoption but not the critical mass and i think that that's what we're all sort of here for
is the critical mass and changing things from the inside so um with that chaps we're going to have
to end the spaces i've got another call to go to uh thank you everyone for joining thank you aldo
for presenting iceberg nfy appreciate you guys a lot for coming up and joining please join the next ones bring bring yourselves to any future spaces and join in the discussions
you guys were really great um and thank you everyone else for listening thanks so much take
care bye bye bye ciao
Host
DeSciWorld
from
DeSciWorld
