Dialogue Velocity Eric: What is the stablecoin track that the CFO really wants?

The former CFO of Stripe is an advisor to Velocity; the co-founder of Velocity was responsible for Worldpay's global strategy; its shareholder list also includes executives from Visa, Circle, PayPal, and Google. Velocity can be understood as: a group of industry veterans who truly understand payments and corporate cash management, coming together to build a treasury infrastructure for the stablecoin era for the CFOs they have served in the past. In this interview, Eric Queathem also explained why they chose to start this company in London.

Some key backgrounds are:

• Velocity officially emerged from stealth mode in May 2025, completing a $10 million pre-seed funding round led by Activant Capital, with participation from Fuel Ventures, Triton, Fabric Ventures, Commerce Ventures, Digital Space, and Preface.

• Its core product is called the Stablecoin Payment Account. In simple terms, this is a unified cash management and payment platform that allows companies to move and manage funds across banks, blockchains, countries, and regions from a single interface.

• Eric co-founded Velocity with Tom Greenwood. Tom Greenwood is the founder and head of the open banking infrastructure company Volt. Before founding Velocity, Eric worked at Worldpay for nearly a decade, responsible for global strategy and growth; even earlier, he worked at McKinsey.

In this interview, Eric focused on explaining what it means to be "built specifically for CFOs." The challenge here is that many of the buyers they face may have never truly engaged with blockchain. Therefore, Velocity does not start by talking to CFOs about chains, wallets, or stablecoin technology, but instead begins with issues familiar to CFOs: how to allocate corporate funds, why cross-border settlements are slow, why FX costs are high, why pre-funding is necessary, and why global account management is so complex.

Eric also mentioned that one thing he learned at McKinsey is that asking good questions often builds trust more quickly than presenting a polished pitch deck. Many conversations start with the CFO leaning back, saying, "I've been doing this job longer than you've been alive." But after a series of questions, they often lean forward and begin to discuss seriously: "Maybe there really is a scenario worth trying." This is also Velocity's market entry approach: it is not typical product-driven but rather consultative sales. It first helps companies identify the real pain points in cash management and then assesses whether stablecoin rails can truly provide better solutions.

This episode also discussed the differences in regulatory positioning between Europe and the U.S., how Velocity distinguishes itself from companies like Stripe Treasury, Bridge, BVNK, and Altitude, and which internal workflows in companies will be impacted first as stablecoin rails begin to replace parts of traditional banking infrastructure.

Eric Queathem, Co-founder and President of Velocity

X: @Queathem

Takeaways:

1. Velocity's core judgment is that stablecoins will first transform not consumer payment front-ends, but corporate payment and cash management back-ends. Eric observed from his experience at Worldpay that over the past decade, much innovation has focused on APIs, risk control, consumer experience, and front-end acquiring, but the cash flow, settlement, FX, and account management on the corporate back-end remain complex, inefficient, and expensive.

2. The rise and fall of Worldpay signaled to Eric that traditional payment infrastructure is being restructured by a new generation of players. Worldpay was once the largest acquiring institution globally, but after its acquisition by FIS, changes in the market environment and the rise of new players like Stripe, Adyen, Toast, and Square made him realize that the next round of restructuring in the payment industry would not stop at the front-end.

3. Velocity's approach is not "to get companies to use blockchain," but "to help CFOs solve real treasury problems." The buyers they face often have never encountered blockchain, so the sales language cannot be about chains, wallets, or L1/L2, but must focus on pre-funding, FX costs, settlement cycles, idle cash, and account complexity—issues that CFOs have been struggling with for many years.

4. "Built for CFOs" means that stablecoin products must be embedded in existing financial systems, rather than creating an additional set of crypto operational processes. Large enterprises already have accounts receivable, accounts payable, and liquidity management running in their systems, with many companies even having thousands of bank accounts. Simply inserting stablecoins into the process will only increase operational complexity.

5. Velocity sees that CFOs need at least three things to go on-chain: system compatibility, scalable liquidity, and a simple button. First, it must integrate with existing fiat treasury processes; second, it must handle large, multi-currency, cross-location liquidity; third, it must allow CFOs to avoid sourcing wallets, finding liquidity, and managing on-chain compliance themselves.

6. Eric believes the first principle for companies adopting stablecoins is not "can it be faster," but "is it truly better end-to-end?" Cross-border transfers using stablecoins can certainly be faster, but CFOs will compare: FX, settlement certainty, landed amounts, compliance, system integration, operational costs, and bank substitution costs. Simply talking about speed is not enough.

7. Velocity's sales approach is consultative, not product-driven. Eric rarely opens a deck to talk about the product right away; instead, he starts by asking questions to understand the client's current cash flow, FX, pre-funding, account structure, and internal operational pain points. This approach resembles enterprise-level consulting sales rather than SaaS self-service conversion.

8. The psychological shift for CFOs usually starts from "not needed" and ends with "maybe there is a use case worth trying." Many seasoned CFOs initially feel they already have the optimal solution, but through continuous questioning, they often discover long-standing issues in certain scenarios, such as difficulties in transferring certain currencies, needing to pre-fund millions of dollars daily, or slow settlements in certain markets.

9. Pre-funding is one of the easiest pain points for stablecoin treasury to address. If a company needs to pre-fund money in a certain country, account, or currency to ensure local operations, payments, or settlements, it will tie up liquidity. If stablecoins can shorten settlement times, there is an opportunity to reduce this capital lock-up.

10. FX is another huge but often underestimated profit pool. Eric mentioned, "Where there is mystery, there is profit." Many large enterprises think they understand FX costs, but during the period from authorization to settlement, exchange rates, spreads, benchmarks, and actual landed amounts can fluctuate. Complex FX scenarios are a key entry point that Velocity values.

11. Internal cash management within enterprises is itself a major issue. Many multinational companies have thousands or even tens of thousands of bank accounts globally, and the real challenge is how to place money in the right entity at the right time. As a result, a large amount of cash remains idle in corporate bank accounts, often earning no interest or returns.

12. Velocity's product goal is to become a unified stablecoin payment account, rather than a single on-chain wallet. It aims to connect banks, local payment rails, regulated wallets, liquidity partners, and stablecoin issuers, allowing companies to complete cross-bank, cross-chain, and cross-border fund movements and management from a single interface.

13. One key product principle for Velocity is: if you still have to use SWIFT, you haven't truly realized the value of stablecoins. Eric believes that many market solutions, while claiming to complete on-chain transfers in 10 seconds, require that you have already pre-funded the money into the account. If the front-end still relies on pre-funding or SWIFT, the real-time value of stablecoins will be diminished.

14. Velocity builds orchestration, routing, and end-to-end pricing capabilities in-house, while collaborating extensively at the infrastructure layer. They work with Fireblocks, regulated custodians, compliance service providers, liquidity partners, and stablecoin issuers; their focus is on how to split transactions, acquire multi-party liquidity, and ensure exchange rates and final landed amounts.

15. Velocity believes that the future transaction volume on chains and networks may largely be determined by corporate treasury orchestration platforms, rather than by the enterprises themselves. CFOs and corporate finance teams typically do not understand L1/L2 and will not negotiate on-chain network collaborations themselves. Therefore, intermediaries like Velocity may have significant influence in deciding "which chain and which network transactions should go through."

Host:
Eric, how have you been? Thanks for joining us.

Eric:
Thank you for the invitation. It's great to see you all.

Host:
Great. So, we just talked about this. I said, brother, a person wouldn't leave a company like Worldpay without a strong conviction, especially after being there for nine years. So, maybe you can first introduce yourself to those who are not familiar with the situation. I know Velocity has been very busy over the past 6 to 8 months and has completed several rounds of funding. So can you take us through what stage you were at, what you did at Worldpay, and what gradually built your conviction to come out of stealth mode and launch Velocity?

Eric:
Yes, that's a good question. Nine years is indeed a long time. I never thought I would stay at one company for nine years. Now I hope I can do the same at Velocity. But yes, it's quite interesting. I feel that during those nine years, the payment industry went through multiple phases of evolution.

When I first joined that company, it was actually called Vantiv. It was a somewhat dull small payment company based in Cincinnati, Ohio, but it had quietly become the largest merchant acquirer in the world. Within a year, we acquired Worldpay. We merged the two companies and then renamed the company Worldpay. Almost immediately, we were pushed into a position as the largest acquirer globally, a title it still holds today.

So I would say Worldpay was at its peak at that time. Companies like Stripe and Adyen were certainly already on the path to building great enterprises, but I think the market had not yet truly realized the trajectory these companies would take, nor had it fully understood the threats that some more traditional players might face over time.

Fast forward to the end of my tenure, we ultimately sold the business, or rather spun it off to a private equity firm, completing a privatization transaction. For me, this was somewhat difficult to accept. Because you are part of this company, and you have invested a significant part of your life into it for a long time. And the outcome, while a good result for the financial sponsors and private equity firm, felt a bit like falling off the stage from another perspective. It was once the largest and considered one of the best payment companies in the market. I think that moment was actually a signal.

Host:
Eric, when was that? How long ago? It hasn't been that long, right?

Eric:
Yes, Worldpay was sold to FIS in 2019. The following years were tough, compounded by the impact of COVID and some changes in the professional landscape. The spin-off was announced in 2023; sorry, I mistakenly said 203, it should be 2023, announced and completed in 2024. By 2024, compared to the situation when FIS acquired Worldpay in 2019, that acquisition had lost nearly $25 billion in value. The transaction amount in 2019 was $43 billion.

Clearly, the market dynamics have changed significantly over a long period, and investor confidence and their assessment of the asset's value have also shifted. For me, what this truly indicates is that the payment world is changing. What you see is that players like Stripe, Toast, and even to some extent Square are taking away significant market share and outpacing some traditional players.

So my thoughts naturally turned to: what is the next phase of evolution? Where will it go next? And this coincided with the time when stablecoins began to be recognized and trusted. Of course, the early successes of companies like Bridge indeed started to build momentum in the market, making people realize: there is really something here.

But for me, the opportunity I saw was to redefine the back-end of payments. I saw a lot of capital flowing to the front-end, like beautiful APIs, fraud and risk tools, and all the things you often hear and see. These things are indeed at the core of consumer experience. But no one was discussing what was happening on the back-end. And I had experienced all of this from the inside, so I realized that the back-end is extremely complex, with a lot of problems, many errors, very expensive, and no one is truly reconstructing that world.

I think everyone realizes that the existing banking infrastructure is too complex, too complex to improve. So no one is really building dedicated technology for this space. Then, when you put stablecoins into this discussion, you realize that now you have a whole new medium, or a whole new platform, to build upon and enhance everything happening on the back-end. So what truly excites me may not be what happens on the payment front-end, nor what consumers will experience, but rather what will happen on the payment back-end.

Host:
Can you elaborate more on what you mean by "specially built technology"? Because we are clearly in the media space, and we are vertical media. You could say we are specially built media. Honestly, we also see a lot of entrepreneurial energy moving in this direction, which is not to be broad and shallow, but to be deep and narrow. We even see this trend in the blockchain space, like choosing privacy and institutional tracks, and then you see projects like Tempo and Stable. You are very clear; your website states "built for CFOs." What does "specially built" mean to you? How does this influence your product roadmap, market entry strategy, and the audience you are trying to communicate with and reach?

Eric:
Yes, that's a very good question. The organization I was previously part of had 75,000 people at the peak of FIS. And now we are starting to build an organization from a room with just a few people. You quickly realize that you cannot serve everyone, nor can you meet everyone's needs. You have to think very seriously about where you believe you can gain early traction and how you want to differentiate yourself in the market.

I think for us, we realized that so far, no one has really thought about what CFOs or financial executives would care about if they decided to go on-chain. We learned this through conversations with many people. We have a group of outstanding advisors, including the former CFO of Stripe, and some who have looked at this issue from many different angles. At the same time, they have a peer network globally, where these people have been discussing similar questions for years: what exactly are stablecoins? Is it really something for treasury? How should we view it?

From these conversations, we learned that at least three things do not exist.

First, no one truly understands that when financial executives or CFOs decide to change how they manage payables and receivables or change how they manage liquidity, all of this actually exists in a system today. It is not just happening in spreadsheets. These are large organizations, sometimes with thousands of bank accounts. If you simply introduce stablecoins into this environment without considering the operational complexities it brings, that is a huge oversight. And I think we are still in a very early stage, figuring out how this world will migrate to on-chain and how to support or interact with the way they currently manage fiat operations. This is a huge oversight, and it is still almost non-existent. We have been very focused on this issue. So I think that is the first point.

Second, for CFOs, the question has always been: well, I am currently working with a globally systemically important bank, or I am working with a super-regional bank, and I feel like I am getting decent FX pricing. Sure, the movement of funds is slow, and cross-border fund movement takes an average of two to three days. Can you beat that? Do you have a solution? Obviously, from a timing perspective, you can beat it, but if I look at it end-to-end, is this solution really better?

I think to do this, you have to do a lot of things differently than the technology serving trading platforms. For example, you need a lot of local currency, which means you need bank accounts that can connect to local payment rails and the ability to obtain liquidity. So I need many sources of liquidity. I need to be able to split orders across multiple trading venues. I need to be able to do off-chain FX or synthetic swaps when necessary to find deep enough liquidity. Because we are not talking about tens of thousands of dollars or a couple of million dollars. The transaction volumes here can quickly become very large and significant.

So the second point is: can you scale this? Can you serve a company that is currently working with a bank that essentially has near-unlimited capital access?

The third point is: how do you make it simple? Because I think everyone wants to reap the benefits that stablecoins bring, but no one wants to procure a wallet vendor, find liquidity themselves, and figure out the complexities of risk and compliance. So, for CFOs, what does that "simple button" look like? It should be like selling them a consulting package: look, this is what going on-chain looks like; here are five simple steps; this is how you can get started in a few days; and then finally connect to the API and integrate the back-end.

So, these three things do not exist in this world. Everything is too complex. Therefore, what we are trying to do, the pun is unintentional, is to bridge these two worlds. That is, connect a relatively mundane traditional treasury business with those who really like the idea of using stablecoins but have no idea how to start.

Host:
Sorry, Drew, I have been leading the questions. Let's move on to the next question.

I am imagining that very typical, respectfully speaking, very "old-school" CFO who has been a CFO for 30 years. Think back to the CFOs from the 90s who experienced the internet wave and tremendous changes. Have you had the chance to sit down with such people, let them try Velocity hands-on, and their reaction is, wow, this is what I have been missing all along?

Host:
These people particularly love adopting new software. I think that is their favorite thing to do. What is that experience like?

Eric:
Yes. I mean, every time a conversation starts, it usually begins with that person leaning back, wearing a polo shirt, and...

Host:
I am so tired of having to have this conversation.

Eric:
Yes. He would say something like, kid, I have been doing this CFO job longer than you have been alive. And then, you see, I don't understand how you could possibly do better than what we are doing now. Because everyone thinks they have built the best mousetrap.

So I usually start with a series of questions. I would say, you see, let me help you understand. You might be right; there might not be any opportunity here. But let's work together for a moment, and let me ask you a few questions.

The first question is, when you consider capital management, are there any scenarios in your current business where you would do some form of pre-funding arrangement? Maybe you would get a short-term credit line from a local bank. For whatever reason, is there such a situation?

The other party might say no, my capital management is very efficient.

Then the reality might be, oh, actually there is a use case; I really have a hard time transferring Philippine pesos out. So I actually pre-fund $6 million every day.

So this series of questions starts to unpack all of these things little by little. These are questions they have known for a long time, but they also realize that these issues are hard to solve in the fiat world. So they have somewhat given up on them, but they have always been in the back of their minds.

Every time such a conversation happens, it ultimately turns into: well, maybe there is a use case here. Maybe we can try this one thing. If you can really prove out this little use case, then maybe we can do more.

They shift from "I am not interested; I have built the perfect mousetrap" to "maybe there is indeed something here." And by the way, I usually never have the opportunity to push something cool, so I want to be the internal champion for this. There is almost an exciting turning point that emerges. Because they usually haven't brought anything truly interesting to the organization recently. For example, I just refinanced debt. Great, cool. I just implemented a new TMS. Sounds interesting. But during their tenure, there usually hasn't been anything that genuinely excites the organization. And this thing is indeed very cutting-edge and interesting.

Host:
Yes. Yes. Looking at your background, personally, as someone focused on growth and market entry, I think about problems this way too. I really like this approach of finding the simplest, most direct entry point. Sometimes I struggle with thinking too far ahead, considering too many possibilities, thinking about too many things that can be done. And I like what you just mentioned, that you just find one thing, keep it simple, and then build on that.

Given your background, how has this approach formed for you? It seems you have held many growth-related roles, strategic lead, market entry, etc. Maybe you can talk about some key tactics you brought to Velocity from a go-to-market perspective, wearing your market entry hat. How do you build on these types of people first? What different approaches do you see yourself taking compared to others, and which of these approaches are working?

Eric:
Yes. Overall, our organization's superpower is that we understand how payments work today at a level of detail that I believe very few people in the world can achieve. We can quickly assess where problems might arise and then delve into how cash flows operate, the systems they connect to, how they might receive FX rates, and start to identify vulnerabilities and understand the current state. So I think this has played a huge role in our market entry.

The second point is, for me, I really enjoy this process. My team often jokes that I am a bit like a truffle pig. I just love sitting in front of someone who tells me there is no opportunity, and then I keep peeling back the layers of the onion to figure out where the real problems are.

One thing I learned early on at McKinsey is that you get placed into situations with some companies, and you know almost nothing about them, except that you have read their 10-K. By the way, AI did not exist back then. So figuring out what a company is actually doing required a lot of heavy lifting.

But if you can ask very good questions, you can build credibility very quickly. So the focus is not on what you know, but on what questions you are asking.

I think we are trying to apply this to our market entry approach. The core is about what type of questions you ask to understand how to provide these enterprises with a better payment and treasury experience. I think we have honed this quite well. We rarely, and I don't even know if we have ever, walked into a conversation and said, okay, let's open the presentation and let me tell you what we can do for you. Our approach is very different: you see, we are working hard to solve problems for treasurers and CFOs. The problems we typically see are these. Please help us understand the issues you are currently facing and the situation you are dealing with today.

So this is a very consultative experience. Even some of our large investors have said, you see, you spend so much time talking to these large companies; you should charge them consulting fees. You need to tell this company that the 12 hours you spent with them last month should actually be billed, and you will send them an invoice because you are teaching them how to go on-chain.

Host:
You guys, this is enterprise sales. What are you talking about?

Eric:
Yes, that's right, that's right. So we have tested this model a bit. You might be surprised; people do value what we are saying. So maybe at some point in the future, we will quietly add a few contracts like that.

Host:
Yes. I want to ask about pre-funding. So since we are discussing this specific issue, you have shared how to position problems or pain points around pre-funding. What other core discovery questions would you ask? What other pain points do you have prepared when you conduct these discovery calls?

Eric:
Yes, I think there are usually three main categories.

The first category is pre-funding. Why do you need to pre-fund? Why? Where are the opportunities to eliminate this need or shorten settlement times to eliminate this pre-funding requirement?

The second category is challenging how they operate FX in their existing environment today. I think one of my colleagues on the team has a very good saying: where there is mystery, there is profit. For most enterprises, even some of the most mature ones, I am talking about the top ten companies in the world, they pay hundreds of millions of dollars annually in FX costs, and they really think they understand these costs. But you will realize that from the time a transaction is authorized to when it is settled, exchange rates can fluctuate in various ways. It is very complex to trace back to a true benchmark.

So many times, once you get someone to start thinking about and dealing with this issue, while you bring in our FX expertise from the traditional world and can provide a benchmark or comparison to challenge their long-held views on today's FX, it opens up opportunities. Therefore, complex FX scenarios are often a very good starting point.

The third category is general internal cash management. Before working at Worldpay, I did not really realize that many companies have thousands or even tens of thousands of bank accounts globally. Placing cash in the right entity to meet operational needs is actually much more challenging than you might think. Because of this, there are a lot of systems in the world, and a lot of cash is sitting idle there. There are various exaggerated statistics about this. Sorry. Just in the UK, there is $180 billion sitting in corporate bank accounts earning 0% interest or returns. Part of the reason is that companies are not mature enough to know how to earn returns, but a large part is idle cash because they have not been able to pre-position funds or place funds in the right place at the right time.

So, these three core issues usually unlock our understanding of where we can create value through on-chain methods.

Host:
Can you talk about this intelligent treasury that we see on the screen now, and how it works?

Eric:
Of course. So, the way we build our platform, from a core capability perspective, I would say is exactly what you would expect. We have our own fiat integrations and networks with banks around the world to facilitate real-time payments. Internally, we have a saying: if we have to initiate a payment using SWIFT, then we have not done it right.

I think if you look at the market today, most people are pre-funding many payments that will eventually go on-chain or processing them via SWIFT. I think this actually limits the true intent of stablecoins or is counterintuitive because stablecoins should represent real-time movement of funds.

You will also see some people launching platforms and saying, oh, we can move money from point A to point B in less than 10 seconds. Yes, that's true, but that is after you have already pre-funded the money into the account. So, we are talking about real-time movement of funds between the front-end and bank accounts, and the actual ability to issue regulated custodial wallets in each market.

We believe that many enterprises do not have, and will never build, this wallet infrastructure themselves; they just want someone to manage it for them. So we are thinking very seriously about how to bring wallet infrastructure into our business.

On this basis, we have built what we believe is a pretty remarkable technology component that allows us to route transactions to different liquidity partners globally and do so in a way that we can source liquidity from multiple partners, split transactions, and also price transactions end-to-end. So you can tell me you want to exchange one currency for another, what the amount is, and I can guarantee you that exchange rate, and I can ensure that the money I tell you will indeed land in that account. This capability is actually more innovative and unique in today's market than you might think. This is also part of how we think about building our liquidity network that enables us to do this.

Host:
Very interesting, Zach. I want to understand better the infrastructure stack or partners that Velocity might be using to achieve some of the things you just mentioned before we have to wrap up. Eric, we have spent a lot of time focusing on this layer, reporting on many of these types of companies and how they operate. It would be very interesting to hear what pieces you have connected on the back-end to make these things work. I feel that many of the people we interview and those listening to the show often find themselves in a position similar to yours, thinking about how these things fit together. So, I would love to learn more about how you stitch them together. What things are built in-house, and what are collaborative? What does that look like?

Eric:
Yes. The parts we collaborate on include wallet infrastructure. We have a good relationship with the Fireblocks team, who are also our close partners. At the same time, we also work with regulated custodians around the world.

We collaborate with top compliance partners. So whether it is for initial AML, KYC, KYB checks, or obviously including on-chain transaction monitoring and Travel Rule compliance, we have partners for that.

We also work with many liquidity partners globally, including direct minting in collaboration with issuers. I saw Agora flash on the screen. I also want to give a shout-out to Nick and their team. We think what Agora is doing is very interesting and aligns well with how financial executives view the value of on-chain holdings.

You cannot go to a company that is earning the federal funds rate and say, hey, by the way, do you want to move money into this stablecoin that will pay 0% interest or returns? I know the CLARITY Act is generating a lot of discussion around how this will work in the future, but for most enterprises, this would be a point they cannot start from. I think Agora's approach, which actually looks and feels more like an asset manager's approach, is the right direction. So we are collaborating with them and working closely, as well as with other stablecoin issuers.

Then from a network perspective, we are quite neutral today. I think one thing we have discovered is that no one really understands what L1 or L2 is enough to know whether they should ask us to route their transactions on one network or another.

We have a viewpoint that as value goes on-chain, there is not enough Web3 or crypto experience in the world to staff all these companies. Therefore, you need vendors like Velocity to provide ready-made services and make these decisions on their behalf.

So we believe that, especially in terms of economic interests, a large part of the power may fall into the hands of players like us, as we will decide which networks will see transaction volumes because these clients cannot complete these transactions themselves. You certainly see some chains signing directly with large clients. But I think, for example, Spotify signing directly with Tempo or others may not be the way the world truly operates.

You will see similar situations in card acquiring. Visa and Mastercard do not directly sign with every merchant globally. They do sign directly with some of the largest and most important clients, but that only accounts for a small portion of the overall transaction volume entering their networks.

Host:
Yes, that is interesting. We just reported on Lightspark obtaining principal membership, which is a great example: bringing in this kind of capability to allow Rain, Lightspark, or other companies to bring Visa into their networks without needing to work directly with all these teams. Really interesting, brother. I see you will be in Miami next week. We will be there too. Will you be on-site?

Eric:
We will be on-site. Yes, we will be having a party with friends from Worldpay on Wednesday night, and many people from the team will also be active there. So I hope we can see you there.

Host:
Yes, I will message you. We have some interview opportunities, like sitting down to chat. I will be there on Wednesday doing some one-on-one interviews for our podcast. Maybe we can get you on the show. That would be interesting. I would also love to dive deeper into your history. That would be fun.

Eric:
Yes, we can do an in-depth founder origin story.

Host:
It's settled then.

Eric:
Cool, brother. Thank you for taking the time. It has been really interesting. I actually hadn't heard of or really studied Velocity before. But I am very excited about what you are building. I think your perspective, the approach you are taking, the way you are building it, and your personal background make me very optimistic about where it might go in the future. So thank you for taking the time.

Eric:
Thank you all. See you in Miami.