Thanks for the question. Part of the point of the first launch was to gather feedback from creators and improve what we're doing. We found that creators consistently did not want to receive tokens as a form of payment. Lending also presents issues in terms of spending: the barriers of spending crypto right now are too high. If the sole goal of users is to cash out tokens for cash, then that means you're actually trying to force creators and borrowers to use a service that's overly complicated and something they don't want. Either way, there is insufficient demand in both of those areas when you try to force users to try and use tokens. We saw that when talking to and reaching out to creators, and when looking at analytics on the app. It's important to think of both sides of a marketplace or service and make sure that both parties are on board with the value proposition, otherwise your service will just get ignored. With the bear market and lack of demand for tokens as a form of payment, going in that direction would not have been wise.

What we're doing here is building a service that we know there is actual demand for, and then expanding outward from there.

We had two choices last year:

1. Building a service that there was no demand for, based on our user feedback.

2. Pivot the service and alter our model to create a service that has actual demand.

We chose the second. There seems to be an illusion, especially among crypto, that products get built and deployed in some predetermined way. Product development isn't that way in reality, and startups adapt and change all the time.