We must start from the supposition that nobody cares about the news.

You’ll scroll headlines and you’ll see a blurb flash by on Facebook or in your email or on Twitter, but most of us don’t want to read a news article. They are long, complex, and often boring and compete with our Netflix and Chill time.

Further, the news business is deeply broken. The editors, desperate to grab your eye as it slides past fights, pornography, and C-SPAN-quality videos of celebrities, politicians, and sports figures performing mundane activities, will write headlines that titillate and capture attention.

Finally, these headlines are free. They are as ephemeral as candy floss and last as long as our eyes rest upon them and then shunt them off. There is no benefit to selling these headlines because no one will pay for them. In fact, the moderation and management of these headlines costs so much that it makes no business sense to correct falsehoods. A bit of rage bait goes well with Trump farting audibly in the Oval Office, and that pairs wonderfully with a pair of tits. The buffet of media is now more Old Country than smorgasbord.

So how do we fix this?

First, Substack, Bari Weiss, and influencers aren’t the answer. Take my own example when it comes to Substack. I’m a career journalist who, at my height, made over $200,000 a year writing about new startups. That was an amazing and heady time circa 2010 to 2016, and that salary was supported by an ad sales team that could actively sell $100,000 ads on the sites we worked for. Brands wanted access to those sites because, in the past, we were the equivalent of that dopamine tango we currently perform on our phones. We’d all wake up, check our bookmarks, and read. Some users would disassociate the website from the news through an RSS reader, but those folks were few and far between. People actually clicked and viewed pages larded with ads, and that led to the rise of the professional blogger.

Now, however, I can send you this newsletter, and you might read it (you probably won’t), and you might subscribe (you probably won’t), and I get nothing. I make $2,000 yearly on this newsletter, and I produce acceptable video content and interviews weekly. I can’t hire a team nor can I pay for anything more than ChatGPT and some editing tools to ensure that I don’t sound like an idiot. I try my damnedest to be interesting, and no one — not the PR people who pitch their clients, not the entrepreneurs, not even Substack — cares to pay me more than is my modern journalist’s due. In the great bell curve of value, I’m firmly on the far left, a lone voice howling into an empty jar that I don’t even own.

Bari Weiss and CBS thought they had it cracked. They figured they’d run to where the audience was. But that audience, the angry boomer who is confused about object permanence, is not paying for news either. In CBS’s case, that audience is worthless. They won’t buy or try anything new, and their fear of immigrants prevents them from being sexually aroused by orange juice commercials anymore. Therefore, even the old models are dead.

Finally, there’s TikTok and Instagram. The ROI on a single influencer video drops off a cliff after a certain point. To truly get Kardashian-style attention for your product, you have to pay $100,000 for a single photo or short video. The resulting traffic, thanks to the rapacious stylings of Meta and ByteDance, is near zero, and the only way to truly make money is to sell something outright, usually some Temu garbage that costs $5 and that you can sell for $100. This drop shipping scam isn’t exactly what Balmain and Proctor & Gamble want to do, and the “news” that influencers produce is suspect at best and certifiable at worst. Those folks will make money, but not much, and they won’t support an entire news gathering apparatus.

So now what?

So now what?

As we’ve discovered, a kind benefactor in the form of Jeff Bezos or some crypto prick will never save news. The idea that billionaires will doggedly spend millions to spread the truth is an ancient one and has been completely debunked in the modern era. Everything that modern news organizations have tried has failed. This is primarily because they are thinking based on an older model, one designed around the Victorian concept of imperialism.

In the nineteenth century, Britain embraced the belief that a standardized media and education system could produce a shared way of thinking across the empire. This was not only about teaching people to read or giving them access to facts. Instead, it was about order. If people read the same newspapers, learned the same history, and absorbed the same moral lessons, they could be governed more easily. A clerk in London and a clerk in Mumbai did not need to live the same life, but they needed to accept the same basic story about how the world worked and who held authority.

This belief emerged from the practical demands of empire. The British Empire was vast and culturally fragmented, too large to control by force alone. Standardized schooling, uniform exams, and mass circulation newspapers did the work of governance. English language instruction, civil service testing, and widely shared media created a common frame of reference. Progress was defined as industrial growth. Authority rested in institutions, and truth moved outward from the center while news was gathered on the periphery and carefully repackaged for a global audience. England made the world flat, and the rest of the world followed that template.

Mass media fit naturally into this system. Newspapers were not simply vehicles for information. They were tools for social alignment and told readers what mattered, what was respectable, and what fell outside the bounds of serious concern. The goal was not constant debate but coherence. A public that broadly agreed on the facts, the tone, and the limits of disagreement was easier to manage. From this, we got the concept of the Overton Window, the idea that there are things that are safe to say (the price of pork futures) and others that are discourteous to mention (the President’s health, the sex lives of the rich).

That model only functioned under conditions of scarcity. Printing presses were expensive. Distribution was slow and limited. Attention was finite. Controlling a newspaper meant controlling a narrow but powerful slice of reality. Modern news organizations still operate as if this world exists, even though its material conditions have disappeared.

The recurring belief that a wealthy benefactor will rescue journalism is just a modern version of an old myth. Industrial-era tycoons did not buy newspapers out of devotion to truth. They bought them because newspapers were profitable and influential at the same time. Classified ads paid the bills. Influence came along for free. When the money dried up, so did the interest.

Today’s news organizations keep trying to rebuild this nineteenth-century system with modern tools. Paywalls, subscriptions, bundles, and philanthropic grants all assume that the public still wants a single shared narrative and that the main obstacle is distribution or funding. That assumption no longer holds.

The internet destroyed the conditions that made broad, centralized power possible. There is no center now. There is no single audience that needs to be aligned. People do not want to think the same way. They want to feel “understood.” They want to do “research.” They want to feel unique in the world with a feed that caters to their whims. How often are you scrolling on Instagram and find something that is deeply uninteresting to you — homeschoolers dancing or some kind of religious bodybuilder who looks like beef jerky, for example? You feel a twinge of anger because the algorithm didn’t know you.

Modern journalism continues to fail because it is still chasing coherence at scale. It is still trying to speak to everyone at once, like a newspaper laid on every breakfast table of an empire. That world is gone. Media built to shape a unified public mind cannot survive abundance, fragmentation, and choice.

The crisis in news is not primarily a crisis of funding or technology. It is a crisis of theory. Journalism is still organized around a model of power that no longer exists.

How do we solve for this? First, we embrace AI. AI can produce endless content of a quality that is already more than acceptable to the mass of humanity. Stories in the vein of “Politician does X” and “Business does Y” are headline fodder. While potentially vital to a very small audience, most of us are fine knowing that the local high school won the game 5 to 7 or that Apple just released a new iPhone. We don’t need 500 journalists at The Washington Post to tell us that Stanley water mugs are tainted with alarming amounts of LSD. This aggregated information can come from multiple sources — the New York Times, Wired, the Scranton Bee and Ledger — and come with varying levels of context.

The next level is the human editor who will curate this so-called slop. They will work with the AI to select headlines and stories that will get extra exposure through repeat posting to all social media, not just Twitter. The sports scores should show up as a photo on your Instagram feed. A talking head should inform you that a zebra is loose in Willamette. A local influencer turned paid journalist can cover a restaurant review or a school shooting. You need a human to run this apparatus, but one or two of them are cheap.

These small groups can create global news networks similar to the old newspapers, but instead of a “bureau,” you have a “barstool.” One writer and one editor can produce a hundred headlines out of Kyiv a day. One writer and one editor can cover baseball or football or basketball — sometimes all three. By splitting the editorial process into some sort of guerrilla terrorist cell.

Ah, but quality, you’ll opine. What happens when everything is dross?

Isn’t it already? What are you currently reading? Absolute drivel, and you slop it up like a pig to a trough (no offense). You’re not going to buy a newspaper, and you’re definitely not going to pick up a magazine. You’re just fine sliding past news, so why spend millions producing it? Instead, let’s pay the better cells a little more to produce long-form content like reviews, features, profiles, and the like. Stuff that you can sell advertising against.

Most news organizations could easily stop there. The more prestigious or ambitious ones can hire real reporters — of whom there will only be a few left — to write investigations and the like. These can run alongside the radar chaff that is spit out on a daily basis. Further, they can also pay influencers some sort of wage to feature products and services, to interview entrepreneurs and sports stars, and to write focused newsletters on a single topic. But, again, those people need support. It’s hard enough producing an interesting startup newsletter twice a week, and I’m all alone. Imagine having to do it daily? You will need AI operators who can handle video and images, graphics, and animations. You’ll need people who will create eye-candy alongside the news.

You might not believe this will work, but what’s the alternative? It’s clear that The Washington Post is done. The New York Times is hanging in because enough rich New Yorkers will still pay for it. Financial news like the Wall Street Journal exists because the news is actionable and can make readers money. But everything else, the slow drumbeat of history, is valueless and must be treated as such. The real money will come from the upper echelons of the newsroom, just as it used to come from the classifieds page. People don’t deserve a full, human-written and human-curated page of news on a daily basis. They simply don’t. Nor do they want it. They want Cracker Jack where most of the news is boring popcorn interspersed with a few expensive peanuts. Hell, sometimes they’ll even get the prize.

I wish I didn’t have to be this cynical. Further, I know there are other models that might still work. Resilience, where I write regularly, has a very successful event and the news site and newsletter support that mission. If those systems are working, then by all means let them cook.

But for the rest of the media, for the sad-eyed, pot-bellied journalists working at a thousand small markets, their days are done. When Bezos gutted The Washington Post this week, there was a lot of talk from journalists about the camaraderie of the newsroom, how much everyone loved each other. As evidenced by their layoffs, love gets you only so far. You also need money.

A new media is being born. We thought the Internet was the real new media, an always-on firehose of junk that drowned us. Little did we know that we’d all float and that that firehose would wash away all context, all value, and all truth. We need to rethink how we serve news to an exhausted audience, and it starts with destroying the old systems before they collapse on us like some dark-windowed, waterlogged ruin. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to the truth, and we owe it to the future.

On this episode of The Innovators, I spoke with Jasper Fu, CEO of CoinSub, about what crypto payments actually look like when you strip away the hype and aim for real adoption.

CoinSub has been operating for roughly two and a half years and has grown to a 22-person team, most of them engineers. The company’s focus is narrow by design. Instead of trying to convince millions of merchants to adopt crypto directly, CoinSub sells infrastructure to payment service providers. These are the companies that already process card payments for thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of merchants. CoinSub’s bet is that adoption happens faster when crypto looks like just another payment option, not a new system merchants have to learn.

Fu framed the problem simply. Crypto and stablecoins are often described as liquid assets, but in practice they are hard to use for everyday payments. Merchants do not want to think about wallets, chains, or conversions. They want money in their bank accounts. CoinSub handles the movement behind the scenes, converting between dollars, Bitcoin, and stablecoins, then packaging that capability so payment processors can offer it under their own brands.

For merchants, the experience is meant to feel familiar. Crypto becomes another icon at checkout, alongside cards or digital wallets. Whether funds settle as stablecoins or dollars is not something the merchant has to manage. Fu compared it to card networks. Merchants do not think about how Visa or Mastercard clears transactions, they just expect it to work.

That distribution strategy also shapes CoinSub’s view of competition. While many crypto payment companies target merchants directly, CoinSub targets the providers upstream. There are billions of dollars flowing through a relatively small number of payment processors, many of which lack the technical capacity to build crypto infrastructure themselves. CoinSub positions itself as a way for those companies to keep pace without rebuilding their stacks.

Usage data suggests there is real demand, even if it remains early. Fu said CoinSub processed roughly $400 million in transaction volume last year. That number varies widely by region and industry, but it reflects actual consumer-to-business payments, not trading or speculation. Some sectors adopt faster than others, including cross-border commerce and industries that struggle to maintain stable card processing relationships.

Fu pushed back on the idea that crypto adoption hinges on hype cycles. He views blockchain and tokenization as infrastructure, a more efficient way to store and move data and value. Speculation and scams, he argued, appear in every new technology wave and do not define the underlying system. In his view, hype draws attention, but utility determines what survives.

Stablecoins are central to CoinSub’s timing. Fu said regulatory clarity, treasury backing, and growing institutional interest have aligned incentives across governments, issuers, and payment networks. Payments and commerce, he said, are the logical next phase after issuance. Once stablecoins exist at scale, the question becomes how people actually use them.

Fu’s path to CoinSub started outside crypto. After leaving a corporate role, he took time off to think about what he wanted to build next. Payments stood out as a place where incremental efficiency could have broad impact. Making money movement cheaper and more accessible, particularly across borders, felt like a net positive use of time and capital.

That mindset also shapes CoinSub’s internal culture. Fu said he prefers the startup environment because it allows for empathy-first leadership and long-term thinking. He believes effort cannot be bought, only invited, and that teams perform better when people are treated as contributors rather than interchangeable resources.

Looking ahead, CoinSub is expanding beyond its initial engineering phase. The company is working to capture more of the payment service provider market while it still has an early mover advantage. Longer term, Fu sees applications beyond checkout, including payouts, invoicing, and potentially ATMs, anywhere money needs to move across systems or borders.

Fu is realistic about maturity. He expects fragmentation before consolidation, with many stablecoins and blockchains competing before a smaller set emerges as dominant. In that environment, CoinSub’s role is to abstract complexity away from customers and let them benefit from whichever systems ultimately win.

Crypto payments, in Fu’s telling, are not about replacing everything overnight. They are about quietly fitting into existing workflows until their presence feels unremarkable. That, more than price swings or headlines, is what adoption looks like.

Transcript

John Biggs (00:07.982)

Welcome back to The Innovators, a podcast about amazing people doing amazing things. Today on the show I have Jasper Fu. He’s the CEO of CoinSub, a stable coin operation. We do a lot of crypto on here, so I’m happy to have somebody back from the crypto world. Welcome, Jasper.

Jasper Fu (00:27.501)

Thanks for having me, John.

John Biggs (00:28.588)

Yeah. So tell us about CoinSub. How long have you been around and what are you up to?

Jasper Fu (00:33.923)

Yeah, absolutely. So we’ve been around for two and a half years. The team is about 22 people now with 17 being engineers. And what we jumped into the space to do is like everyone’s heard of this stable coin crypto blockchain Bitcoin stuff, right? And there’s a variety of value, value props. But what we realized is a lot of it’s just not hitting to the mass market.

We particularly target payment service providers in fintechs, right? A lot of stable coin around, a lot of Bitcoin around, why can’t we pay with it was our first thought. You say it’s liquid, how do we make it liquid? And as we dug into the space, we realized this early, early stage of adoption, there’s a lot of demand from both the merchants, the businesses, as well as these payment providers to be able to offer this, right? But this is totally new tech to them.

And most of the solutions in this space are either going for, hey, directly to the businesses themselves, or they’re these esoteric APIs that are hard for non-technical people to understand. So what we do is we pre-build out the infrastructure so that somebody could go from US dollars to Bitcoin to stable coin to US dollars. And we apply that to different things like payment acceptance and payouts.

and we wrap and package that whole thing up and allow other companies, allow other payment providers who are already selling say card payments to now add this additional capability underneath their own brand.

John Biggs (02:07.726)

Interesting. in a nutshell, is the focus more on stablecoins? Is the focus more on general crypto? What am I as a merchant? So say I’m a merchant, want to sell my widgets online or I want to sell them in the store. What am I doing with you guys? How do you sell to me?

Jasper Fu (02:25.924)

So merchants usually get their payment products through their payment provider. So that’s the interesting insight that we had, right? You usually only want to work with one person and that might be say your stripe or your clover or whatever it is. So we actually sell to the clovers, you know, the clovers of the world, the payment service, the payment processors of the world. But what that looks like for the merchant is

you reach a point of awareness where you’re like, I know that I should probably accept this kind of payment, but at the end of the day, I’m just trying to expand my business and grow my revenue. So for us, it’s just one more thing that gets added on at checkout, and that’s the last thing you have to worry about. Whether it ends up as stable coin or whether it ends up in US dollars in your bank, you shouldn’t have to worry about it. Focus on your business. You don’t worry about how your credit card gets there from Visa or MasterCard, and you don’t worry about how PayPal, Google Pay, Apple Pay, Clarion don’t work.

And so that’s the kind of level of adoption we want to bring where people understand that there’s some value there and we just go, great, here you go. Let me make sure that it’s comfortable for you.

John Biggs (03:32.383)

So the icons when you check out are like credit card, don’t know, PayPal, Venmo, Alipay, and then crypto. OK. You’ve got a lot of competition in that space. How is that working out?

Jasper Fu (03:37.997)

with crypto.

Jasper Fu (03:46.244)

So the competition in this space would only apply if the target market is the merchants themselves. There’s very few companies that are actually targeting the payment service providers. If you think about it, there’s hundreds of millions of merchants in the world that capture trillions of dollars of payment volume. But there’s only really thousands of payment service providers, independent sales orgs, and these are the ones that are already kind of selling card processing.

they’ve already captured the entire market. And the reality is most of these have been around for 15, 20, 25 years and they’re not tech savvy. So when you get these first movers like a stripe, right, offering stable coin payment acceptance, what that actually does for the rest of the industry is it pressures kind of the middle of the pack or the earlier adopters to take action. And there’s not enough time for them to build it because as you said,

the space is saturated and it applies to not just crypto but traditional payments as well. And so the options to buy and to date, we think of ourselves as like orthogonal to the competition. Our difference isn’t in what necessarily we’re offering them as an end product but rather the deployment model. Rather than deploying it to the merchants and trying to onboard millions of merchants, we onboard a couple dozen.

payment providers that then grant us access to hundreds of thousands of merchants. So that’s it.

John Biggs (05:15.854)

And then hundreds of thousands of customers as well. I mean, this has been the age old question, right? First off, when mass adoption? And how much of crypto is hype versus reality? So what are you seeing in terms of people using that button, basically?

Jasper Fu (05:40.878)

So we’re seeing about, like last year we saw about 400 million in transaction volume. So relatively significant pretty early on. And it varies by industry and it varies by region. So I’d say that the demand from a consumer perspective exists. Demand from the merchant perspective also exists because customer goes, hey, can I pay with crypto? And the merchant goes and asks their payment provider, hey, how can I pay with crypto? So this kind of upstream demand is occurring now where it’s

may not have particularly in the US in the past couple of years. So the demand is there. And now whether or not we want to think about whether it’s hype or not, I don’t think about this as crypto itself necessarily.

John Biggs (06:17.006)

Mm-hmm.

John Biggs (06:21.422)

I mean, you said yourself $400 million in money moving through the system is wild.

Jasper Fu (06:27.748)

Mm-hmm. Which is a relatively, you know, if we think about it at scale, it’s super small, but it does prove that there’s that actual volume there, right? In the actual use case of payments and commerce from a consumer to business perspective, not necessarily B2B, not necessarily watch trading or, you know, exchange trading or high frequency trading, but actual use case for somebody who’s like, man, I got some Bitcoin in my hand, like,

John Biggs (06:31.075)

Mm-hmm.

John Biggs (06:54.958)

Mm-hmm.

Jasper Fu (06:55.808)

Why shouldn’t I just be able to pay with it? Or cross-border payments, of course. And then there’s also certain industries where they’re just, they have a really hard time keeping card payments and they’re not even weird industries. It’s like peptides. Peptides for some reason, like really has a hard time keeping like a stable card processor. And the demand is there. The product is actually relatively stable. And just makes no sense financially that that’s not being taken care of. know, that industry is not being.

John Biggs (07:07.64)

go.

Jasper Fu (07:25.643)

addressed.

John Biggs (07:27.63)

I mean, there’s obviously some places where crypto works really well, like online gambling and sort of adult stuff, that kind of thing. But it sounds like just even for like supplements, which would seem that that shouldn’t be a big problem.

Jasper Fu (07:42.372)

It should not, supplements, VPN tools, oddly enough, multilevel marketing, of course. And then now this new class of AI girlfriends that surprisingly large group. whether crypto is hype or not, I think about it on a multi-tech cycle level.

John Biggs (07:45.719)

Mm-hmm.

John Biggs (07:49.879)

Yeah.

Jasper Fu (08:08.606)

Is the underlying technology, call it blockchain, Are cryptographically tokenized assets meaningful or impactful anyway? Do they solve anything? Do they make the market larger? Do they make it more efficient? And the answer is yes. At the end of the day, it’s just a more efficient way of storing, retrieving, accessing data. The fact that we choose to tokenize something and the fact that someone chooses to do a get rich quick scheme that happens in every single industry. And so, yeah.

Are there use cases where it’s all hype? Absolutely, that’s how new tech gets there, right? If there’s no hype, no one’s sitting there reading research papers being like, yeah, this is great. It gets adoption through the people that’ll hype it, and then it kind of reaches maturity at some point.

John Biggs (08:52.014)

You mentioned before we were talking about the rise of stablecoins. I mean, we’re talking about ETFs. We’re talking about government adoption. sounds like, gosh, sounds like Texas is trying to do something right now with their own sort of currency. Are you in the right time for all this right now? Was it harder a few months ago?

Jasper Fu (09:16.758)

When we first started building it was certainly harder, right? Stablecoins themselves, like all of this, like the terms have to get into the human zeitgeist and kind of be branded. And then somebody has to understand what that actually means.

And then it has to gain adoption and practice. So yeah, absolutely. This is such a great time to be doing it. The other day I looked and I think it was like stablecoin.org or something, the domain was on sale for like a hundred thousand. I was like, this is how you know we’re still super early in awareness because you know, somebody would snatch that up if this was a little bit, you know, more mature of a space, right? Um, but I think stablecoins are just starting to get adoption, regulatory clarity.

John Biggs (09:46.775)

Okay.

Jasper Fu (10:02.083)

The incentives are all properly aligned, right? Stablecoins being backed by T-bills, meaning that there’s more purchase of T-bills from the government, which means they have an incentive to positively impact the creation of more, the issuance of more stablecoins. So I think everything is pointed in the right direction for.

adoption and more money coming into the system.

John Biggs (10:25.586)

Why did you pick crypto? Why did you pick this?

Jasper Fu (10:30.916)

Oh man, so I was leaving corporate and decided to take a little sabbatical to hike, hike some mountains. Sitting there I was like, what do I want to do with the next phase of life? I want to do something that’s meaningful, like I’ve got a decent network, new great technical talent, and more or less are like, okay, what do I do with the next phase of life? What can I do that’s meaningful, impactful, and

net positive or additive to society. And I went through a couple of different thoughts and ideas and just realized like, if I can make the market and payments a little bit more efficient, not just for institutions, but for individuals, grant a little bit more access to financial systems and shake things up a little bit and make the market larger itself. Like, yeah, I think that’s a good thing to put time into. And of course, having your finger on the pulse of money movement never hurts for

John Biggs (11:28.75)

Mm-hmm.

Jasper Fu (11:30.221)

growth network valuations.

John Biggs (11:31.966)

If you want to make money, you go where the money is, right? What about getting funding? You guys are working on a round now. How’s that going?

Jasper Fu (11:34.743)

Mm-hmm.

Jasper Fu (11:41.097)

It’s going super well. Stablecoins is really hot right now. Stablecoin, stablecoin payments particularly, right? It took a little bit for people to go stablecoin issuer companies like this trend goes, okay, great crypto, great stablecoins. Okay, now what do we do with the stablecoins? And payments and commerce is kind of the next wave of interest. And so we’ve seen a lot of interest from traditional finance funds.

high net worth individuals, family offices, as well as of course the crypto VCs. So it’s currently the hot spot to be. Now it’s just trying to figure out who do we align ourselves with maximally? Like what actually makes sense here? Far cry from two years ago when it was not a sexy thing to talk about stable coin three years ago, when it was not a sexy thing to talk about stable coin payments because everyone was so hype about real estate, know, RWA tokenization, still a thing, right? And token launches.

John Biggs (12:39.278)

Do you think the industry’s finally hit that level of maturity where it needs to be to, I mean, first off, support a constellation of startups that are actually doing things that people want them to do, right? That people are excited about. And also that they’re not going to have like rug pulls and huge funding announcements that end up petering out. It sounds like you’re slow and steady wins the race in this case, right?

Jasper Fu (13:07.78)

We are very slow and steady. We’ve got a long-term plan for what we think will happen at each stage of adoption, and we kind of just go forward with that and try to ignore the hype or take advantage of the narrative whenever it makes sense. But as far as the industry reaching maturity,

Jasper Fu (13:30.888)

Not yet, right? We’re at the stage where everyone is beginning to have awareness of the value and opportunity, which means we’ll actually have more influx of capital coming in for a variety of reasons. Each of those will be interested in capturing their own ecosystem. So the technology is actually going to become harder to use in the short term as it goes from just once upon a time, say just Bitcoin or Litecoin, right? Two tokens to a fragmentation of dozens, maybe hundreds of different stable coins that are each that

of whom each have their own incentives to maintain their ecosystem and may or may not be compatible with others. Same with the underlying blockchains. There’ll be more and more of them each trying to do an ecosystem battle.

John Biggs (14:12.608)

Is there a collapse or is an ecosystem collapse or can the industry handle that?

Jasper Fu (14:17.924)

It’ll be a consolidation is what I’m thinking. I mean, at the end of the day, the money flowing in is large by individual standards, but relatively trivial by traditional finance standards, So the ecosystem can certainly handle it, but you’ll see consolidation early on when automotive manufacturers were around the US. The US had hundreds, if not thousands, of automotive manufacturers early on. And then, of course, it kind of consolidates and peters out to a couple of the dominators.

And I expect that to happen with this as well.

John Biggs (14:50.744)

Why do you like the startup world versus corporate, or do you?

Jasper Fu (14:55.272)

I like the startup world because I got this hypothesis that you can still be like a good person and an honest person and treat your team well and like go empathy first. And that that’ll turn out actually better than kind of treating an individual as a commoditized resource. You can buy people’s physical presence and time, but not their effort.

John Biggs (15:01.038)

Hmm.

John Biggs (15:19.214)

Did that frustrate you in the corporate world that you had all these people who got paychecks but they didn’t do anything?

Jasper Fu (15:31.318)

It wasn’t that so much as the people who really wanted to shine and excel were not like accordingly, like rewarded. almost like, you know, you see all these like young people that are excited, want to work hard, want to kind of grind, push forward, get into a corporate setting. For me, it was consulting. And then it almost just, you hit like a quick, like quick stand real quick.

And so that’s not necessarily frustrating because I understand why things work the way, like why it works the way that it does. But I just want to be able to create, well, I want to see if a different culture can be created and still work.

John Biggs (16:20.558)

Would you jump back into, hold on a second, would you recommend somebody go into corporate first, consulting first, and then do startup? Or should young people do startups immediately right out of college or in college?

Jasper Fu (16:34.149)

depends on your financial situation. Corporate is, well, I don’t know if job stability is still a thing. Corporate’s reasonably reliable. Startups, corporate’s reliable and safe is what I would say. Startups provide far more opportunity for upside, whether or not you’re just grinding away at your own consulting company or building websites for people. There’s far more upside to it and far more personal growth that must.

John Biggs (16:35.757)

Mm-hmm.

Jasper Fu (17:03.535)

happen. So it depends on whether you want to just have a nine to five or a set amount of time traded for money and then enjoy the rest of your life or whether or not you have something that drives you that you want to keep growing and learning for.

John Biggs (17:21.678)

What’s next for CoinSub? What are you guys working on?

Jasper Fu (17:24.388)

So as we complete our arrays, we’ve been engineering heavy so far. And now it’s just taking this working formula that we know and expanding it. In terms of bringing together the best talent, the best consultants, making sure that at least from a payment service provider industry, like our existing target segment, that we capture a significant portion of the market while we still have a first mover advantage in who we’re targeting. And then beyond that, it’s seeing where else

the same technology of money conversion while it’s on ramps, off ramps, and this kind of flexible technology can apply, whether it’s like ATMs, right, it’s kind of an interesting side one for us, or whether it’s like focusing on particularly like on the payout space. So it’s just seeing what’s next, what’s the next spot.

John Biggs (18:17.614)

Who’s your ideal customer? Like who would you love as a customer?

Jasper Fu (18:21.803)

Right now, things like a Worldpay, an Adyen, a Square, Anything that has large distribution as far as controlling merchants. But then, other than that, our favorite customer is the one that has some level of, call it startup hunger. It doesn’t matter if they’re like a middle-sized, right? There’s plenty of...

John Biggs (18:45.475)

Mm-hmm.

Jasper Fu (18:50.996)

middle market companies whose names are unknown, who have significant reach in the tens or hundreds of thousands of merchants that are doing single digit billions, right? But at scale comparatively, they don’t have a differentiator. So somebody who wants to utilize, basically take advantage of this emerging technology and disruptive kind of money movement to take their company from one of the smaller fish in a saturated market to an outstanding kind of front runner.

John Biggs (19:21.634)

Have you used, are you using crypto or stable coins in point of sale? you tried that yet? Is that a thing?

Jasper Fu (19:28.451)

That is actually our point of sales virtual turnables checkouts. That was our first entry in. And then subscriptions was our differentiator for a value prop that others did not have.

John Biggs (19:39.84)

Mm-hmm. And how long does it take to like, mean versus like, I don’t know, tapping, how long does it take to do a crypto transaction?

Jasper Fu (19:47.011)

So the actual point of sale, longer, which is why I wouldn’t recommend crypto for physical transactions, rather digital, unless time is on the issue.

John Biggs (19:54.368)

I’m thinking I’m thinking like that. I don’t know the vape the vape shop or whatever, right? Something like somebody somebody wants.

Jasper Fu (19:59.461)

At best, you’re looking at like 50 to 45 seconds in 45 seconds, right? Depends on which chain it is. I think there still needs to be another kind of layer built before point of sales is functional. Can you imagine standing in the line at the grocery store and everyone waiting 45 seconds? You have to pay is nearly infinite. There’s a level of like pre-funding and trust and risk that goes on there, which can be built towards.

John Biggs (20:03.726)

Mm-hmm.

John Biggs (20:17.23)

Yeah, exactly.

John Biggs (20:22.648)

Mm-hmm.

John Biggs (20:29.11)

OK, very cool. All right, so coinsub.io, you’re looking for investors and you’re looking for partners. And you’re well on your way to actually making people. Maybe I’ll try to find some of your partners and I’ll pay for stuff with crypto. What do I pay for crypto recently? I think I bought a watch once with crypto. So there you go. So I’m on my way there,

Jasper Fu (20:35.854)

Mm-hmm.

Jasper Fu (20:50.458)

cool. Yeah, luxury goods, definitely. Also, less interesting use, but one-on-one invoicing. How do you invoice someone from Turkey? If they got stable, there’s certain, we use our tech ourselves within our team members, so our team is globally distributed. And so sometimes it’s the only way to pay our team members. So there’s these interesting use cases there as well.

John Biggs (20:58.733)

Mm-hmm.

John Biggs (21:14.114)

Yeah, very cool.

John Biggs (21:18.188)

All well, Jasper, thank you for joining us. This has been a nice deep dive. And I think you explained it better than almost anybody else has explained crypto on this show, so it’s important. All right, Jasper Fu, coinsub.io. I’m John Biggs, and this has been The Innovators. We will see you next episode.

Jasper Fu (21:27.645)

thanks, John.