The first year of our partnership is best described as provisional and productive. Formalizing an investment structure and strategy around our work has been a significant undertaking. Many of you have been generous with time, capital, and introductions beyond what I could have imagined.
We will hold a first close on partner capital in March, and I am grateful for that privilege. It is my hope that this letter, and those to follow, will prove our talents have been fruitfully deployed.
Early-stage investing, and in many ways investing broadly, rests on two processes – finding investments and making money on those investments. Certain strategies rely more on one than the other. Garry Elevator explores far futures in new markets or new hopes for old markets. It takes time and energy to envision those states and identify product that would move us toward them. We then create opportunities to invest and operate alongside entrepreneurs. As a result, our process looks like:
Still technically a line, the early days of exploration are far more wandering than execution at maturity. We will invest when future is convoluted, and we will work with founding teams toward more linear execution.
This letter will be the story of that march toward execution, and investors should expect it to contain straightforward narrative and clear outcomes. The process of sourcing these opportunities is better conveyed through other media, and this partnership will publish a semi-annual magazine and research notes. As those media give insight into explorations, this letter should give confidence in execution.
There is a unique and attractive opportunity to invest in communal action, or ventures that require participation and investment from the communities they serve. It’s late cycle for top-down capital allocation, and the investments that are well measured and well managed cannot realistically accept more capital without creating massive distortions in price and service levels. Then there is everywhere else.
The map above shows that many communities need capital but have relatively little access. Many people tend to assign such a disparity to the moral failings of capitalism, but it is equally true that many underinvested places are not yet structured to receive capital.
In the long history of markets (and in just about every market), these imbalances occur frequently. In the past, disparities have been addressed by cycles of communal capital formation. Cooperatives and credit unions arise in response to community need, almost always intending to endure alongside (or in place of)their centralized competitors. Almost always, they fail. A priming of the pump, they show centralized competition a market for capital where none existed before. Investment ensues, and lower prices are the compensation for a lost sense of meaning.
Communal action in markets remains sustainable only if supply and demand are restructured to the point that consumers gain access to wholesale pricing. Most cooperative structures never quite push so far, relying on non-profit status, solidarity, or volunteerism to deliver ephemeral, incremental price reductions.They also operate with little financial sophistication. While such strategies deliver value in peak inflationary periods, they struggle to maintain value creation overextended periods.
The experience of the original Garry Elevator and its management is illustrative. My grandfather is the first and best investor I’ve known. His methods were ad hoc, but his track record commendable. Using an independent elevator in Imogene, Minnesota as his investment vehicle, he delivered financial services and a different future to Martin County farmers and families, including our own.
The commodity markets experience significant fluctuations in pricing and massive returns to scale. In the early days of its operation, the elevator displayed many communal dynamics by necessity. To deliver competitive pricing, my grandfather entered a number of what might be charitably called “cooperative labor agreements” with his eight children. Wages were entered into a ledger and redeemed for college tuition. My father worked an auger at harvest well into his graduate school years.
The elevator would never scale beyond that labor force, and as a result, would not benefit from the economies of scale that define commodity markets. The expansion of corporate buying programs meant that farmers had many choices for their grain. They respected my grandfather’s profit margin, in effect subsidizing the business, because they knew that he would buy from them in good seasons and bad. Eventually though, the discounted pricing of centralization became too attractive, and they chose Cargill or Monsanto or Midland. The elevator closed in 2000.
Most cooperative businesses fail to last ten years, let alone half a century.Regardless of tenure though, communal action seems to eventually crash on the rocks of economies scale and overhead. We believe that this is changing.Software is increasingly the fixed cost of a business. Open source protocols make economies of scale accessible to progressively smaller entities. Open source finance in the form of cryptoassets does the same for an organization’s financial infrastructure. Smart contracts enable sophisticated legal structures to be the default in communal organizations, enabling them to operate and grow efficiently.
The result will be cooperative businesses and communal action that is far more durable and far more profitable than the past.Garry Elevator will invest in the platforms that empower the communal economy. Read on for a discussion of our investments into the wireless co-operative ecosystem.
The telecom industry today
Few industries have personified top-down capital allocation quite like telecom. The industry is built on wires – both copper and fiber – which connect data centers(and the Internet) to end consumers through a variety of last mile delivery methods including mobile service, Wi-Fi, and IoT networks. The industry has deployed more than $5T in infrastructure over the past 35 years.
Connectivity services are by no means equal. For example, the connection speeds available to fixed wireless outstrip those achieved by mobile wireless connections.Capabilities are converging, however, and where there is excess capacity on their networks, wired and wireless providers compete to serve the same customer segments. It remains to be seen which types of service consumers will prefer.
It is abundantly clear which strategy investors prefer, as delivery of wireless service through macrocell towers has proven remarkably capital efficient. These assets connect thousands of people to the internet at speeds as high as 1gigabyte per second (GBps). Additional tenants on tower assets represent nearly 100% incremental margin, and updates at a single site impact many users. Most importantly, they are long-life assets that require little maintenance.
According to Moffat Nathanson, “towers kind of run themselves, so management’s value add comes from keeping costs down and intelligently allocating capital.” Given insatiable global demand for Internet access and halfway decent capital allocation, these investments should be generating significant return. Instead, industry ROICs are declining at alarming rates.
The data belies a few trends, but none greater than industry concentration. Just as a few companies won the cable wars, only a few companies won the macrocell competition. Unsurprisingly, they were the three companies with the lowest WACC. In the US, 99% of the wireless market runs through AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile (major network operators, or MNOs). While MNO returns on invested capital have remained stable, their price ceilings have collapsed returns for their competitors.
Next generation asset deployment is also becoming more expensive. Small cell deployment and fiber to the premises are required meet consumer demand for ultra-high speed connections. These delivery mechanisms are multiples more expensive per user than macrocell investments. Given the intensity of the last mile buildout, SG&A as a percentage of asset deployment is far higher. Investments in these assets have been far slower to show returns, dramatically restricting rollout.
"The issue for us has always been the relative return of a U.S. small cell opportunity versus our ability to deploy capital primarily on the macro side in international markets…historically, the international opportunities have tended to present a … more compelling return opportunity” - American Tower
It’s getting harder to grow and manage communications networks with the economics and strategies that won the last capital allocation cycle. Unfortunately, those cost structures seem to be the only ones left, as even government efforts partner with or emulate MNO cost structures. In markets those structures can’t serve, there is significant unmet need. In particular:
1. Affluent populations desiring small or micro-cell coverage. In the typical telco model, it’s cost prohibitive to allocate capital to these opportunities. Microcell is not worth the SG&A required to identify dead spots like a bar or coffeeshop. Permitting for the types of small cell sites that can sign a long-term contract with an MNO represents up to 30% of total site cost. Crown Castle’sROIC has fallen from 20% on macrocell to 3% on small cell, showing how difficult it is for macro-deployer cost structures to operate hyperlocal deployments.
2. Lower income populations. Existing connectivity products are inaccessible to consumers below certain income thresholds. Most providers don’t view these communities as being worth the last mile buildout. Where the last mile is built out, both wireless and wired internet providers are unwilling to cut price and cannibalize existing revenues. Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNO likeBoost and Mint) attempt to rectify some of these issues, but they outsource tower siting and network management to the MNOs, adopting their cost structure and their incentives. The result is staggering for a developed nation.
3. Low data assets. Several connectivity use cases that require relatively frequent transmission of small data packets. Many of the use cases for IoT such as asset tracking or water level measurement fall into this category. Often these use cases do not generate enough value to warrant their own cell connection.Additionally, the power demands of higher connectivity networks make the applications difficult to deploy on battery-powered assets. Deployment of different bandwidth types would make these applications financially viable but have not thus far been attractive to macrocell providers.
Communal action in connectivity markets
To bring connectivity to these markets, we need new sources of capital and new cost structures through which to allocate that capital. The result would be new types of connectivity products and new connectivity contract structures.Communal action would look to reorganize the supply side of the market to provide those new services and organize demand markets to purchase them.
Co-operatives are purpose built for these types of market failures. They connect consumers to a low, sustainable wholesale rate. Critically, they empower communities to invest in infrastructure using a variety of capital forms – financial, locational, social and infrastructural capital to name a few. As profits are generated, they would flow back to the community through improved ability to finance new infrastructure build and lower cost of data.
There are two major barriers to standing up a wireless provider that have not yet been addressed. The first is the government. Most large governments control their wireless ecosystems through the sale of spectrum allocations. Until recently, only certain parties were allowed to participate in these auctions. Even now, size is a benefit. In 2020, however, the FCC released new regulations removing spectrum requirements in certain high frequency band. Though these bands are limited, they represent the first time a carrier could operate a cell network without substantial participation in spectrum auctions.
Second is the access to capital markets. Part of the reason that telcos operate with the cost structure and the size that they do is access to debt financing. For every tower, there is a debt offering. Any new market participant must either find a way to dramatically lower the cost of the equipment required to operate a telco or find a way to finance asset deployment that aligns with its revenue model.
What is decentralized wireless and how can it help?
Decentralized wireless (DeWi) providers operate telecommunications infrastructure using open source protocols. If 20th century telcos use centrally managed, closed ecosystem to transform capital into wires, last mile distribution and customer interface, then decentralized wireless is an open modular framework for those ingredients to plug in at will.
Open source ecosystems represent a technological standard, and as a result, all the capital, hardware, and users work together without requiring corporate management. Participants can also use any equipment that meets minimum standards, lowering startup costs. As a corollary, transparent standards and incentives attract assets to the network, educing participation as opposed to centralized induction. Self-identification lowers the SG&A of the system.
Cryptoassets, a relatively new innovation in open source, enable decentralized wireless to have accessible financial infrastructure embedded into its operating system. Crypto is critical to the model in two ways:
1. Payments: Crypto’s immediate settlement infrastructure allows rapid onboarding of new participants as there is no credit risk in transactions. Additionally, accounting for transactions using public blockchains such as Ethereum and Solana makes dramatic efficiencies of scale accessible to even the smallest providers, all the way down to those operating a single site.
2. Financing: Cryptoassets are a flexible financial instrument. Depending on the context, one asset can act as a currency, commodity, or approximation of network value.Participants in relatively standardized transactions can choose to be compensated in accordance with their risk tolerance. Relative to traditional telcos, this dramatically lowers the startup cost and cash burn of the system.It also makes sophisticated site-by-site financing feasible.
Lastly,eSIMs enable consumers to interface with open source technology without extensive implementation cost.
The combined result is quietly revolutionary.For the first time, communities can invest capital and operate telcos without reliance on MNOs. As a result, they can provide wholesale data in $0.40 – 0.50 range, roughly 75% less than centralized telcos charge. DeWi service cannot claim product parity with MNOs in their core markets. The leaner cost structure, however, ensures that connectivity services can be delivered into areas that MNOs struggle to serve.
How do we invest in these markets?
Investment returns in decentralized wireless are driven by data flows - how much data is flowing across each tower, and how many towers are deployed. As a result, we invest in the protocols that power the installations and the people that are making them simple and usable:
1. Coverage installation and servicing: As you will see, DeWi introduces simplicity in some critical ways, but complexity remains. Installation quality impacts service provision and investment returns. Risk management related to token flows is critical. In some specific cases, hosts with significant demand, but limited capital resources may need underwriting their initial asset purchase. LongFiSolutions helps communities install and manage DeWi assets. The firm currently services more than 700 installations and has completed partnerships with residential and industrial facilities, as well housing authorities and other civic institutions. Quickly, we’re excited because:
- The team has displayed exceptional scrappiness to install more than 700 antenna sites across LORA and 4G/5G networks.
- They’ve also displayed resilience in the face of crypto price volatility and high decline rates on early IoT installations. They have aggressively repurposed assets and installations to generate positive returns and have structured operations to be durable over long winters. We expect significant opportunity in stranded assets in the coming months.
- Where investment in tower equipment solves host need and provides attractive all-in returns (inclusive of SG&A) LongFi will allocate capital for tower purchase and ownership.
- The business model is moving to one of negative cost leverage, in which partners pay LongFi a fee plus incentive to operate their DeWi assets. This business model, if deployed with appropriate risk management achieves sustainability fast, and compounds over the long-term.
2. Decentralized wireless protocols: The infrastructure that powers these installations and services has a built in method for value accrual which is tied to data flows.As the DeWi ecosystem grows, the operating systems that deliver value should capture it as well. The most prominent operating systems in our activities atLongFi Solutions have been HNT (liquid portfolio position) which is migrating to SOL (liquid portfolio position), and XNET, which is building on top of MATIC and ETH (liquid portfolio position). The company also explored some initial Pollen deployments on behalf of capital partners. A few thoughts:
- Wireless revenues in the US totaled more than $300B in 2022. If DeWi connects previously unreachable consumers, increasing the consumer base by 10%, and those services come at a 75% discount, that represents $7.5B in annual data revenues running through connectivity co-ops. The fully diluted valuation of DeWi native tokens is less than $1B.
- Liquid crypto markets broadly and decentralized wireless markets have been hard hit by the alleged fraud at FTX and the market selloff that precipitated the exchange’s collapse. Whether crypto protocols can withstand crisis remains a critical lens through which we judge the viability of protocols as long-term investments. Several DeWi protocols chose to build on top of Solana, an ecosystem that derived much of its liquidity from FTX and related sources. Solana’s market cap has declined from an undiluted $75B in 2021 to $3.7B by year-end 2022. Yet builders are continuing to work in the Solana ecosystem, and active wallet counts are 3x above pre-FTX levels. Capital is slowly returning to the ecosystem as well. Solana is showing its resilience as an open source community. We also believe that Ethereum is showing its competitive advantages, with participants experiencing far fewer interruptions due to FTX’s implosion.
- Pollen has proven a valuable lesson for the DeWi community. Launched initially as a 5G competitor to Helium, the team was fast to deploy assets, and relatively slow to manage those assets on-chain, preferring instead to keep internal account logs that they would then post to Solana. The team recently announced that they were doing away with native token PCN. A significant percentage of their installed base has shifted to the Helium and XNET operating systems, and their cost of data has risen materially, showing the impact of crypto incentives on service costs and the importance of fully vetting platforms.
What does providing coverage look like in practice?
A host believes that they have a good site for decentralized wireless installation. They know this in one of three ways:
1. The host has a strong sense for unmet data need. Typically, these hosts are experiencing connectivity shortfalls and importantly, are in relationship with potential users. We have seen school corps in need of student connectivity solutions, mid-size industrial sites, and real estate developers fit this profile.
2. The host sees that a site they control is eligible for a coverage incentive from a decentralized wireless provider. DeWi platforms encode parameters for valuable coverage (density, height, power, etc.) into their operating systems. The platforms reward any network participant that can comply with those parameters.In this way, the systems ensure rapid, efficient capital allocation.
3. The host has a significant amount of unused backhaul capacity. It’s odd to highlight backhaul capacity while discussing a lack of connectivity but remember that decentralized wireless solves last mile problems. It’s likely that quality backhaul exists near all but the most rural underserved populations. Where a host has significant surplus connectivity, they’re able to operate installations at no incremental cost or impact to their internet experience.
In most instances, these reasons intermingle to get hosts to self-identify through the purchase of equipment or outreach to an installer. Data-hungry hosts see enhanced financial returns. Financially driven hosts look for sites that comply with allocation policy (which should have strong correlation to data flow). Few of these returns sketch out if there is not a consistent, low-cost supply of wired backhaul to the site.
Backhaul is second only to data demand in determining the long-term viability of a site. In some markets, hosts have seen attractive incentives or unmet data demand, and deploy hotspots on top of Comcast fiber (or in some radical cases, T-Mobile LTE coverage). This solves dilemmas of last mile distribution and cost for the enduser, but it leaves hosts susceptible to changes in Terms of Service or pricing that directly targets decentralized wireless installations. Major telcos that own the wires powering DeWi installations could take a vast majority of the economic returns, just as they do in their relationship with MVNOs. For reference, MNOs operate a roughly 40% gross margin business, while MVNOs operate at 5-15% gross margins.
It may be that decentralized wireless operates in this somewhat punk future for years, but it is not likely to sustainably solve customer need. Hosts should optimize in the medium term for backhaul providers that are aligned with low cost connectivity. We have found two sources: 1) developers that own fiber assets in their buildings and 2)municipal broadband/dark fiber providers that operate in the public interest.Both sources are interested in last mile distribution, and both sources have multiple ways to win from low cost, widespread connectivity. Eventually, decentralized wireless may evolve to the point of financing wires with the same lean structure it deploys towers, but we are years from that future.
Returning to the host's journey, once equipment is acquired, they sync with the current version of open source operating system and the state of accounts on the blockchain. Their hotspot is assigned a wallet to facilitate payments, and they provide coverage. If units are deployed on private property, this represents a process measured in days compared to months required for telcos to permit, build, and integrate small cell sites.
Hosts are compensated in two ways: financial incentives for deployment, known as proof of coverage (PoC) or volume-based payments for data transmission. The vast majority a site’s total return comes from data transmission. We’ll explore those mechanics first, as they hold important implications for the value of incentive payments. Sites relay data for users in their coverage footprint, just as traditional towers do. DeWi differs from centralized telcos in that these transactions are settled immediately on public, permissionless blockchains. Compared to towers operating under longer term master services agreements or payments in arrears for roaming data usage, it’s seamless to buy data capacity from a DeWi installation.
Data users pay a set fee for data transmission – typically $0.40-0.50 per GB depending on which protocol they’re using. Users pay in dollars using stablecoins called “data credits”. Hosts receive an equivalent amount of cryptoassets per GB they transfer. For example, if Helium Network Token (HNT)is priced at $5, hosts receive 0.1 HNT per GB. If HNT appreciates to $500, hosts receive .001 HNT per GB.
This might seem like unnecessary complexity, but it’s currently critical that DeWi protocols have a native asset to move network services and capital through the system, and it’s critical that this asset be tied to network fundamentals like data flows. DeWi networks need a native asset to compensate specific stakeholders that aren’t well incentivized by cash. In particular, the stakeholders maintaining the blockchain, improving the operating software, and making governance decisions are credible only to the extent their compensation is tied to the long-term value of the network.
Long-term value in the network is tied to near term decision-making through data credit burns. Data credits are generated from the retirement of the native token. If data demand if 50 data credits, representing $25, then $25 worth of HNT is taken out of supply. This occurs through a Dutch auction, essentially setting a reserve price for the cryptoasset that is directly tied to demand. As a result, incentives can enhance host return only if data flows at the installation and across the network broadly within a reasonable time frame.
Native assets are also critical capital allocation incentives as they can be provided ahead of data demand to educe host participation. Proof-of-coverage (PoC)returns represent incentives for early, quality deployments. Proof-of-coverage returns come from a fixed pool of native tokens, and regular allocations are granted to hosts according to objective measures of installation quality.
Critics argue that this is a gimmick to drive network growth, but the fact remains that non-cash incentives bring hosts to the network at a much lower SG&A cost than cash incentives, using a host’s estimate of long-term network value to enable low cost service provision. The capital allocation mechanism is nascent, without question. Some host estimates of NPV have proven far too rosy, and quality of deployment remains to be seen.
PoC rewards were first tested by the Helium network to deploy IoT hotspots. IoT use cases such as asset tracking require wide area coverage to be effective, andPoC seemed to be the perfect method to incentive network deployment at a useful scale. Coupled with appreciation in HNT price, however, PoC rewards delivered host payoffs measured in days. More than 1M hotspots were deployed inside of a two year span, representing one of the fastest wireless network deployments in history.
For all the devices deployed, relatively little data has moved across the IoT network. Proponents would argue that the dollar value of data wildly understates usage given the massive discount to competitor prices. Regardless, data flows have not been sufficient to support the token price in the face of declining crypto enthusiasm, and the massive influx of devices has meant that PoC rewards are split across many devices. The decline rate in earnings on these IoT hotspots has been massive.
Helium and other protocols are engaging in significant work with IoT carriers and device companies to deploy the kinds of firmware that might use the Helium network. This is also the work of hosts and installers, including LongFi. For now, less than 20% of the Helium IoT network observe data transmissions. Either demand efforts will materialize and the remaining 80% of the network will become productive, or there has been poor capital allocation by these networks on the order of hundreds of millions.
From a capital allocation standpoint, where protocols offer PoC returns, data flows should not be far behind. Or perhaps better said, PoC rewards are a privilege resulting from past capital allocation. If PoC will be used to deploy networks far ahead of data demand, there must be a network operating on a different bandwidth delivering significant fundamental value to support token prices. Given the level of demand organization in mobile wireless, it is likely that this network will prove the data demand base for DeWi in the foreseeable future. If native assets fail to appropriately drive capital formation and deployment, it's likely that more value will accrue to layer 1 protocols which handle base accounting and transaction functions, and intermediary native assets may not be needed.
If hosts sell their crypto data transmission, they are operating a dollarized business. Given the cost of equipment, the native asset-funded SG&A to place and maintain assets, along with organized demand, the return profiles on assets underwritten to data value can be quite attractive. The 125 GBs per day of base case usage assumes that users are streaming 60 hours of HD video through the tower per day or about 40 people’s average usage. LongFi is currently underwriting installations on data flow and deploying assets into opportunities with 50%+ projected IRRs.
As with any commodity-based business, there is a prudent balance of hedging coupled with retained upside in held-for-sale tokens, as well as data versus PoC returns. Hosts often need a financial partner in determining and executing the optimal mix. Even with open access financial infrastructure, execution can require facilitation. Serum, a decentralized exchange on Solana, represented the primary market through which hosts sold their data rewards. FTX and Alameda were the primary liquidity for this platform and their collapse meant that liquid markets disappeared. LongFi drove significant value for its installation sites by striking OTC arrangements when more liquidmarkets dried up.
The emerging picture is one in which towers are commodity-producing assets. Much like the oil and gas value chain, efficiency will rule the day, so long as the midstream and production equipment is open to all. There will be some service providers that provide value, and we anticipate LongFi Solutions will build such a platform. We also anticipate that the open source ecosystems will create and capture significant value for investors, hosts, and users.
How do users access this coverage?
That last group has so far escaped mention in our discussion of “practical realities”, due in large part to the pervasion of eSIM cards, which dramatically simplifies network access for consumers. The next generation of cell phones are equipped with upwards of 10 eSIM slots. Consumers already have all the tools necessary in their hands; accessing coverage can be as simple as scanning a QR code which activates an eSIM attached to a crypto wallet.
These factors – high unmet data need and organized demand – converge in two contexts to provide value to consumers and attractive returns to hosts:
1. Affluent communities experiencing gaps in cell coverage. Real estate developers are eager to deploy connectivity assets inside their buildings. MNOs are also looking to improve coverage of those tenants (who happen to be MNO customers).As a result, decentralized wireless deployments can sell directly to MNOs. XNET,a decentralized wireless provider, is making this a central feature of their capital deployment incentives and strategy. LongFi’s estimates 50% base case returns on XNET deployments and there are several sites in the pipeline.
2. Low income communities that cannot access existing coverage solutions. Often, there is a community organization that sees connectivity as a critical need. Of late, we have seen this need expressed by school corps struggling to deliver online learning to students without sufficient in-home bandwidth. They are willing to fund deployment and siting of towers, as well as fund data credit accounts for their students. A simple QR code connected to an eSIM and a crypto wallet gets their students up and running on the internet.
The ability to bring newly organized supply directly to the consumer unlocks the full potential of communal action in connectivity markets and enables these efforts to provide durable value particularly in markets that MNOs can’t currently serve.
The means by which new tech enables the reorganization of markets are becoming clearer every day. Communities have been trying to deploy capital behind their connectivity priorities for some time. Wireless co-ops and private cell networks have existed in various forms over decades. Now, thanks to exceptional open source software, sophisticated and liquid financial and payments infrastructure, and extreme interoperability, they can be sustainable, growing participants in the connectivity landscape.
We are excited for the future of these communal action networks, previously relegated to non-profit status, now able to generate significant profits for distribution and reinvestment. We believe that none of this would be possible without interoperable technology up and down the value chain, and we will invest in making that technology useful over the years to come.
Disclosure: Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in this post are solely those of the author(s) in their individual capacity and are not the views of Garry Elevator, LLC or its affiliates (together with its affiliates, “Garry Elevator”). Certain information contained herein may have been obtained from third-party sources, including from portfolio companies of funds managed by Garry Elevator. Garry Elevator believes that the information provided is reliable but has not independently verified the non-material information and makes no representations about the enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. This post may contain links to third-party websites (“External Websites”). The existence of any such link does not constitute an endorsement of such websites, the content of the websites, or the operators of the websites. These links are provided solely as a convenience to you and not as an endorsement by us of the content on such External Websites. The content of such External Websites is developed and provided by others and Garry Elevator takes no responsibility for any content therein. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in this blog are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others.
The content is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as the basis for an investment decision, and is not, and should not be assumed to be, complete. The contents herein are not to be construed as legal, business, or tax advice. You should consult your own advisors for those matters. References to any securities or digital assets are for illustrative purposes only, and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Any investments or portfolio companies mentioned, referred to, or described are not representative of all investments in vehicles managed by Garry Elevator, and there can be no assurance that the investments will be profitable or that other investments made in the future will have similar characteristics or results. This blog does not constitute investment advice or an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to purchase any limited partner interests in any investment vehicle managed by Garry Elevator. An offer or solicitation of an investment in any Garry Elevator investment vehicle will only be made pursuant to an offering memorandum, limited partnership agreement and subscription documents, and only the information in such documents should be relied upon when making a decision to invest.*