The former CFO of Stripe is an advisor to Velocity; one of Velocity’s co-founders previously led global strategy at Worldpay; its shareholder roster also includes executives from Visa, Circle, PayPal, and Google. Velocity can be understood as a group of seasoned industry veterans who truly understand payments and corporate treasury management, building a stablecoin-era treasury infrastructure for the CFOs they once served. In this interview, Eric Queathem also explains why they chose to launch the company from London.
Several key background points are:
Velocity officially emerged from stealth in May 2025, completing a $10 million pre-seed 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 — a unified funds management and payment platform that enables businesses to move and manage funds across banks, blockchains, and countries and regions through a single interface.
Eric co-founded Velocity with Tom Greenwood, who is the founder and head of Volt, an open banking infrastructure company. Before founding Velocity, Eric spent nearly a decade at Worldpay, leading global strategy and growth; earlier in his career, he worked at McKinsey.
In this interview, Eric explains what it means to be “built specifically for CFOs.” The challenge lies in the fact that many of their buyers have never actually interacted with blockchain. So,Velocity doesn’t start by talking to CFOs about chains, wallets, or stablecoin technology; instead, it begins with the issues CFOs already understand: how corporate funds are allocated, why cross-border settlements are slow, why FX costs are high, why upfront 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 faster than presenting a polished pitch deck. At the start of many conversations, a CFO might lean back and say, “I’ve been doing this longer than you’ve been alive.” But after a series of probing questions, they often lean forward and begin to seriously consider: “Maybe there’s actually a scenario here worth trying.” This is Velocity’s market entry approach: it’s not product-led, but consultative sales. It first helps companies identify real pain points in their treasury management, then assesses whether stablecoin rails can truly offer a better solution.
This episode also discusses the differences in regulatory approaches between Europe and the U.S., how Velocity distinguishes itself from companies like Stripe Treasury, Bridge, BVNK, and Altitude, and which internal workflows within enterprises will be most affected as stablecoin rails begin to replace parts of traditional banking infrastructure.
Eric Queathem, Co-founder and President of Velocity
X: @Queathem
Takeaways:
Velocity’s core insight is that stablecoins will first transform enterprise payments and back-end fund management, not consumer-facing payment interfaces. Drawing from his experience at Worldpay, Eric observed that over the past decade, most innovation has focused on APIs, risk management, consumer experience, and front-end acquiring—while enterprise back-end processes such as cash flow, settlement, FX, and account management remain complex, inefficient, and costly.
The rise and fall of Worldpay sent Eric a signal: the traditional payment infrastructure is being restructured by a new generation of players. Once the world’s largest acquirer, Worldpay’s acquisition by FIS, combined with the rise of new competitors like Stripe, Adyen, Toast, and Square, made him realize that the next wave of transformation in payments won’t stop at the front end.
Velocity didn’t target the entry point of “getting enterprises to use blockchain,” but rather “helping CFOs solve real treasury problems.” Their buyers often had no prior exposure to blockchain, so their sales language couldn’t focus on chains, wallets, or L1/L2—it had to center on issues CFOs have struggled with for years: locked-up funds, FX costs, settlement cycles, idle cash, and account complexity.
“Built for CFOs” means that stablecoin products must be integrated into a company’s existing financial systems, rather than creating an additional layer of crypto-specific workflows. Accounts receivable, accounts payable, and liquidity management are already operating within these systems, and many enterprises manage thousands of bank accounts. Simply inserting stablecoins into the process only increases operational complexity.
Velocity sees three essential elements missing for CFOs to go on-chain: system compatibility, scaled liquidity, and a simple button. First, it must integrate with existing fiat treasury processes; second, it must handle large-volume, multi-currency, cross-platform liquidity; third, it must allow CFOs to avoid having to procure wallets, source liquidity, or manage on-chain compliance themselves.
Eric believes that the primary question for enterprise adoption of stablecoins is not “whether it can be faster,” but “whether the end-to-end experience is truly better.” While stablecoins can certainly speed up cross-border transfers, CFOs will compare: foreign exchange rates, settlement certainty, final amount received, compliance, system integration, operational costs, and bank substitution costs. Speed alone is not enough.
Velocity’s sales approach is consultative, not product-driven. Eric rarely starts by opening a deck to present the product; instead, he first asks questions to understand the client’s current cash flow, FX, pre-funded capital, account structure, and internal operational pain points. This approach is more like enterprise-level consultative selling than SaaS self-service conversion.
The CFO's mindset shift typically begins with "No need" and ends with "Maybe there's a use case worth trying." Many experienced CFOs initially believe they already have the optimal solution, but through continuous questioning, they often uncover long-standing issues in certain scenarios—such as difficulty withdrawing certain cryptocurrencies, needing to pre-fund millions of dollars daily, or slow settlement in certain markets.
Pre-funded capital is one of the most pressing pain points for stablecoin treasuries. If a business needs to pre-deposit funds in a specific country, account, or currency to ensure local operations, payments, or settlements, it ties up liquidity. Stablecoins that can shorten settlement times have the opportunity to reduce this capital lock-up.
FX is another massive but often underestimated profit pool. Eric mentioned: “Where there is mystery, there is profit.” Many large enterprises believe they understand their FX costs, but between authorization and settlement, exchange rates, spreads, benchmarks, and final amounts can all change. Complex FX scenarios are a key entry point for Velocity.
Managing cash internally within a company is itself a major challenge. Many multinational corporations have thousands, even tens of thousands, of bank accounts worldwide, and the real difficulty lies in getting the right amount of money to the right entity at the right time. As a result, large sums of money remain idle in corporate bank accounts, often earning no interest or returns.
Velocity’s product goal is to become a unified stablecoin payment account, not a single-chain wallet. It connects banks, local payment rails, regulated wallets, liquidity partners, and stablecoin issuers, enabling businesses to move and manage funds across banks, chains, and borders through a single interface.
A key product principle of Velocity is: if SWIFT is still involved, the true value of a stablecoin has not been realized. Eric believes that many market solutions, while claiming on-chain transfers completed in 10 seconds, assume you’ve already deposited funds into your account in advance. If the frontend still relies on pre-funding or SWIFT, the real-time value of stablecoins is diminished.
Velocity has built its own orchestration, routing, and end-to-end pricing capabilities, while heavily partnering on the infrastructure layer. They collaborate with Fireblocks, regulated custodians, compliance service providers, liquidity partners, and stablecoin issuers; their core focus is on splitting trades, aggregating multi-source liquidity, and ensuring exchange rates and final settlement amounts.
Velocity believes that the volume of transactions on future chains and networks may be largely determined by corporate treasury orchestration platforms rather than by corporations themselves. CFOs and corporate finance teams typically do not understand L1/L2 and will not directly negotiate on-chain network partnerships. Therefore, intermediate layers like Velocity may wield significant influence in the future over decisions regarding “which chain or network a transaction should use.”
Host:
Eric, how have you been lately? Brother, thanks for joining us.
Eric:
Thank you for the invitation. It's great to meet you.
Host:
That’s great. So, we’ve just touched on this. I mentioned earlier, brother, no one leaves a company like Worldpay—especially after nine years—without strong conviction. So maybe you could start by introducing this to those who aren’t familiar. I know Velocity has been incredibly busy over the past 6 to 8 months, with several funding rounds completed. Could you walk us through what stage you were at, what you were doing at Worldpay, and what gradually built your conviction to step out of stealth mode and launch Velocity?
Eric:
Yes, that’s a great question. Nine years is a long time. I never imagined I’d stay at one company for nine years. Now, I hope I can do the same at Velocity. But yes, it’s interesting—I think the payments industry went through several stages of evolution during those nine years.
When I joined the company, it was actually called Vantiv. It was a somewhat dull small payment company based in Cincinnati, Ohio, but it had already quietly become the world’s largest merchant acquirer. Within a year, we acquired Worldpay, merged the two companies, and renamed the combined entity Worldpay. Shortly after, we were thrust into the position of the largest acquirer at the time—and still remain the world’s largest acquirer today.
So I would say that Worldpay was at its peak at the time. Companies like Stripe and Adyen were certainly on their way to building exceptional businesses, but I don’t think the market truly realized the trajectory these companies would take or the potential threats they posed to more traditional players over time.
Fast-forward to the end of my tenure, and ultimately we sold—or spun off—the business to a private equity firm in a privatization transaction. For me, it was somewhat difficult to accept. You’re part of the company, and for a long time, you’ve poured your life into it. And while the outcome was a positive one for the financial sponsors and the private equity firm, from another perspective, it felt a bit like stepping off the stage. It had once been one of the largest and most respected payment companies in the market. I believe that moment was, in fact, a signal.
Moderator:
Eric, when was that? How long ago? It hasn’t really been that long, has it?
Eric:
Yes, Worldpay was sold to FIS in 2019. The following years were challenging, compounded by the impact of COVID and some professional shifts in the market. The divestiture was announced in 2023—my apologies, I previously said 203, but it was actually 2023—and completed in 2024. By 2024, the acquisition had lost nearly $25 billion in value compared to when FIS acquired Worldpay in 2019. The original transaction value in 2019 was $43 billion.
Clearly, over a long period, market dynamics have changed significantly, as have investor confidence and their assessment of the value of this asset. For me, what this truly illustrates is that the payments world is changing. I think you’re seeing players like Stripe, Toast, and to some extent Square, capturing substantial market share and outperforming some traditional players.
So my thinking naturally turned to: What is the next stage of evolution? Where is this headed? And this happened just as stablecoins were beginning to be recognized and trusted. Of course, early successes by companies like Bridge did start to build momentum in the market, making people realize: There’s truly something here.
But for me, the opportunity I see is redefining the backend of payments. I see vast amounts of capital flowing to the frontend—beautiful APIs, fraud and risk tools, and all the things you frequently hear and see. These are indeed the core of the consumer experience. But no one is talking about what’s happening on the backend. And having experienced it firsthand from the inside, I realized that the backend is extremely complex, filled with numerous problems, errors, and high costs, and no one has truly restructured that world.
I think everyone recognizes that the existing banking infrastructure is too complex—so complex that it’s hard to improve it. As a result, no one has truly built specialized technology for this space. But when you introduce stablecoins into the conversation, you realize you now have a brand-new medium, or a brand-new platform, on which to build and enhance everything happening in the backend. So what truly excites me isn’t so much what will happen on the payment frontend or what consumers will experience, but rather what will happen on the payment backend.
Host:
Could you elaborate more on what you mean by “purpose-built technology”? Since we’re clearly in the media space and we’re a vertical media outlet, you could also say we’re a purpose-built media platform. In fact, we’re seeing a lot of entrepreneurial energy moving in this direction—away from broad and shallow, toward deep and narrow. We’re even seeing this trend within blockchain, such as focusing on niches like privacy and institutions, where you see projects like Tempo and Stable. You’re very clear about it—your website literally says “built for CFOs.” What does “purpose-built” mean to you, and how does it influence your product roadmap, go-to-market strategy, and the audience you’re trying to reach and communicate with?
Eric:
Yes, that’s an excellent question. The organization I previously worked for had 75,000 people at its peak with FIS. Now, we’re building an organization starting with just a few people in a room. You’ll quickly realize you can’t serve everyone or meet every need. You must carefully consider where you believe you can gain early traction and thoughtfully define how you want to differentiate yourself in the market.
We realized that, so far, no one has truly considered what CFOs or finance leaders would actually care about if they decided to go on-chain. We learned this through conversations with many people. We have a stellar group of advisors, including the former CFO of Stripe and others who have examined this issue from a wide range of perspectives. At the same time, they have global peer networks that have been discussing similar questions for years: What exactly is a stablecoin? Is it truly a treasury-oriented asset? How should we think about it?
From these discussions, we learned that at least three things do not exist.
First, no one truly understands that all of this today already exists within a system—when a treasurer or CFO decides to change how they manage payables, receivables, or liquidity. It’s 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 complexity it brings, that’s a massive oversight. And I believe we’re still in the very early stages, figuring out how this world migrates on-chain and how to support or interact with how they currently manage fiat operations. It’s a massive oversight, and it still almost doesn’t exist. We’ve been extremely focused on this issue. So I think this is the first point.
Second, for the CFO, the question has always been: Okay, today I’m working with a globally systemically important bank, or I’m working with a super-regional bank, and I feel like I’m getting decent FX pricing. True, fund transfers are slow—cross-border fund movement typically takes two to three days on average. Can you beat that? Do you have a solution? Clearly, from a time perspective, you can beat it, but if I look at it end-to-end, is this solution truly better?
I believe that to do this, you have to do many things differently than how a service trading platform operates. For example, you need large amounts of local currencies, which means you need bank accounts that can connect to local payment rails and the ability to acquire liquidity. So I need many sources of liquidity. I need to be able to split orders across multiple exchanges. I need to be able to perform off-chain FX or synthetic swaps when necessary to find sufficient depth of liquidity. Because we’re not talking about tens of thousands or even a couple of million dollars. The trading volume here will quickly become very large and very significant.
So the second point is: Can you scale this? Can you serve a business that is currently partnering with a bank that has near-infinite access to capital?
The third point is: How do you make it simple? Because I think everyone wants to earn the yields that stablecoins offer, but no one wants to source a wallet provider, find liquidity themselves, and figure out the complexities of risk and compliance. So for a CFO, what does that “simple button” actually look like? It should be like selling them a consulting package: Here’s what on-chain looks like; here are five simple steps; here’s how you can get up and running in a few days; and finally, connect via API and integrate with your backend.
So, these three things don’t exist in this world. Everything is too complicated. Therefore, what we’re trying to do—pun not intended—is bridge these two worlds: connecting a relatively dull traditional treasury business, or those who truly like the idea of using stablecoins but have no idea how to get started.
Host:
Sorry, Drew, I’ve been doing most of the asking. Let’s move on to the next question.
I imagine that very typical, respectfully speaking, very "old-school" CFO who has been a CFO for 30 years. Think back to CFOs in the 90s—they lived through the internet boom and massive changes. Have you ever had the chance to sit down with someone like that, let them personally try Velocity, and have them say, “Wow, this is exactly what I’ve been missing all along”?
Host:
These people particularly enjoy adopting new software. I think it’s one of their favorite things to do—new things, new systems for doing things. What’s that experience like?
Eric:
Yes. I mean, at the start of every conversation, that person usually leans back, wearing a polo shirt, and then…
Moderator:
I'm tired of having to have this conversation.
Eric:
Yes. He would say something like, “Son, I’ve been CFO here longer than you’ve been alive.” And then, “Look, I just don’t understand how you could possibly do better than we are now—because everyone thinks they’ve built the best mousetrap.”
So I usually start with a series of questions. I’ll say, look, let me help you understand. You might be right—there may truly be no opportunity here. But let’s just go through this together; let me ask you a few questions.
First question: When you consider capital management, are there any scenarios in your current business that involve some form of pre-funding? For example, do you obtain a short-term line of credit from a local bank? Regardless of the reason, does such a situation exist?
They might say, "No, my capital management is very efficient."
Then the reality might be, oh, actually there’s one use case where I really struggle to withdraw Philippine Pesos, so I actually pre-deposit $6 million every day.
So this series of questions began to break down all these things piece by piece. They had already known these questions, but they also realized that solving them in the fiat world was extremely difficult. As a result, they had somewhat given up on them, yet they remained lingering in the back of their minds.
Every time this conversation ends up like this: Alright, maybe there’s a use case here. Maybe we can try this one thing. If you can truly prove out this small use case, then perhaps we can do even more.
They’ll shift from “I’m not interested; I’ve already built the perfect fly trap” to “Maybe there’s something here after all.” And, by the way, I rarely get the chance to champion something cool, so I’m going to be the internal driver for this. There’s going to be a genuine moment of excitement, because they haven’t typically brought anything truly interesting to the organization lately. For example, I just refinanced debt. Great, cool. I just implemented a new TMS. Sounds interesting. But during their tenure, there’s usually nothing that really excites the organization. This, however, is genuinely cutting-edge and compelling.
Host:
Yes. Yes. I was looking at your background, and personally, as someone focused on growth and market entry, I think the same way. I really like this approach—finding the simplest, most direct entry point. Sometimes I struggle with overthinking—considering too many possibilities, too many things I could do. But I love what you just said: you just find one thing, keep it simple, and get on base first.
Looking at your background, how did this approach come about? It seems you’ve held many growth-related roles—strategic lead, market entry, and more. Perhaps you could speak from a go-to-market perspective, putting on your market-entry hat, and share the key strategies you’ve brought to Velocity. How do you initially get on base with these types of people? What are the ways you differ from others, and which of these approaches are currently working for you?
Eric:
Yes. Overall, our organization’s superpower is that we deeply understand how payments work today, down to a level of detail that I believe few people in the world can match. We can quickly identify where problems might be occurring, then drill down into how the funds flow, the systems it connects to, and how they might be receiving FX exchange rates, allowing us to uncover gaps and understand the current state. I believe this has played a huge role in our market entry.
Second, I really enjoy this process. My team often jokes that I’m a bit like a truffle pig—I love sitting down with someone who tells me there’s no opportunity here, and then I keep peeling back layer after layer until I uncover what the real issue is.
One thing I learned early at McKinsey is that you’d be placed in situations involving companies about which you knew almost nothing beyond what you’d read in their 10-Ks. By the way, AI didn’t exist back then, so figuring out what a company actually did required a tremendous amount of heavy lifting.
But if you can ask excellent questions, you can build credibility very quickly. So it’s not what you know, but what questions you’re asking.
I think we’re trying to apply this to our market entry approach. The core is: what types of questions do you ask to understand how to deliver a better payment and treasury experience for these companies? I believe we’ve refined this very well. We rarely, if ever, walk into a conversation and say, “Okay, let me open the presentation and tell you what we can do for you.” Our approach is very different: we’re focused on solving problems for treasurers and CFOs. The issues we typically see are these: please help us understand the challenges you’re currently facing and the situation you’re in today.
So it’s a very consultative experience. Even some of our major investors have said, “Look, you’re spending so much time engaging with these large companies—you should charge them consulting fees. You need to tell these companies that the 12 hours you spent with them last month are billable—you should send them an invoice because you’re teaching them how to go on-chain.”
Moderator:
You people, this is corporate sales. What are you talking about?
Eric:
Yes, that's right, that's right. We've done a bit of testing with this model already. You might be surprised—people truly value what we say. So perhaps at some point in the future, we'll quietly add a few more such contracts.
Host:
Yes. I’d like to ask— you mentioned pre-funded capital. Since we’re discussing this specific issue, you’ve already shared how to identify problems or pain points around pre-funded capital. What other core discovery questions do you ask? What other pain points do you have ready ahead of time when conducting these discovery calls?
Eric:
Yes, I believe there are typically three major categories.
The first category is prepaid funds. Why do you need to pre-fund? Why? Where are the opportunities to eliminate this requirement or shorten settlement times, thereby removing the need for pre-funding?
The second category challenges the way FX operates in their current environment. I think one of our colleagues put it very well: where there is mystery, there is profit. For most companies—even some of the most mature ones—I’m talking about the top ten companies in the world—they pay hundreds of millions of dollars annually in FX fees and truly believe they understand these costs. But you realize that between the time a transaction is authorized and when it settles, exchange rates fluctuate in various ways. Tracing back to a true benchmark is actually extremely complex.
So often, once you get someone to start thinking about and working through the issue, and you bring in our traditional-world FX expertise to provide a benchmark or point of comparison that challenges their long-held views on today’s FX, opportunities open up. Therefore, complex FX scenarios are typically an excellent starting point.
The third category is general internal cash management. Before working at Worldpay, I didn’t realize how many companies have thousands—even tens of thousands—of bank accounts globally. Getting cash into the right entities to meet operational needs is much harder than you might think. As a result, there’s a huge amount of systems and idle cash sitting around the world. There are all sorts of exaggerated statistics about this. Sorry. Just in the UK, $180 billion is sitting in corporate bank accounts earning 0% interest or return. Part of the reason is that companies aren’t sophisticated enough to generate returns, but a large portion is simply idle cash because they haven’t pre-positioned funds or placed them in the right place at the right time.
Therefore, these three core questions typically unlock our ability to understand where we can create value on-chain.
Moderator:
Could you explain what we’re seeing on the screen right now with this intelligent treasury and how it works?
Eric:
Of course. So, regarding how our platform is built, from the perspective of core capabilities, I’d say it’s exactly as you’d expect. We have our own fiat integrations and networks with banks around the world, enabling real-time fund receipts. So internally, we have a saying: if we have to use SWIFT to initiate a payment, we haven’t done our job right.
I think that today, as you look at the market, most people are pre-funding payments that will eventually settle on-chain or are processing them via SWIFT. I believe this actually limits or contradicts the very purpose of stablecoins, which should represent real-time movement of funds.
You’ll also see people launch platforms and say, “Oh, we can move money from point A to point B in under 10 seconds.” Yes, that’s true—but only after you’ve already pre-deposited funds into your account. What we’re talking about is real-time fund movement between the front end and bank accounts, along with the actual ability to issue regulated custodial wallets on every market.
We believe that many businesses neither have nor will ever build this type of wallet infrastructure themselves—they simply want someone else to manage it for them. That’s why we’ve taken great care to consider how to integrate wallet infrastructure into our business.
Building on this foundation, we developed a highly innovative technical component that allows us to route trades to different liquidity partners around the world in a way that enables us to aggregate liquidity from multiple partners, split trades, and price transactions end-to-end. So you can tell me which currency you want to exchange for another and the amount, and I can guarantee you the exchange rate—and guarantee that the exact amount I quote will reach the destination account. This capability is more novel and unique in today’s market than you might realize, and it’s a key part of how we designed our liquidity network to achieve this.
Moderator:
That’s fascinating, Zach. Before we wrap up, I’m really curious to better understand what kind of infrastructure stack or partners Velocity might be using to achieve some of the things you just mentioned. Eric, we’ve spent a lot of time focusing on this layer—covering companies like yours and how they operate. It would be great to hear which pieces you’ve connected on the backend to make all of this work. I think many of the people we’ve interviewed and listeners of the show are in a similar position, trying to understand how these components fit together. So I’d love to learn more about how you’ve pieced it all together—what you’ve built internally versus what you’ve partnered on, and what that looks like.
Eric:
Yes. Our collaboration includes wallet infrastructure. We have a strong relationship with the Fireblocks team, who are also our close partners. We also work with regulated custodians around the world.
We partner with top-tier compliance providers. So whether it’s initial AML, KYC, and KYB checks, or obviously on-chain transaction monitoring and Travel Rule compliance, we have partners for all of it.
We also collaborate with many liquidity partners globally, including direct minting in partnership with issuers. I see Agora flashing on the screen—I’d also like to extend a greeting to Nick and their team. We think what Agora is doing is very interesting and aligns closely with how CFOs view on-chain held value.
You can’t go to a company today that’s earning the federal funds rate and say, “By the way, would you like to move your money into this stablecoin that pays 0% interest or yield?” I know the CLARITY Act is generating a lot of discussion about how this will work in the future, but for most businesses, this would be an impossible starting point. I believe Agora’s approach—looking and feeling more like an asset manager—is the right direction. So we’re partnering with them and working closely with them, as well as with other stablecoin issuers.
From a network perspective, we are fairly neutral today. One thing we’ve observed is that no one truly understands enough what an L1 or L2 is to know whether they should ask us to route their transactions on one network or another.
We believe that as value moves on-chain, there aren’t enough Web3 or crypto-experienced professionals in the world to staff teams for all these companies. That’s why you need vendors like Velocity, which offer ready-made services and make these decisions on their behalf.
So we believe that, especially in terms of economic interests, a significant portion of power may end up in the hands of players like us, as we will determine which networks see transaction volume, since these clients cannot execute these transactions themselves. You certainly see some chains directly signing deals with large clients. But I don’t think the world really operates the way, for example, Spotify signs directly with Tempo or others.
You’ll see a similar situation in the card acquiring space. Visa and Mastercard do not directly sign contracts with every merchant worldwide. They do directly partner with some of the largest and most important clients, but those represent only a small fraction of the total transaction volume entering their networks.
Host:
Yes, that’s fascinating. We just reported on Lightspark receiving principal membership—that’s a great example: bringing in this kind of capability so companies like Rain, Lightspark, or others can integrate Visa into their networks without having to directly collaborate with all those teams. That’s really cool, man. I saw you’re heading to Miami next week—we’ll be there too. Are you going to be in person?
Eric:
We’ll be there in person. Yes, we’re hosting a party with the Worldpay team on Wednesday evening, and many of our team members will also be active there, so we hope to see you there.
Host:
Yes, I’ll reach out to you. We have some interview opportunities, like sitting down for a chat. I’ll be there on Wednesday doing one-on-one interviews for our podcast. Maybe we can get you on the show—that would be interesting. I’d also love to dive deeper into your history; that would be fun.
Eric:
Yes, a detailed version of the founder's origin story can be created.
Moderator:
Let's leave it at that.
Eric:
Cool, brother. Thanks for taking the time. This is really fascinating. I hadn’t actually heard of Velocity or looked into it much before, but I’m super excited about what you’re building. Your perspective, the approach you’re taking, how you’re building it, and your personal background all make me very optimistic about where this could go. Thanks so much for your time.
Eric:
Thank you. See you in Miami.