Sound Money Panel

Yeah, it's currency that that cannot be confiscated, taken away?

Yeah, I kind of agree with the previous person that, yeah, definitely confiscation is quite relevant there. I think also the inflation model is another thing. Like, I wouldn't say money that that inflates 100% a year as very sound. So I think it's a combination of being free to use the money and not get your funds frozen and also have a solid monetary basis for the currency. I think all of those add to the soundness. I think there could be a lot of other things, but I'm going to be brief and leave it at that.

Yeah, so I see money as a communication medium. mechanism for value. So money shows like, I mean, interprets the value of something in a generally understandable way. And that's why the sound money is the money that communicates the value across borders without any middlemen or any third parties in the middle of those 2 people who want to communicate the value between themselves.

Yeah, I like that description. It's kind of like a messaging protocol actually, where transaction transacting value. So let's just dive into the topic a little bit more in detail. What do you think, dear panelists, what is the hair-on-fire problem that we are actually attempting to solve with Bitcoin or any other blockchain solution? And maybe this time start from that end since you already have the microphone.

So what is the problem we are trying to solve with—

What is the hair-on-fire problem? I know there's a Plenty of problems, look, maybe undiscovered problems that we are currently working solutions for. However, I would like to direct the conversation to actual problems that we want to solve today.

Yeah, so they are, of course, there are multiple problems. I would target a few of them and leave the Bitcoin-related stuff to the other guys. But so the ones that I'm interested about personally, One is this bringing everybody to the global economic system. So the unbanked people, you know, all those guys, and removing all the unnecessary gatekeepers from this ecosystem. Very, very important part of what blockchains enable us to achieve. Another thing is that the current way that the capitalism works combined with banks being gatekeepers for everything, is enabling a very small portion of the population to steal everybody's value to themselves. So I think blockchains potentially can enable a more equal opportunity participation to the capitalistic mechanisms. And thirdly, I think currencies that are managed by nation-states or like a consortium of states like euro are prone to political manipulation. And I think cryptocurrencies enable us to escape those kind of political manipulations as well.

Yeah, that's a good answer. And look at Venezuela, for example, what's going on there, and Bitcoin is actually saving lives. Go ahead, Henrik.

Yeah, I also think there's a lot of like different type of issues that could be solved with crypto and blockchain solutions potentially. But for me, of course, coming from the background of being interested in Bitcoin, Originally, I think the problems that I think are, and they are very big issues, like everything we do work with money, and basically the money we use is the national currencies, mainly the big ones, USD, euro, and the Asian big currencies. So they are quite really relevant to the whole economy, and I just don't think they're very robust. We— I think that since the '70s, when they cut off the gold standard completely, so there's no backing of any kind of gold, and then they've kind of started losing the limits of how they print money. There's more debt all the time. Even though we have the 2008 bubble or the financial crisis, there's a lot more debt in the economy now than there was then. And it's not just about a single kind of area that, oh, we have this housing bubble. I think we're kind of in an everything bubble. I think that really, really is a good term for it. And that's really a bad thing. If that bubble pops, it'll be catastrophic in a sense. And we might see that happen anyway. It might be unavoidable. in some time. But the question is like, how will we build a better system? How will we ease the issues of the transition to a better, better system? I think that's one of the things, very important things, that Bitcoin is solving.

Excellent answer. I like the term everything bubble as well.

So you said about bubble, I think Bitcoin was also in a bubble one year ago, not anymore though. But so how do you prevent that from bubbles happening Also in cryptos?

Well, it's— I think that mainly in Bitcoin, the way it is kind of having these price bubbles has more to do about the fact that it's still fairly small and it's very speculative still as an investment for many. It hasn't matured to this kind of idea of Gold 2.0 and this kind of new type of store of value and savings currency. It's not at that stage yet, but I don't think that this instability it's seen is proof that it will never be more stable. I think if you look at the volatility of Bitcoin long-term, it is becoming lower, but the trend is kind of slow lowering slope, so it's not something that will quickly happen. But if we look like if Bitcoin is still around and flourishing in, let's say, 10, 20 years, I think it will be a lot more stable than it is now. But I think as long as it's in this hypergrowth stage, where still you have a lot of people who have no— like, haven't— are not in the Bitcoin economy, as long as that's happening and you have these hype cycles, you will have a lot of instability. But I don't think it's something that's gonna continue forever. When it reaches a certain stage of adoption, it will stabilize. It will not become as stable in a sense as fiat currencies, Because the central banks, their purpose is to keep it as stable as possible and have it lose value a little bit. And that's kind of what they're doing. In Bitcoin, you don't have that kind of mechanism, so it will have more volatility than that kind of currency, but I think it will be closer to what kind of volatility we see in gold price, for example, and not the kind we see in Bitcoin today.

Yeah, I think the correct question is not how to prevent bubbles, but how to prepare for those. What do you think, James?

Yeah, I'm, uh, I'm not sure I get the, uh, whole hair on fire scenario. I think in agreement, you know, we're just, we're just not there yet in terms of what ultimately the function is. What I would like to see in a similar way to gold, which is, which is, uh, is what I'm seeing, is that whether it's Bitcoin or whether it's another currency There has to be within that a protection of wealth, storage of wealth, and the ability for wealth creation within it. And I think if you can tick all 3 of those boxes in the way that currently fiat currencies do not, I think you've got something that will will truly get the mass adoption and usage that it, that it deserves.

Oh, thank you. Yeah, that does.

Yeah, well, my biggest problem in the current kind of, well, the hair-on-fire problem that we have on fiat system is actually that I'm not really into it that if I want to make a payment for whatever, let's say that I want to pay some money for Niko and he's just not right next to me, I have to use a third-party service for doing that. And we are living in 2018, and, you know, we could probably do these things already for a long time ago, you know, making payments without the third party, but it's just beneficial for them to keep it this way. And, you know, I just think that we had enough with of it. And another problem that I have with the fiat system is that it, in a certain way, it expects that resources are not gonna end. We are just using all of the time more and more stuff, you know, creating all kind of garbage without even caring if we— how much do we use the resources. And that has some benefits. I mean, like, we're gonna technologically— we're gonna evolve really fast. since we have money to do every single thing. But with Bitcoin sound money kind of protocol, we would, you know, like calm down and not just keep making all kinds of stuff. We would actually really think what we're gonna make. It has to be a great product, you know, usable, and not just trash that we are being marketed.

Oh, thank you for the thorough answers. And James, what you said, that you don't see the hair-on-fire problem, I sympathize with that because we don't really, especially where we live, we don't really have urgency or need. What do I need this for, right? I mean, this is the question what we normally have. Why wouldn't I just use Visa or whatever? Which is all good and fine, but it's again, it's a question. What are you trying to do? And if you don't realize that your hair is on fire, it will be very difficult to try to convince you that you need something better. And personally, I think we need to educate people on the danger of the current system rather than the benefits of the future systems, maybe. What do you think?

I just want to add something which could be interesting. It's kind of funny in my opinion, is that some people know, if they know about the struggles of crypto companies, especially exchanges and brokers. In regards to banking, it's kind of really funny in a sense that the banks are kind of really have a lot of problems with crypto stuff. There's various reasons. The banks are not uniform in why they do this. There's like some just hate Bitcoin and some just think it's in the gray area in terms of regulation. something, the specific company doesn't have good enough like AML policies and stuff like that. There's a lot of reasons. So we've seen like different cases in this, this sense. But it's like interesting that we kind of have had a lot of problems with the banking. We've had a lot of struggles and we had to work on it all the time to keep our bank accounts operational. We've managed to do that, but it's very difficult. But it's kind of interesting that I don't like banks, and I don't like to rely on them. I hate the banks when they freeze our accounts and close our accounts, and we've had that happen a lot of times. It's incredibly frustrating, but still we need the banks to get Bitcoin somewhere. So it's like we just have to have them, because if Bitcoin doesn't have the fiat on-ramp, it's not really going to go anywhere. So it's just a very interesting dilemma that we just have to work with banks and try to work with them as good as we can, even though we don't like them at all.

As good as we can. I like that. We had a question from the audience.

Yes, I actually would like to make a remark because I see one hair on fire. So I just opened the source to make sure that I will not mix the numbers. So Wall Street Journal based on today— not today's research, this year research. They estimated that every day in a financial industry which we have, we have $2.7 billion fraudulent transactions. So this is the value of fraudulent transaction per day in existing financial system worldwide, $2.7 billion. This is a freaking hell on fire, I believe. So if we will compare that to the cryptocurrency, the fraudulent activity in cryptocurrency For now, it's $23 million per day. So of course lower because this is a small thing. Cryptocurrency is $200 billion. But it's way easier to track everything and decrease the fraudulent activity in financial system. Especially last 2 years, we saw Deutsche Bank in Estonia, HSBC with Nigeria, Russia and Malaysia case with US banks. Don't you think that this is a hair on fire?

I would say so, but somehow this is the norm that we are accustomed to, that the banks just get bailed out constantly because they have to.

Yeah, a comment on this. I think a lot of this also, like, some of it may have to do with like how blockchains work, or like, but I think one big issue in this is that a lot of the, like, we know, I know a lot about fraud because We've been struggling with fraud since we started the company, and it's— the fraud is always on the fiat side. It's— we've never had a fraud issue on the crypto side. It's about the fiat side, but we have to struggle with it all the time because if we get a lot of fraudulent fiat in, the bank will freeze our account. So we just have to fight it the best we can. We have a sophisticated fraud detection system in place. But I think one of the big reasons is why in the crypto space you would have less of it is because legacy banks have really, really bad systems for all of these things. Like, there are German banks where you can literally just put a piece of paper there which has a signature of the client, and they will send money based on only that and nothing— no other verification or authentication. So I think this is changing, but I think a lot of the older banks, legacy banks, have very little security in terms of customer authentication. And, and, and all the players in the crypto space, like, they are working on security stuff all the time. Like, there's a lot of authentication stuff and they're improving all the time because all the hacking attempts on Bitcoin and crypto, like, it's on a whole another level. And of course, the newer banks, fintech banks, really advanced in this, mostly advanced in this area. And some of the older banks are really improving on this area, doing a lot of upgrades on software and security. But there's still a lot of legacy in the banking sector where, where the security features in terms of these fraud issues is just incredible. Like, we've been considering simply banning certain countries from our service simply because the banks generally in that country have no fraud protections in place. Like, Not at all, basically. They— if we look at the statistics, we have maybe some country in Europe almost like a little bit fraud, then another country is like 50% fraud because the banks are like useless. So that's one side of this.

But you know, it's not only about the frauds made by people who are stealing the identity, phishing or whatever. It's also about the people who work in banks. So the fines which banks pay because Sorry to say, but the employee just made a fraud and they moved the money. We had the case in Deutsche, we had the case in Malaysia. So we are talking about the people in banking industry who make a fraud because it's really easy to do that now because no one checks the transaction, no one actually trades what is happening with the money. If the money goes from Malaysia to US, from US to Russia, and so on. So people just take a share.

Yes, I would like to raise the issue also on the ICO side because the ICO market like had a lot of fraud in it. Like, so people raised funding and, you know, this is basically spending on Lambos and, you know, and made a lot of exit scams and all kinds of other things. ICOs were also used during the year of money laundering. So, so a lot of these folks were just laundering money out of China and other places. And, you know, there was of course lots of different type of capital controls put in place to prevent that from happening. But I do think, like, I mean, there's of course a lot of noise and, you know, lots of people will swear on security tokens, but I do not believe that security tokens will solve the problem of economic inclusion. So if you want to build a good, solid, honest, trustworthy, like, crypto project out of, let's say, Bucharest, Romania, or like, like someplace that is not like already well-known country, as an honest entrepreneur, you cannot do that with security tokens very easily because Because I mean, you will have to be under whatever country's laws you are, and then nobody will care about the regulations in Romania probably for the investments. So so I think we need to find some new type of global financial instruments that are unregulated enough that that they can work in multiple countries, and you can do participation from all over the world without this fraud thing going on at the same time. So that's going to be challenging because usually when you unregulate something, you know, you get all the approaches coming in as opportunistically as they can. So finding a way of doing like this kind of full KYCs without going under like forcing people to set up, let's say, an office in specific location with a specific type of regulation and limiting out everybody else.

I think it's important to distinguish here, like you mentioned the security tokens, you both talked about those, and it's important to distinguish between What we talk about here is digital sound money, which is basically Bitcoin at the moment. And we have these security tokens, which is tokenized securities, which is basically a different way of owning things. So we're talking about 2 very different things here.

Yes, I wanted to add on this that, yeah, I mentioned in my presentation that I kind of like the idea of security tokens, but I do see some of the challenges. And I think that if the regulators will apply the same laws, all the same regulation to security tokens that, that they apply to regular securities, it's going to be completely useless. Like, they will need to have a lighter regulation, otherwise the potential benefits of security tokens will not really exist. So I— that's what I think.

I think we've got to get away from the word regulation full stop in this space. Regulation is a— is securing the income streams and lining the pockets of the fee earners. It serves in no way to protect the consumer or the investor. Let's make that very, very clear.

I also want to add to that that we do have regulation, self-regulation. What we do not welcome, what I do not welcome, is external regulation. regulation from a third party necessarily. We can regulate ourselves.

Yeah, thanks for clarifying that. I meant third-party regulation, so governments and banks and the lawyers and what have you. I think in order for it to work, it has to be truly— it's decentralized self and self-regulated by the community for the community. And you can't— you're never gonna be able to be able to protect people from themselves. If it's your choice and you want to buy a currency or anything for that matter off somebody who's trying to scam you and it doesn't exist when you've made that purchase, that's your own fault. You can't regulate against that.

Yeah, and nor should you. I always like to say that I will fight till my last breath for your right to screw up and lose your money.

Yes.

I will fight for that, right? Yeah,

absolutely. Yeah, and I would like to add about banking discussion that this is actually the thing that banksters are trying to right now regulate the cryptocurrency scheme. And, you know, of course governments and all of that too. But the way they are trying to convince people that it's okay to regulate them is by saying that cryptocurrencies are some kind of a scary thing, that people are laundering money or doing— buying drugs or doing something bad with it. And in the same time, the— for example, this Danske Bank case that just was revealed this year, that they laundered about $235 billion or euros of money, which is about— right now it's twice as much that all all the cryptocurrencies together, and they are trying to blame something else of laundering money. And this is just, just one bank. So that's a little bit of perspective. And I really agree with James also that these regulations are actually just made just to some certain people to be able to profit on the system.

Oh, this is a fantastic panel already. Yeah, go ahead, chip in.

So from my experience, I deal with banks on a daily basis. They would love to have our revenue. They would love to accept crypto. It's about the regulatory body. So this is the issue because it started with German bank when they started to transact with the cryptocurrency exchange and unfortunately they didn't have the proper KYC. So the regulator came and said one million fine now. Yeah, and who paid? The bank paid. So banks are waiting for the regulations because they are highly regulated and they can't enter the cryptocurrency, cryptocurrency space without those because they are not compliant. Now it's not possible to reverse the transaction, it's not possible to freeze the account, everything that you guys mentioned. But end of the day, the regulatory body is made, at least in theory, to prevent anti-money laundering, to prevent terrorism, to prevent paying in crypto for guns, whatever. So really difficult and heavy things. So I would like to understand, guys, how do you see that? Because if now all the terrorists will be able to freely move into blockchain and do whatever they want to do, and you will tell guys, now you have to find out if that guy is a good one, it's not fair. It's not fair. Simply, it doesn't work like that. The world doesn't work like that, at least now. So for the beginning, in my opinion, we need some regulations. We need to set up

the rules. Yeah, that's a valid concern. Let me just clarify something. I believe firmly that good money buys drugs, guns, anything your heart desires. That's the function of money. It has no morals, and nor should it have. You know, it's up to the individual, personal responsibility, what you're doing with the tools that are are provided for you. So I think everybody should have the freedom to make that choice and then carry the responsibility, of course.

Unless I would like to actually fund the new Osama bin Laden and tell, okay, so just buy a bomb, go to the UK, and on the London Bridge, just fire it up. Then we—

Well, I mean, it depends on the narrative of the flavor of the day of whatever goes in the mainstream media, but since you all are here listening to us, I think that you're probably not avid followers of mainstream media, and you're probably looking for alternative sources of information, which is— I think you're in the correct place. Go ahead, Rafael.

Yeah, and one thing that I have to say, that it's like, you know, using a fork. You know, people can use forks to do pretty nasty things and really bad things, but we shouldn't be banning forks because of that, because there is a possibility that a small percent of people will be doing something bad with it.

And just to clarify, we're talking about a utensil, not a Bitcoin fork.

Yeah, yeah,

yeah. Because people can do nasty things with Bitcoin forks as well.

Yeah, yeah, that works in the same way. But another thing is that, in my opinion, the biggest criminals that we have right now are actually, you know, just licensed criminals. These little, you know, people trying to bomb stuff or doing something bad, you These ideas are really, really small groups with little funding. The biggest criminals are having licenses and doing banking. That's my opinion. They are stealing more money than we can even imagine. And yeah.

Yeah, I agree, but what you are saying is like, let everyone be able to steal the money they want.

Level playing field.

Okay, let me comment a little bit. I think it's good to get perspective about money laundering and terrorist funding and all of these things. The fact is that all of those operations have been historically, and is still today, funded by traditional means. None of the things that have been added on the regulation side has stopped it. None of the new banking regulation and all of these AML laws. They might do a little bit of something, but mainly they're not stopping it because there's just too many ways for people to move funds and do things. And it's a total— it's a ridiculous idea to even try to regulate cryptocurrency from this point of view because you will always have an underground black market of crypto, and it's already emerging in a stronger way than many of you probably think. Probably know, there is decentralized exchanges which are not companies. They are run decentralized with nodes. People exchange between themselves. There are anonymous cryptocurrencies like Monero and others coming. Like, regulating Bitcoin exchanges will not do anything to that. And the more you regulate these actual legal entities, the more of the illegal stuff will go to the, like, kind of dark market. Exchanging and trading. And then the police and all that, they will have even less of a viewpoint on what's happening there. So I think there is a risk that it's actually more of it will go underground because they're forced to, because there will be so much stuff in the legal exchanges monitoring and everything. And the other thing that happens is 3 things happen. Like, it will go more underground. The police will get less information because they can't ask stuff from the underground entities, but they can ask information from legal exchanges and brokers, and they get data from them. So if everything goes underground, it's bad for the police. And also the, the fact that it makes life difficult for the regular people not doing anything illegal, just want to trade or purchase stuff. with crypto. All of those things you add on the regular exchanges and brokers makes the process so much more difficult because they have to go through all of this AML KYC and it takes forever to get your account and forever and so on. So that's my perspective.

Yeah, I think what I touched on my presentation earlier, we talked about decentralized systems and this is exactly what's happening. If you try to attack a decentralized system, it will just go underground, it will just split. You can't It will try to grab it and then it will decentralize more.

I actually have a little bit differing opinion on this. So I think it's okay that we have like these underground currencies because if you say that these specific underground currencies are generally illegal in most countries, they will have so few fiat on-ramps and off-ramps that, you know, it will be easier to monitor them. Right now the challenge is that if you give an air of legitimacy to like these privacy coins that are mainly used for drug trading by listing them on Binance and all the big ones. Like, you actually give a lot of exit points for criminals to take their money out. If you are in decentralized exchanges in the public blockchains that are not privacy-oriented like Bitcoin or something else, you actually can trace all the money. So you don't— I mean, I think it's actually a fair game, you know. If you find that some, some specific batch of money is tainted, you know, you just basically flag it on the, on the network and say that whoever accepts that is compliant to the criminal activity, which means that then they routes for these guys to move their money out, like, are becoming very, very limited. So I think, I think you can enforce the law, like, on these blockchains quite nicely with these kind of models. So, so I think decentralized exchanges and, you know, public blockchains is actually a good, good thing to build all these legitimate use cases. Like, I mean, all these machine-to-machine transactions, you know, and banking the unbanked and doing all kinds of these things that we want to do which are legitimate and good and then are helping humanity in general. And of course, like, overregulating that, like forcing everybody to use a specific middleman for the purposes of regulation, I think it's a very, very bad idea.

I want to add from a technical perspective, because we have some experience on blockchain analysis. Our company uses blockchain analysis as part of our new AML KYC model. So we do kind of have a risk score for customers, and one part of it is the blockchain analysis. But I think that it's useful, but it has kind of limitations, I would say. Like, you would need to, like, if you want to make sure somebody's not doing, like, something shady, you would have to blacklist a whole lot of stuff because it's, for example, like, what is done nowadays a lot, or imagine is done a lot, I don't really know, like, if it's done for this purpose, but I know it's good for it. Like mixing Bitcoins, I think some are doing it, is using other cryptocurrencies for it. Because you have so much liquidity on different exchanges, you can trade Bitcoins to Monero or some other fairly private crypto. And then if, let's say, you have money coming from Monero to Bitcoins, and then from Bitcoins, which would be a clean wallet, coming to us, like, we would have to blacklist Monero sources entirely if we kind of did something to it, because the Monero source itself is not identifiable. And if the Bitcoin wallet is clean itself, if we would like to do something about it, we would have to blacklist everything that has anything to do with Monero. And that's kind of overreach because there's a lot of things happening with Monero that's not illegal. So these are difficult issues. There are some clear cases where you have some money coming in from a dark market marketplace directly. Yeah, we will, we will have a problem with that, of course. But there are a lot of cases where we cannot really do any blacklisting. We'll maybe put the customer's risk score in our AML profiles a little bit higher, but it won't stop the transaction. It'll just put a bit of higher risk score. So these are sometimes difficult and We're still improving these things and developing the models all the time. But I can say from my experience so far that these are not easy issues.

All right. We're trending towards the end. So I just want to— you guys are going to have one more last round of say. And I want the audience to think about the questions as well. And I want to leave you with one thought. Criminals have have been throughout history the first adopters of new technology because they need it the most. So this is an indicator for future. Think about internet, who needed it the most? When the internet came first, everybody said it's only for criminals, only for drug traffickers. I feel it's all too familiar. We are so worried about this new technology that we don't look at the flaws in the actual world that we live in. And with that, I'm going to— do we have the microphone? Yeah, let's take the questions at this point, and then we will go through one more round, and then I think we're going to wrap it up.

Hi, this is not so much a question but a comment on what I just heard. We're never going to be able to regulate any of the sort of money launderers, terrorists. It doesn't matter what systems we use. They're already buying future stocks, oil, gas, electric. It's all out there in the modern-day system. You know, you're never going to stop the criminals. Never. They're going to find a way around it, and they're going to use whatever systems are available. What's— where do we go from there? I mean, we're talking about bringing in a sort of cryptocurrency blockchain scenario. Well, we can use— Which we want anonymity, we want to have our own freedoms, and so we're opening the door to the criminals. Any comments on that, gentlemen?

Yeah, everyone comment. My comment is like the— I think the door is already open in the current system, so it's— there's so many ways for the criminals to do things already, and I think that the problem is— it's more of a problem from the regular individual's perspective that we have— we are losing all privacy from money and payments. Basically, we're moving away from cash, which is fairly private. We're moving away from that to digital payments through various services, banks and IT companies. We're moving to that, and it's basically— it has no privacy in the sense that They have all the data and some parties are even selling the data and using it for advertising, using it for everything. Of course, there's a lot of talk about this in the society now and that companies need to put some controls into it and people need to choose. And that's good, but I think that's still a bit of an issue. I think crypto is helping with that a lot. Of course, Bitcoin is not the most private crypto, but I think there's a lot of enhancements coming to Bitcoin that will add privacy. And there's other cryptos that already have it, but maybe have some other issues. But I think there's a lot of good in getting a more private currency and payment system. It's not good, not smart to just concentrate on the risks of how will this help the criminals. That's one aspect to it, and I think it's valid one that should be brought up, but also talk about the potential positives of getting some privacy back for the regular citizen.

Yeah, thank you. And I think everybody here is already a trailblazer and a pioneer just by being here, so thank you for that. Go ahead.

Yeah, so I just want to move things a little bit away from all the criminal case because crypto is not about crime, you know, it's about solving some real problems in the world. And so I think what we should focus on is that that if you want to give— I mean, you cannot give control to a global system to one country. That's one thing. You cannot say that SEC can regulate the whole blockchain, or you cannot say that the Chinese regulator can regulate the whole blockchain. So then by necessity, we have to say that no country can control the blockchain. You have to have a blockchain that goes all over these countries and let people do things in their own way, because otherwise we will not have a global system. And as soon as you have a global system, you have all the global players in it, and they will be good players, bad players, and so on. You know, it's, it's very simple. But if you want to build this internet of value, which is the public blockchain that anybody can participate, and we are not going to create a bunch of silos that the private blockchains are promising to do, I don't think there's any future for that kind of activity. Like, in a sense, I mean, of course there are people who believe in that, but, you know, I think that, you know, if we wanted to build like 25 different internets back in the day, we would not have the internet we have today. So, so I see that, that, you know, we have to build this internet of value and we have to build applications on it. We have to build in ability for people to recognize and identify others. You know, I think it's fair to do KYCs in some cases. Of course, the problem is that if you put the burden on doing KYC on every single individual entity, then everybody's passports are held by a million different companies that have all kinds of security systems in place. So then you have like probably a billion KYCs out there that anybody can recycle by their own use cases and other things because, because they are out there. So, so yeah, there's all kinds of issues that we have to solve, but I think, I think we should focus on now that saying that, hey, let's, let's build out this internet of value, let's build applications on top of it, let's fix those problems for security and other things so that we don't have to worry too much about it, and then go on with the applications.

Awesome. James, last words?

Yeah, I'm just coming back to what Scott said. You know, I completely agree with what he's saying. And I think I've had a— I suppose what I can say is it's my mantra or mission statement to life is anonymity and wealth. And you can read into that what you like. But that's kind of what rattles around in my head when I'm passionately going about what I do. And I'm very excited about what the technology brings, but I'm more excited about the magic the technology's gonna bring. You know, people in this room, the pioneering side, creativity, innovation, that's really exciting. Thank you.

Yeah, that's what riles me up because if you look at the market, the market does not look happy. But we look happy. We couldn't be happier because we are building something here. That's awesome. Rafael?

Yeah, there was a couple of things that I wanted to mention. One of them firstly is that, you know, there's always criminals in every single different cases. And usually criminals are the ones that are adapting these new technologies. technologies first, like for example in internet or, well, whatever different kind of systems. And who are actually saying that cryptos are used by criminals and whatever, since there is no really statistics behind it that would support it? I mean, Europol is saying that no one is using actual Bitcoins or cryptocurrencies to pay for, you know, support terrorism or whatever. That's actual statement from them. And so I would like to really— yeah, well, okay, I'll just jump to my next point. It was that from looking around over here is that where you will see when is the cryptocurrency going to mainstream. Like you can see over here, there is many different, many empty spots, and that just means that you You are early. When we are actually mainstream, these places are going to be packed. So congratulations, you are the trailblazers, and let's give it a go.

Awesome. With those thoughts, any more questions? I thank, thank you panelists so much for all the insight you provided. Thank you audience for your continued patience and attention. It's been a real pleasure. Thank you on my own behalf, ConsenSys' behalf, and yeah, let's keep jamming. Thank you. Thank you.