 Normally it's quite expensive to get privacy, right? You need to do something in order to get financial privacy, and that is probably why it's so hard to explain that this thing is a basic right? So you're suspicious because you're doing effort to get privacy, so you must be hiding something. And now we have these new technologies like signature aggregation and second layers that would actually make privacy cheaper. And that's really nice, because then you can say, well, of course I'm getting privacy because why would I spend more money to not have privacy? So it's easy to explain to people, it's easy to explain to governments. Do you think that's coincidence? Is just lucky coincidence good for us? Or is there more to it? And do you think that might change again? Where we get to a situation where privacy is expensive again? That's a really great question. And I think it's very insightful too, because the reason we can't afford more privacy is because privacy like any other feature can be, through the use of technology, made less expensive. So as you scale up technology, you reduce the marginal cost of all kinds of products and services, and privacy is really just a service or feature of markets. And when you have increased supply of privacy at lower marginal cost, it drops the price. And in fact, because there is inherent demand for privacy around the world, and most of the inherent demand for privacy comes from places where governments are appalling, and where banks are unaccountable, and where people are afraid to express opinions because of the consequences that happen. Somebody was talking about earlier today that censorship-persistent... I think it was Jacomo. Censorship-persistent doesn't matter if you don't have privacy, because then you can apply extrinsic consequences. And in most cases, extrajudicial consequences to actions. And as a result, then the cost of not having privacy goes up too, because not having privacy is also a product and has a price attached to it. And in many places in the world, the price is your life. So part of the difficulty with privacy as a good that is both produced and consumed is that the implications of losing your privacy are either externalized to society as a whole, or they are distant from the proximate cause. Meaning that you lose your privacy today, but you go to jail six years later, based on something from your browser history today. Or you lose your privacy today, and you have a democratic government. And then in a wave of nationalist populism, you end up with a fascist government two years from now, and they still have your browsing history. And then all of your high-faluting ideas about human rights are an indictment against you. Does anybody know the origin of the phrase, let a thousand flowers bloom? Does anybody know that? Mao. Mao Zedong created this program in immediate post-revolutionary China, which was the idea of openness, to let a thousand flowers bloom, to allow the explosion of creative expression, even dissident opinions, and people believed it, and they bloomed. And all the bloomings were carefully recorded and catalogued, and then the purge happened. And they murdered hundreds of thousands of intellectuals who had believed the idea. What they don't tell you is that let a thousand flowers bloom immediately preceded one of the greatest ethnic and intellectual cleansings in China, political cleansings, that was based entirely on allowing people to speak, carefully cataloging that information, and then a few years later, inditing them for it in a summary way. So one of the problems with privacy is that you lose your privacy every day, but you don't pay the price for that perhaps until a lot later. And you can't immediately identify the moment at which your loss of privacy goes from something that isn't in convenience, to something that is a deadly risk. And the more developed and democratic and open and secular the country you live in is, the less you see a direct correlation, because the other problem with privacy is externalization. So part of the reason we see these massive populist movements, and we see all of the problems we have with nationalism and extremism on public forums, has a lot to do with the erosion of privacy. The erosion of privacy actually erodes democratic institutions. As democratic institutions get weaker, they serve people less, and as they serve people less, extremism flourishes. So we pay a price in Western democracies where our democracy is getting weaker and weaker, and part of the reason for that is the erosion of privacy. The ability to track the electorates, know their opinions and know how to feed them, just as much stimulus their dopamine receptors to keep them docile and entertained by cat videos, so as they don't pay attention. So they can be enraged by the fact that someone said something, or someone took a knee at a sports game, and not pay attention that your government is committing genocide in Yemen. That's erosion of democracy, and it happens precisely because of erosion of privacy, because privacy affects freedom of speech. It affects freedom of association, freedom of expressions. As you start losing these principles and human rights, democracy gets eroded, and eventually you get fascism. Ironically, that's when you start paying the ultimate privacy cost. This fundamental problem of externalization and distal, proximate cause is why privacy is so difficult to price. There's only one price for privacy that works, free, everywhere, all the time.