 Now I'd like to welcome Tamika Tilliman to the stage. Our Mormon keynote speaker is Tamika and he is a partner and global chief policy officer at KRH Partners, a new crypto venture fund led by former A16Z general partner, Katie Hawn, where he builds public policy architecture to support the next generation of the internet. Previously, Tamika served as senior advisor to two secretaries of state, leading a team of experts that built 20 major initiatives in 55 countries. He joined the State Department in 2009 as Hillary Clinton's speechwriter and spent four years on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, working with Joe Biden, Barack Obama and John Kerry. Tamika has led programs to address social impact, finance, and governance challenges worldwide, including service as executive director of the Digital Impact and Governance Initiative at New America, a member of the World Economic Forum's Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the United Nations World Food Program, Innovation Advisory Council, the Lantos Foundation Board of Trustees and as chairman of the Global Blockchain Business Council. He received his BA, Magnum Cum Laude, from Yale University and holds a PhD with distinction from the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Thank you very much, Tamika. Let me thank Carl for that extremely generous introduction. It is inspiring to be with all of you here today. I have to say that knowing that there are this many people who will give up a perfect Utah Saturday afternoon to sit in a room and listen to the intersection, to talks about the intersection of technology and theology is something that brings me great hope and it should bring great hope to all of you as well. And I really want to extend special thanks to Carl for making this all possible. I spend a great deal of my time thinking about the future of decentralized technology and frankly a great deal of my time thinking about the future of theology. It's very rare that I get to bring both of those together, and so I appreciate this opportunity. In the next half hour, I'm hoping we can do three things. We're going to try to cover a lot. The first is to explore some big ideas about a future that will be increasingly defined by the decentralization of power. The second is to spell out some principles that should inform our actions as we approach that future. And finally, while I was certainly not anticipating this when I began our conversations about speaking here a few months ago, I want to discuss how we are seeing these dynamics play out in the invasion of Ukraine. Because it is shaping up to be the single most important and consequential event of the 21st century and one that is going to have profound implications on the future that we are going to inhabit. This is a lot to cover. Fasten your seatbelts, stow your tray tables, but I'm hoping that you will find, as I have found as I work through some of these issues, that the destination is both incredibly important and incredibly compelling if we can get the intersection of these themes right. So first for context, as is often the case in life, technology and theology, if we want to understand where we're going, we need to understand where we are coming from. And so in that spirit, I want to begin by turning to one of my favorite historians, Yvall Hariri, who I expect many of you are familiar with. And Yvall asks a provocative question, which is why do we run the world? It could be jellyfish, it could be armadillos, and yet you look around and we're the ones in charge. And the answer that he comes up with is an intriguing answer. He says we are the only species that has figured out how to cooperate flexibly at scale. There are other animals out there like wolves and dolphins that have figured out how to cooperate flexibly. Then you've got bees and termites that have figured out how to cooperate at scale. We're the only ones who have figured out how to do both of those things. And it is really our superpower. Virtually everything of consequence that we do as a species, the cities we build, the aircraft, and the spaceships that we fly on, wonderful conferences like this, are all dependent on our ability to cooperate flexibly at scale. So this brings us of course to the question of, well, how do we cooperate flexibly at scale? And my take on this, which is a slight reframing of what Yvonne comes up with, is that we as a species have figured out how to define a common set of facts and then go out and cooperate, build, and create on the basis of those facts. And we've done this using a pretty straightforward process that is now deeply ingrained into who we are as communities and who we are as a species. We begin by, if you go back into our hot tub time machine, you go back a long ways to the time when we lived in little family groups as hunter-gatherers. And at that point, it was very easy for us to come to a common understanding of what facts were. It was very easy for us to come to a common agreement on the core information that defined our lives. So if we lived in this small little community, you take something fundamental and foundational like ownership, we could all agree on what was Carl's house, what was Carl's cow, what was Carl's A, and then we would go out and live our lives and make decisions with that common knowledge. But it gets a lot more challenging to do this as we grow as societies and as we become far more complex in our interactions with others. And the way that we have figured out how to solve for this challenge as we have grown as a species and evolved into ever more complex forms of civilization is that we need to find trusted sources of authority and use those trusted sources of authority to maintain consensus as our societies grow. And those trusted sources of authority help us adjudicate the facts on which we base our lives. The decisions that we make every day are predicated on our confidence in these trusted sources of authority. These institutions and sources of authority take many different forms. We certainly have governments and the rule of law, which we were discussing just a moment ago, we have banks and financial institutions that play a vital role. And historically, we have ecclesiastical bodies that have been foundationally important in the evolution of society. The process of establishing and using authority to achieve consensus is fundamental to who we are. It is woven into ancient scripture from the property rights that we see outlined in the Ten Commandments and the Old Testament to more recently detailed descriptions of weights and measures and currency in the book of Alma. And this pattern even continues in modern forms of secular scripture, such as the constitutions that lay out the basic rules for how we establish consensus in democratic societies. And for good reasons as a civilization, we spend an enormous amount of energy and money trying to optimize these systems. I'll give you just a few examples that are representative, although certainly not perfectly indicative of the priority we place on this. In the United States each year, we spend twenty two billion dollars on establishing the title to properties, just figuring out who owns what property we pay twenty two billion dollars a year for that. The US legal industry, which is critically important in enforcing common understanding of reality and adjudicating disputes when they arise, takes up about two trillion dollars. And if you look at the global financial services industry, which derives a lot of its value from simply establishing ownership and serving as an intermediary between transactions, you're looking at about twenty two trillion dollars. So to put it mildly, these are non-trivial quantities of funds that we are dealing with. And it's important to note that these systems do create real value. Bringing these groups together, bringing a group like this together, requires us to many thousands of times along the way, use the process of authority and consensus in making our decisions. We had to agree that this library was owned by the city of Provo, that the conference had a certain period of time during which we would be able to use it, that on our way here we would drive between the lines at certain speeds and that the value of the funds we use to support this conference is something that we would all have consensus on. This process of establishing authority is about to undergo a profound change. And you'll remember back to when we lived in very small groups and we could rely on the collective knowledge of the group to establish authority and consensus, we're moving in some ways toward a decentralized re-imagination of what that looked like. Decentralized technologies are going to enable in some ways a restoration of this ancient capability going forward. It's not that intermediaries will disappear, and I would argue that we will still need them in many cases. In some cases they will even be more important, such as dispute resolution. But the authority of the bodies that we have historically relied on to achieve consensus is going to be radically democratized. And that democratization will introduce new dynamics to our ability to collaborate as a species. Our relationship with authority will change. We don't have many analogues for this development in the chronicles of human existence, but I'd like to suggest one that intrigued me. For most of recorded history, as I mentioned, ecclesiastical authority has been one of the most consequential and closely held forms of power. It's had a profound role in shaping the processes used to define consensus, establish membership in groups, rights, privileges, and behavior. And it has been very tightly held, usually by a priestly class, that mandated years of formal study and instruction before anyone could be admitted into their ranks. In 1830, the world saw a new model emerge for organizing ecclesiastical authority. A model that radically democratized access to power and that democratization of authority enabled new, or if you go way back, restored understanding of who could perform ordinances, provide theological instruction, and participate in the governance of congregations and religious bodies. Its implications have been profound, and this community certainly would not exist in its present form in the absence of that re-imagination of authority. We are about to see some changes with fascinating parallels play out across other fields of human endeavor. And this brings me to my first principle for a decentralized world, which is that while the sources of authority we use to establish consensus on basic facts are going to continue to matter, access to authority and the ability to invoke and deploy authority are likely to be radically democratized. More people will gain access to a toolbox that has historically been the exclusive domain of a handful of individuals and institutions, and they will use that power to shape a new consensus around the facts that provide the bedrock for our lives. The democratization of authority will reshape the way industries operate, the way companies function, and communities exist. It will reshape the ways in which we as a species converge on the common narratives that form the basis of our decisions. This brings us to a second theme, which is community and the relationship between community and technology. Again, I'm going to go back in time in order to take us forward. By a quick show of hands, and I'm assuming at this point in the day, many of you have encountered this, who feels like they have a good understanding of Web 3 and where we are on Web 3? Some, but not all. So I'm going to go ahead and provide a little bit of context here. In the late 90s and even early 90s, we saw the emergence of Web 1. And Web 1 was this period of open dynamic protocols. We came up with things like email that still consume huge portions of our lives today. And it enabled very powerful new forms of communication. It allowed us to read information and move information in ways that as a species, we'd never been able to move information previously. There, however, was a big problem with this world of Web 1, as marvelous as it was in many respects. And that was that it had no sustainable business models attached to it. It was very difficult to make money using these dynamic open protocols in Web 1. And by virtue of that, everyone came to a rough understanding that we needed a different way of deploying this new toolbox. This brings us to Web 2. And Web 2 coupled the ability to both read information and write information, which was a great innovation. And it provided a new set of business models that made innovation much more financially sustainable and, in fact, wildly profitable for at least a small handful of individuals. But the models that emerged from Web 2, the fundamental business model of almost all Web 2 platforms, involved gathering highly personal, highly atomized individual information. And using that information to build an immensely detailed profile of who we were as individuals so that advertisers could slice and dice us into ever smaller groups with the goal of getting us to change our purchasing behavior. And this model turns out to have been immensely valuable for two groups of people. One which will not surprise you is Big Tech. And the other is authoritarian governments. And it's brought us to a place where if you are a human on planet Earth who wants to use technology, today you really only have two options available to you for almost all of what we need to do in the digital realm. The first option is an authoritarian paradigm emanating from Beijing in which your personal private information is aggregated and used to manipulate your behavior for political purposes. And this is now becoming increasingly important in Russia as well. And the second model is a Big Tech paradigm in which your information is aggregated and used to manipulate your behavior for commercial purposes. Neither one of those paradigms, to state the obvious, is compatible with a healthy open society. So this is a real Houston we have a problem moment. Fortunately, we also have a solution and that solution comes in the form of a new toolbox of technologies that we call Web 3. Web 3 technologies are different. They're designed around the idea that individuals should have much more control over our information, that we should have more ownership of the platforms that we utilize. That the digital systems we rely on should be community governed and that they should give communities a much greater say in how decisions are made. When designed right, Web 3 platforms also enable communities to share in the financial upside of these technologies in a way that just wasn't possible in Web 2 for a variety of reasons. And this is not just community as a generic term. Healthy, vibrant, dynamic communities are central to value creation in Web 3. They unlock the potential to build systems that solve the underlying issues we have right now with Web 2. As we are seeing the emergence of community oriented digital infrastructure in a handful of countries around the world, we are seeing some jaw dropping gains. They are truly spectacular. In Kenya, digital payment systems have lifted two percent of the entire population of that country out of poverty. In Bangladesh, citizens have saved two billion days of previously wasted time thanks to the rollout of community oriented nationwide digital infrastructure. And Estonia, a small nation which has the world's best digital infrastructure, recoups the equivalent of two percent of GDP each year. In the United States, that would be the equivalent of a half trillion dollars that we would get back thanks to better access to digital systems. And it's important to note that all of the digital frameworks that I just cited are very, very early processes. These are like the zero point one iterations of what we have the potential to build with Web 3. The second principle of a decentralized future is that communities are going to become the cornerstone of value creation. And this will be, again, in stark contrast to a Web 2 world where communities have merely been a vehicle for encouraging individual participation so that platforms and governments can capture individual level information with the goal of shaping individual behavior. Communities are going to be central to the evolution of a healthy internet going forward. There is, however, one very substantial challenge that we are going to have to overcome on our way to realizing this vision for the future. And that is the deficit, the profound deficit of faith and trust that is increasingly crippling our societies. In 1993, one of the world's great sociologists, Robert Putnam, wrote a book with the catchy title of making democracy work civic traditions in modern Italy. And I'm sure he never anticipated when he authored that book that it would serve as the basis for a conversation about the future of technology. But the premise of the book was essentially this. Northern Italy and Central Italy are, by and large, very wealthy. They have highly functional institutions, high standards of living and high social welfare. And I apologize to any Southern Italians who I'm about to offend by stating this, but Southern Italy, by and large, is a lot less functional. And there's a lot of data to back up, what I agree, is a very gross generalization. And Putnam asked the question, why is this? Why do you have two parts of the same country, two parts of the same society that perform so profoundly differently? And he looked back at the history and what he found is that beginning in about 1000 AD, Northern and Central Italians had a far more active dynamic, what we today call civil society. People came together and took part in politics and social gatherings and institutions, citizens worked through peaceful means to address challenges of mutual concern. And that led to a dynamic in which citizens had far more trust in their institutions and critically far more trust in each other. And institutions evolved to be less hierarchical and more horizontal. Northern and Central Italy created the infrastructure they needed for healthy democratic systems because they designed their society in a way that built trust. Southern Italy was very, very different. Southern Italy had order that was imposed by outside mercenaries during this period. And they set up a largely feudal system where peasants were controlled by knights and knights were controlled by lords. And this feudal system had some characteristics that sound very foreign, but I want you to think hard as I describe this. Peasants would go out into the field every day, create value and send most of that value up to a lord in a manor house. And in exchange, they would be allowed access to some basic necessities they needed to sustain life and receive basic protection. But they had no expectation of private property, no expectation that they would be the primary beneficiaries of the value that they created. And not surprisingly, they had very little trust in the systems that govern their lives because these systems were not set up for their benefit. The mafia and its continuing corrosive impact on Southern Italian society traced its roots directly to these feudal structures. And Putnam found that the differences between these governing architectures that dated back a thousand years continued to dominate the differences in the way that these communities and societies perform today. This is incredibly important to us right now, or at least it should be incredibly important to us right now, because we are living in a digital version of Southern Italy. We are living in a digitally feudal system. Every morning we wake up, we take out our phones, the modern equivalent of farming implements, and we go to work cultivating a digital landscape we do not own and will never control. The value of what we create in the form of data and information is sent to digital manor houses in Silicon Valley and Seattle. And it has created a new system that works well for the handful of feudal lords, but does not work well for the rest of us. Not coincidentally, the systems that we have seen take root in our country have had a profoundly corrosive impact on trust and faith in our societies, which is now scraping historic lows. So we need to ask ourselves the question, how do you break out of a feudal system, because it's not easy. But we know what this looks like from history and remarkably, the ingredients that were necessary to break feudal systems in the Middle Ages are lining up again today. The first thing you needed was a pandemic, ironically. And the bubonic plague reshaped the value equation around labor in the same way that the COVID pandemic has reshaped our understanding of the value of digital systems and data and information. And those of us who have been able to work from home or those of us that work for companies that utilize digital information have certainly seen this play out in practice. You needed new forms of infrastructure to enable people to break out of feudal models. After the Roman roads deteriorated in central Italy, the only place that individuals could take their goods to market was to the local manor house and the local manor house controlled the price and all of the dynamics of the marketplace. With the emergence of new infrastructure and the rebuilding of roads, individuals had options, they had choices, they were able to take the value that they created and find new outlets for that value in other communities around the world and around their country. You need new ideas. And in the case of the original forms of feudalism, those new ideas came in the form of the Enlightenment. You had ideas of private property and individual rights that were profoundly disruptive and foreign to individuals of that day, but opened the eyes to even the beneficiaries of the feudal system that we could design a better set of structures for how we govern interaction between individuals. And finally, in many instances, you needed war. And war is obviously a horrific, horrific form of human engagement, but it is also the most profoundly disruptive form of human engagement and it has the effect of forcing people to question long held assumptions that have governed societies in the past. You put these ingredients together and you had the makings of a renaissance. And I would suggest to you that maybe, just maybe, we are witnessing the earliest moments of a dawning renaissance today. The third principle that I would suggest for the digital future is that in order to realize the potential of Web 3 technologies, we will have to break out of our current era of digital feudalism and build systems capable of replenishing the reservoir of trust and faith that irrigates human endeavor. And I take as my evidence for that claim what we are seeing play out in Ukraine over the last few weeks in the immediate aftermath of the Russian invasion, the government there needed help. Previously, relying on legacy systems, this would have been a formidable challenge. And I know this because in my past life in 2008, I went into the city of Tbilisi, Georgia, together with Joe Biden, the two of us on a plane, we met with the leaders of that country, which was at the time ringed with Russian armor. And as we came home, the two of us started putting together the underpinnings of what would eventually become a billion dollar assistance package to help that nation get back on its feet. But we recognized very rapidly that getting the resources to people in need was going to be almost impossible. It was going to take months and be defined by incredible opacity and uncertainty for individuals on all sides. What we're seeing play out in Ukraine is very different. In a matter of days, a hundred million dollars in digital assets was crowdsourced from individuals all over the world. Those resources were available to the Ukrainian government almost instantaneously. It took a lot of people working behind the scenes, and I've had many discussions with Ukraine's Deputy Minister for Digital Transformation, Alex Bornyakov, as they've tried to put the infrastructure necessary to do this in place. But the pieces are there, the building blocks are there. We have seen dows, decentralized, autonomous organizations come together and enable communities to support civil society groups, voluntary and non-profit organizations that are responding to this crisis. And we've seen distributed digital data networks like the Arweave platform used to safeguard information that will not only help the Ukrainians in rebuilding and protect vital documents from destruction at the hands of Russian invaders, but also preserve evidence of war crimes and atrocities for future prosecution. We're seeing this play out on a global scale using a new tool box that we have never had access to before, and it should make us all very hopeful about what could happen if we succeed in assembling these new tools in a manner consistent with the principles that I've laid out today. Better systems don't form themselves. They are formed in a forge that is fueled by the efforts, resources and ideas of people like all of you in this room. And in the coming decade, we will have an opportunity to decide how we want our systems to evolve. Will we follow the injunction of King Benjamin and use them in the service of our fellow beings? Or will we fall into the trap foretold by Nephi and use them instead to get gain, get power and win popularity? Let me state very clearly that at the moment the jury is out on how this story ends. We don't know where we're headed, but we have the opportunity to get this right. If we hope to realize the potential of this new renaissance, we will need to design digital systems that are better equipped to enable a more humane fellowship with humankind. We will need to embrace the opportunity to decentralize authority. We will need to build systems that establish healthy, vibrant communities as the cornerstone of value creation. And we will need to work to replenish the reservoir of trust that irrigates everything we do. That is the opportunity we must embrace today. That is the cause that must unite us. And that is the obligation we must honor if we hope to make decisions and build an internet that future generations will admire. I look forward to laboring with all of you in that effort and to your questions as we advance our understanding of these issues here today. Thank you. All right, we'll start over here. Thank you, Dr. Tillerman. My name is Lynn Davenport. I have a podcast called Social Impact. I followed your work. And you said a couple of things towards the end that I was going to ask you something different. But you said you were talking about war and war is necessary, yes. Not necessary. Well, I mean, it is one ingredient that can help us break down. I don't mean you want war, yes, but totally, totally. But war and of course this pandemic, they're both being used, or well, right now, the pandemic, I believe is being used as a tool to bring in the biosecurity state, which is going to force blockchain digital IDs. And I've got a specific anecdote in Dallas where I'm from, but I was going to ask you, do you not see how this could be very, it could be digital enslavement? Absolutely. And we need to be very mindful of that potential set of outcomes. And then so I guess your work with the World Economic Forum. So you see all the stuff that's out there. It says you will own nothing and you will be happy and you've seen that. I've not seen that. Have you all seen that? Yeah, I feel like it's the elephant in the room. We haven't really even talked about this. And I think it's something that we need to seriously consider, because I think it's it's going to build a panopticon. And this the Internet of Things, the Internet of Bodies, those are all the things that we're not really we're not really talking about. So let me make two quick observations on that, because it's a really important set of questions. Getting the privacy architecture around blockchain right is probably the single most important thing that needs to happen over the next five years to realize the potential of these technologies. We are investing in that. We invested in that when I was at Andreessen Horowitz, Katie and my new firm is tripling down on that thesis. We really need to get this right. Now, I believe that privacy preserving digital identity could actually be a tool that unlocks profound opportunities. It needs to be privacy preserving digital identity. There's some folks out there that freak out about any discussion of digital identity. That's a mistake. And we're seeing the countries that are starting to get digital identity right, like Estonia, what they're achieving is extraordinary and something that gives people a lot more control over their information than we have today. So you're absolutely correct. We need to be very mindful of the potential downsides here, which are massive. You know, the worst case scenarios are really, really terrifying. Yeah, worst case scenarios. Thank you so much for the questions, guys. We just need to keep it to one question per person. Thanks and try to keep it to one sentence. Thank you. You can use a semicolon. Sorry, I just love that idea. First, thank you for the awesome presentation and as a good Canadian. My apologies for my pessimistic question. From having just finished my own assignment with the OSCE desk at my ministry. When you think about the revolution and war that you mentioned. Yeah. And within the context of decentralization and thinking, frankly, of the past successes of the Swiss Confederation in taking on the Austrian empire and the American militias in taking on the British. But in an incredibly centralized military world in which, as it has been pointed out, there is the potential for vast and immediate destruction. How in all of these processes as we make potentially incredible gains at which the potential for centralized power to say, thank you, I would like those gains and I have guns and you don't. In what way do we overcome the challenge of decentralizing physical military security power in a decentralized context that doesn't lead to chaos and doesn't lead to dictatorship? I would suggest it's already happening. And I would guide you toward the writings of Gene Sharp, who writes on civil resistance. And what we have seen in recent years is that peaceful and I emphasize peaceful, nonviolent resistance has emerged as an almost insurmountable weapon against authoritarian forces. It is really, really challenging. And we'll see how this plays out in Russia. We'll see how this plays out in other societies. It is really, really challenging for any authoritarian movement to stand in the face of a principled, motivated, nonviolent resistance, which is in many ways an embodiment of an analog decentralization of power, if that makes sense. Those nonviolent movements have been very successful, statistically speaking. They have not had access to the toolbox that we are developing today. And so I think the exciting thing in my mind is what happens when you can provide principled, nonviolent civil resistance with access to a Web 3 toolbox? And what new forms of democratic resistance is that going to enable going forward? I thank you for that comment, although I think the people of Hong Kong may have some challenges, too. Please, well, I'll come back to you, please. Yeah. What privacy standard are you most optimistic for, given that you've been looking into this, so you mentioned that it's clearly an area of priority? What do you see? Yeah, I mean, there are some really, really creative platforms out there. One that I like a lot is called Alio, which is using zero knowledge proofs to build a new privacy layer for blockchain. But I think it's going to take, frankly, more than that. And over the last seven to 10 years, in some cases longer, you've seen the maturation of a few different technologies that are going to have to be layered if we're going to get this right. In addition to blockchain, I would suggest we should start looking hard at tools like differential privacy, federated learning and homomorphic encryption, each of which encompasses elements of what will be needed to design really world-class data-rich privacy-preserving architecture. And the challenge here is that it's not just about locking down everybody's data. If that were it, that would be pretty easy, and we could get there relatively quickly in order to compete effectively with authoritarian governments that are proving incredibly reliant on artificial intelligence and willing to utilize artificial intelligence, we're going to have to devise new structures for using data in privacy-preserving ways. We can do this now. So I'm confident, given the tools that are out there, we can get this right. But it is going to require a whole of society effort to succeed. I think that for the first time in the last month, we see a lot of policymakers waking up to this opportunity. And I'd suggest that the executive order that was just issued by the White House on decentralized technology is a baby step, but nonetheless, a profoundly important baby step in the right direction. But it's going to take some work and, again, some creative layering of technologies if we're going to get this right. Please. What you say about trust also definitely has an upside and a downside, and I think most of us can resonate with the chaos and the disinformation and the problems that both naturally and artificially have been introduced into a system that seems like decentralization may actually be exacerbated or exacerbate that issue. Do you have any thoughts or solutions about how to deal with those problems as we try to decentralize and yet still retain trust in a way that people can act in their own best interest? So, wonderful question and probably deserving of its own talk. Let me cite three quick suggestions that I've been noodling on a lot. The first is the way that we know to build trust, the thing that we know works when it comes to bringing people together across socioeconomic divides and getting them to have faith in each other is to unite them in voluntary service in civil society. And the fact that we are seeing the advent of community-based digital platforms, where, again, value is derived from the community, opens up a lot of intriguing opportunities in that space. It's really hard to mistrust the person that you've just spent a day doing ditch cleanup with in your community because you've worked together, you know them, even if you're very different in other aspects of your life, you have some basis for common ground. Wards and congregations are the most extraordinary example that I know of this phenomenon playing out in the real world. We bring people together from many different backgrounds, not so much in Utah where a ward is three blocks, but in the rest of the world, we bring people together from many, many different backgrounds and we all work together on the same stuff. And it doesn't matter how rich you are, how poor you are, if you live in that community, you're part of that community. So that is one really important thing that we need to pursue. The second thing we need to be mindful of is there is a school of thought that has grown up around some parts of the blockchain community that says what this really is is trustless technology and nobody's going to have to worry about trust anymore. I really disagree with that and I think that's the wrong way to approach this. We should look at these tools as instruments for redeeming failed institutions, for redeeming institutions that have lost the confidence of individuals and try to rebuild the ties that should exist within a healthy, open, dynamic community. And the last thing I would suggest when it comes to rebuilding trust is we're going to need to think very hard about the governance of these platforms going forward. The way many blockchain projects are governed right now, ownership equates with voting rights. That is not a system that is going to deliver trust in the long run. That's a system that's going to replicate oligarchy. In the investment firms that I work with, we've taken a very different approach. So we purchase big chunks of platforms but then we delegate the voting rights associated with huge portions of our holdings to civil society organizations, to universities, to non-profit organizations because we think that in the long run, the decentralization of authority and the decentralization of healthy communities is going to create more value. And ideally, we're going to need more approaches like that going forward if we're going to get this right. Please. Yes, I just have a question regarding the time that you spent at New America in Bretton Woods too. Regarding the ethics of faith-based institutions often who deliver social services of using blockchain technologies to invest, make investments in human capital finance and how that intersects with your present position in venture capital. Thank you. What's the question? So do you think that churches or faith communities should be investing in human capital finance? Well, I think that is going to be different across different faith communities. I think some faith communities do that. You know, ours does that. We have a perpetual education fund. But blockchain, like putting people like social impact bond finance that's connected to the Bretton Woods two arrangements that you had. I don't know is the honest answer because I haven't thought about it enough as it relates specifically to faith communities. I've thought about it a lot as it relates to large asset allocators, sovereign wealth funds and pension funds. Those organizations should be without question. But that means people need to get their blockchain under surveillance. Just keep your question to one sentence, please guys. Let's just be courteous with everyone and give everyone a chance to joining the conversation. So I wanted to hear your comments on the rise of the nuns and religious affiliation. Is that a representation of decentralization bearing out or is that a problem that or something that decentralization can actually address? Well, I would say it's much more a function in my mind of the atomization we've seen emerge in a Web 2 world where all of the systems that we interact with on a daily basis are designed to fragment us and designed to dice us and slice us into smaller and smaller groups that in many instances divorce us from communities. I think there are a host of reasons around declining rates of religious observance and religious affiliation. But I definitely think our technology structures haven't helped in that regard. Ideally, decentralized frameworks can provide some on-ramps for people who are feeling very divorced from communities to find their way back in. Please try to go quickly on this last one. What do you think the role of governments is in the face of decentralization? Well, I think the role of governments is going to change. I think it will continue to exist. I think it will need to exist. But I think the ways in which we approach democracy and the implements of democracy are going to evolve. Government and democracy at its core is a technology. It's an operating system. And that operating system is in serious need of an upgrade. And so ideally what we're going to see is the evolution of a new set of tools that improve the user interface that we use to translate the aspirations of citizens into the outcomes that are produced by our public institutions. That's going to take, again, a ton of work. None of this stuff is going to be easy. But we have a toolbox today for the first time in our lifetimes with the power to provide a really meaningful upgrade to the infrastructure of democracy. And let's hope and pray that we get that right. Thank you, Tamika.