 My name is Mya Santamaria, I work in the Department of Finance, full disclosure, I'm a Chartered Accountant, I'm not a PhD economist or anything like that, so I apologise for that. But I do have over 22 years actually of experience in finance, in banking and insurance, so I've learned things on this dark side. And I joined the Department of Finance about two years ago, and in the Department of Finance I lead the working group on cryptocurrencies and blockchain. So I'm going to introduce the panelists now, if that's okay, please. Alexis, come on board. And how's your work? Would you like to come join us? Max and Giacomo, I think you may have seen his presentation this morning. Okay, so Giacomo actually was presenting this morning, so I think you hopefully will have seen his presentation, I won't say anything else. Max is CEO of HODL, HODL, do I pronounce it right? Okay, that's great. How's your work? Is the Chief Head of Investment, Capital, Capital, so long. It's a bit long, sorry for that. But it's the inside piece, I actually really like very much. And Alexis, you are Chairman and CEO of Financial.com. It's a Munich based financial information company, and basically I'm representing the old, I've been tech since 1999, but I'm representing the old economy, so I got my tie on it. Very good. Okay, yeah, actually, I mean, between all of us have a lot of many years in financial services. You both Hans Jörg and Alexis, you've been in financial services for over 20 years. Mark, I think you were in private banking and wealth for over 10 years as well. Yes, I was a private banker and asset management went management for 10 years prior joining to crypto. So I know both worlds pretty well. Well, I had a bank account once. Very good. As you can see. So we do strive for a variety of experience to make the panel discussion interesting. So there you go. Let's pick action on that topic because on my experience from financial services, when we talk about cryptocurrency, and I tried to speak about it or at least presented to policy makers and regulators, I find a little bit like more fears in the metrics. When you feel like you're actually giving people either a red pill or a blue pill, which one is it going to be? Mostly it's because it feels like people either love cryptocurrency and Bitcoin or they seem to fear it and hate it. And I think maybe the realities might be somewhere in between. And certainly that's something I like to explore more in the panel discussion today. Who would like to go first? I'd love to because I feel I'm the advocate of the ability of today. And I simply want to change your perspective on Bitcoin a bit. So if I may, I'd like to draw your attention on your attention on this slide. And this slide is so to say is a history of panics, maniacs and crashes at financial markets throughout the history of financial markets as such. And when you take the different lines plotted here, what you might say is a so-called day zero. That was for any asset class being on that chart here. Day zero was the highest price of said asset class. And then it was plotted back five years into its own history. And the line then corresponds to years after since nowadays or the next five years after the highest price. And guess which line reflects Bitcoin? It's a blue one. And knowing that the left-hand side is in logarithmic terms, you would say that in comparison with all the other bubbles we had throughout the history of financial markets, the Bitcoin, let me call it like this bubble we saw in December 2017 was by far the largest bubble, at least when it comes to the price increases we saw years before. Well, a picture from time to time might tell you less than a thousand words because it's just a picture talking about or reflecting bubble history such as the tulip mania and others. And the fact point is, is it really a bubble we are talking about or isn't it? When you take the Kindleberger criteria, I come to the conclusion clearly we are in the middle of a bubble when it comes to Bitcoin. All the criterias as being named or hammered home by Kindleberger, he was an historian in economics, my view fulfilled. There is a fantasy of a new technology. There is much circulation. There is much liquidity flowing around searching for yield. There is a fantasy of a new technology, as I just said, new financial vehicles, be it the CBOE futures, be it mutual fund investment vehicles of nowadays and so on and so forth. So to make a long story short, I would say clearly Bitcoin primarily is a phenomenon of a bubble. And we are in it. It might just be a second part of what we are just seeing. And I even doubt that it's an asset class. This morning we talked about Bitcoin being an asset class. Me as an investor, I would say an investment professional. I would say, no, it's clearly not an asset class. Why should it be? A market cap is too low for being a nameable asset class. One hundred fifty. What was it? Billions of US dollars. That's nothing in comparison with equity markets or any other kind of financial market. It has not any intrinsic value. You might say, well, just like gold. Yes, Bitcoin is just like gold in that sense. But gold for me is not an asset class. It's a religion. Sorry, sorry. Sorry, can I stop you there? Because I do appreciate your comments. I think they're valid. And I'm sure the G20 ministers meeting in Fukuoka next week would love to have you there. But we do have three other panelists. And to that point, actually, I mean, you're obviously quite feeling quite strong about it not being an asset of sorts. But maybe it's because you're looking at something new from an old traditional lens. So what do you think, Alexis? Well, it's really hard for me to add something more. I pretty much agree with the previous presenter. But yeah, actually, Bitcoin is kind of a narrative. And if it would deliver what it's talking about, if it would come money, then it would be a deflationary asset. As deflationary. Disinflationary. Okay, sorry. But as mentioned earlier today, this would cause huge problems because we have experienced a great depression. We have seen World War II, so deflation is not an option. So I think what people always see as the most positive aspect being kept by 21 million, I personally see it as the biggest problem of the Bitcoin. Okay. I'll go directly to your mark. Would you like to, Max? Okay, that'd be great. Because at the end of the day, what we're saying is we know that Bitcoin was actually created to not follow traditional legacy systems. Does it matter? Yeah, actually, I just wanted to comment on that because during my banking time, I was handling a lot of papers to my client with different performance assets, and each of this paper contained the words, small words on the below, that past performance doesn't guarantee the future performance of the asset. So I think that we're living in a new age, digital age. That's what I heard in the year 2000 as well. What? That's what I heard in the year 2000 as well. And you don't have internet anymore? A couple of years ago as well. No, but there was Apple on the horizons already, and there always have been valuation metrics. Mine is still working. But now it's still valuation metrics. So start trying to value Bitcoin. Can I finish my... Thanks, Max. Thank you very much. So I wouldn't value or I wouldn't compare Bitcoin to previous asset classes because, again, it's decentralized by nature. And to understand the decentralization thing in the simple words, you have thousands of people in the world now at this moment working on the Bitcoin. Nobody out of them are coordinated by any central bank or anything else. I think that Bitcoin is an asset class. Maybe you can't compare it to the traditional asset classes due to the nature of that and due to the idea behind that. But it's also a social economical phenomenon for me personally because a part of the having promises, tech and all that stuff, we also have a very strong community of smart people who are working on that. And as I say previously, they're doing it in a decentralized way. Away from financial services. So one would potentially say that it's a financial services institution would not be happy obviously by Bitcoin because effectively they'll be coming into their own lunch as potential competitors. So it's natural to honestly understand your point of view, Alex and Hans Jörg. Can I just add something? I mean, there's a nice book written by two researchers in the US, Carmen Reinhardt and Kenneth Rogoff. It covers 800 years of financial crisis and the title of the book says, this time is different. And they're making a joke of it because they say, well, the times are different, technology is different. I don't know what else is different, but people are always the same. So the human mindset is always the same. And people always tell a new story why this time is different and then they learn that everything is just the same. So this is just the history of 800 years. It was 63 or 60 something financial crisis. So it's always been the same. So it's, if someone mentions this time is different, be cautious. That applies to government currency. That applies to government currency. We're talking about asset prices. We're talking about asset prices. We're talking about sovereign defaults. But they're focusing on democracies. And a democracy needs inflation. Why? Because politicians pay more than they can afford. So they issue debt. And they say the future taxpayer will repay, but there's no future taxpayer. You need it. You need it. Otherwise a democracy wouldn't work. I think we need a beer soon. So this is what we've learned from 800 years is that a democracy needs inflation. It will always end up in inflation. It has to. By the way, this is a good business model. Religion is the best business model. You promise a better life after death. You can get money upfront. No one reclaims if this doesn't happen. There's no regulation. That's how money was invented. So religion is the best business model for as much. Bitcoin is kind of a religion. We can say that's how money works. There are also people that actually read that book. Yeah? Oh, come on. We're not going to get personal, please. And we want to end the day in a good note. Jack, what would you think about all this? So I agree with most have been said. I mean, Bitcoin is a bubble in a way. Well, rhetorically we could say that Bitcoin is not the bubble. It's the pin. That's the typical rhetorical answer. Which means that it's a bubble that basically is going to grow and never really burst if the alternative bubble of the government central planning of money is going to burst. It's an anti-correlated bubble. If the bet on central planning of money is going to succeed, Bitcoin is not going to succeed. But since I agree with the second sentence that every time somebody says that this time is different, that there is a red flag, central planning always failed in the past and this time is probably not different. So Bitcoin is a pin that will burst the bubble. But it's also true what Dan said also this morning and yesterday. Bitcoin actually is moving like a bubble. Bitcoin is not really facing the phenomenon of monetization in a smooth way. It's not that everybody is going to agree to smoothly pour resources into Bitcoin. There will be phases. There will be wave. There will be FOMO. There will be food. There will be basically adjustment of expectation and very strong correction. We are seeing that all the time. Bitcoin actually is not a bubble. It's a collection of bubbles. The only point is that this bubble always burst at the higher point than the previous. So it's okay. We are continuous to creating bubbles. We are bursting bubbles and we are going up like this. Eventually, while the market debt grows, the volatility level is going down. We are seeing that already. But it's a collection of bubble. Also, the interesting thing is that the traditional bubble, so the stock market bubble created by manipulation of interest rates, is somehow influencing Bitcoin. I think that it's a safe bet that the manipulation of interest rates creates incentives to overinvest and misinvest, and maybe part of that crazy liquidity is also going into Bitcoin or worse into technically speaking, sheet coins. So, yeah, Bitcoin is an anti-bubble. Bitcoin is a collection of several bubbles. And Bitcoin is probably also helped by all the government-driven bubbles. Okay. That's it pretty much. Can I just differentiate? I really like blockchain technology and I think there are many currencies out there that are better than Bitcoin. So, don't get me wrong on this. Okay. It's good that we agree. Maybe I wasn't super clear about that, but... Well, I always reach about the asset class thing. I agree that, I mean, as we said this morning and it was repeated, Bitcoin is still an experiment. For example, the market cap of Bitcoin is still very low. We cannot call it an asset class in a typical financial sense. That said, the reason I usually talk, I mean, from my experience of having had a bank account, I talk with finance people and when I talk with them, I call Bitcoin an asset class for this simple reason. It is an asset, for sure, with a very strong price dynamics but is not clearly part of any other known asset class. And if you try to frame it as another existing asset class, it will show some kind of dynamic that are completely different. For example, decentralization of decisions or price dynamics or historical dynamics. It's also, I mean, it's a religion. That's true. It is a religion. It is also a digital gold. It is also a brand. It is also a growing technology. So the reason it's an asset class is not size. Eventually, if we succeed, we will get there to a relevant size. Right now, the size is very small but the nature, it cannot be... If we want to be honest, scientifically speaking, we cannot really fit this into any other specific asset class. But given that, as a characterization, it's simply not sufficient to make it investable, I would say. And for me, everything and anything that's not investable is not an asset class, full stop. Okay. And you might say gold is some kind of an asset class because there's some more gold outside, out there, then some bitcoins. Well, yes, fair point. But it even would go further ahead saying an investment class for me is something I can generate some kind of return. I'm talking about intrinsic value of that asset class. So if you have any... And not return in a sense of prices rising and therefore generating return as such. So if you have one single asset that for a correlation level can lower the general risk of your portfolio, unless it's big enough to be its own asset class, you will not use it to mitigate the risk or to better... What is just that was quite good. Past performance is no indication for future results. So why should I take past performance or past volatility to make it... to take it as a diversifiable asset class? I simply don't see it as such. You might say, well, there are equities, there are bonds, there are other type of currencies. That's okay. They have their own track record, but Bitcoin is just out there. It's some kind of a token. And you might say it's investable. Yes, you may go into it and out of it, but given that kind of volatility we have seen throughout the last couple of years, knowing that the price increases outnumber all other kinds of bubbles we've had. For me, it's just something for those who love it, who believe in it. And I come back to what you just mentioned. This time it's different. Yes, it's a fantastic book and everyone should read it. And this time it's really different and these are the most expensive words of the history of financial history. This time it's different. So whenever you hear it, better stay away from that kind of asset, not asset class, but vehicle. Any comments? Okay, please, Dr. I think there's something extremely misleading about the chart that you said, which is that it goes back only five years from the top of the bubble. And if you put up the five years before that, all of the bubbles that you put would not show up in the graph. They would all be stuck next to the X-atches, even on a logarithmic graph. Bitcoin rises so much that all the other bubbles are insignificant. And I think this is where you need to start revisiting your project and revisiting your assumption because the amount of appreciation that Bitcoin has achieved in 10 years is about 18 million percent. So even if it loses 99 percent of its value, it still outperforms everything else in human history over the last 10 years. So there's something there that's different. Even if it loses all of that value, there's still value that has been created for 50 billion in 10 years. That's a great story. No, that's not a great story. You need to ask yourself why and find another explanation other than just dismissing it. Oh, yeah. Okay, next time I take 10 years, it makes it even worse. Or 20 years, whenever it started, I don't worry about this. But the thing is, what I plotted here is a comparison where it's not only the Taliban year and other kind of narrative. That's a good word for Taliban year probably. But all the other kind of equity classes, of asset classes you've had and you're still having such as U.S. stocks, German stocks and any others and Japanese ones. And having that this, they reflect economic power, nothing else. And Bitcoin reflects a religion. There is a difference here and therefore I'm making this point. No, religion is the notion that we have papers from the government with God on them. Come on, come on. We need to discuss fired money to make that point clear. What I like most about Bitcoin is the fact that I'm in Hayekian like probably many of you see in the audience. So I'm as an economist, I'm at Heron or a disciple you might even say of Friedrich von Hayek. And you made a very valid point but he did not talk about Bitcoin. He talked about the denationalization of money and I even doubt that Bitcoin is a currency and therefore it's not money. So what would it take for you to revise that idea? So 10 years from now Bitcoin is 10 times where it is today, so $80,000 per coin. So we've had 20 years of growth in Bitcoin and 200 million percent. Would you still think that it is a collapse? Because the key thing that you need to confront is that every one of these is a bubble, as Jakob was saying, and yet after each bubble we end up above the previous high. So next time what I bring with me is a better chart even I don't have it with me but it's even more in lighting probably. You take that chart with a Bitcoin price and what you then take next is a yield, not the yield curve but the 10 years yield of sovereign bonds be it US or Europe or even more so with the landing rate of central banks. And the landing rate of central banks do reflect a very simple story. We have been in a negative yield environment for more than 10 years in major parts of the world. And interesting to see that just before the US central bank changed gear in the year 2017 the bubble collapsed and now given the fact that the ECB and the Federal Reserve once again changed gear backwards. So in checking even more liquidity it just restarted again. Let's try to answer the question. At which point do we basically revise our position? So I would say for example that if in a time horizon of 30 years that's maybe too much but let's be bold. I say that if it's in five years for example a good percentage of asset allocation in political sensitive areas or international black and grey markets do not use Bitcoin I will start to seriously reconsider the effectiveness of the project of the experiment because it is an experiment. At which point do you see Bitcoin growing without collapsing except with some volatility and you accept that this time is really different? Is there a threshold where you revise your position? Need to think about it very carefully but given the fact that just a few of millions people are using it obviously and given the fact that if I'm not wrong one third or even more of Bitcoins are being mined in China knowing that it takes just a majority of 50 plus percent to change the rules. It doesn't. Oh okay. That's a misconception. Okay. You need actually everything. Because that needs to be from the table obviously. It needs to be not being manipulative or manipulated. That was the case Bitcoin will be very reasonable. It needs to be more widely spread and that's simply not the case and you shouldn't forget that we have more than 1,000 other cryptocurrencies. How about these currencies? Do we know whether they will... That's what you are saying. Others are telling me they are in use. So even thinking about building mutual funds on cryptocurrencies to have a diversification effect. Yeah but this conference is called value on Bitcoin not the value on other shitcoins. You're sorry. The non-value of Bitcoin. I would change my mind if it becomes legal tender obviously. So independently of price dynamics it's not a bubble if it's legal tender. So in Japan it's a legal tender and now we can start changing the minds because since 2017 Bitcoin is a legal tender in Japan and Japan as far as I understand in top three economies in the world. I would... Sorry it's not... Sorry let's get back to this. Sorry it's not legal tender but it's actually accepted as a means of payment which is slightly different. My understanding of a legal tender is that there's a monetary policy behind it. Oh that's not the case. That really suits it. That's maybe why it's different this time. There's no monetary policy. Yeah and this is the reason why I'm skeptical. I'm sorry. So it's not a bubble if there is a political decision for the supply. I mean I think... I think you can argue about monetary policy. You can love or hate central banks. I don't... This is an emotional question. You can hate them. But I think it's indisputable that a variable amount of goods needs a flexible monetary supply. So a fixed money supply with a growing amount of goods it doesn't work. So you can hate or love central banks I don't care but I think you need to have a flexible monetary supply. How has the Bitcoin economy gone from $150 billion from zero over 10 years with a fixed money supply? Great story. Great story. Great story. Just an experiment? You need 20 million Bitcoins. I don't know. Well what number of people will take you to admit this is more than a story? If a billion people are using it... I mean if it's... If the government goes out of business and the government curses go out of business but Bitcoin is still there. Will you revise then? It's not the agenda. Not the chart. I mean... That's an internally consistent definition. Yeah. That's a fair point. I know it's not very popular here. Sorry. It's a very interesting point because I'm still actually with my accounting financial services hat on I'm still struggling to understand how if it's not any type of asset and it's some kind of bubble it's not okay to kind of invest in it but it's totally okay to invest in the derivatives that invest in the asset. I'm like how do you actually marry the two of them up? So it's an interesting theory. All right. Listen, this is very interesting. We have 10 minutes to go before beers and Satoshi Nakamoto has just sent in a question and slide. Oh, that's okay. So we're going to erase that one. So it's a question for Hans York-Nomer. Bitcoin is simply religion. Is Satoshi God? What do you think? Let me think about it. Probably more kind of a devil. I would say because those who call themselves God are usually more kind of a diabolic type of person. I wouldn't say it's Satoshi. Of course, don't get me wrong but the question is such as rubbish. Let's get a bit more serious. Bitcoin markets are liquid and prone to heavy manipulation. Does it need the traditional system to root out the bad actors? I go first if you want. My opinion is no. The side effect of regulation is always to make it easy to manipulate everything for the friends of the regulator and to create a barrier to competition in order to evolve toward a more transparent and self-regulated system. So right now, this is not denying that the Bitcoin market, especially the exchange-based market is super manipulative right now. It's very low liquidity, very low debt. The exchanges can see their stop-loss and go down and take them. Most exchanges, not the... Not the horrible. There are some differences in custodian-ship strategies and stuff. There are some exchanges which are doing a better job. But the point is this. I have been born in Italy and there is a bank there, a very ancient bank, it failed probably 50 times and the government bailed out people to regulate and so moral hazard grows and it fails again and again. Then I had some, like, tribit coins on empty gox. No government bailed me out for my tribit coins and I'm super happy because that created the opposite of moral hazard. That created a period in which people started to think about exchange security. So when you don't regulate and when you don't bail out, when you don't manipulate, when you let people learn from their mistake and they can suffer from their mistake, you have an imperfect process of learning while when you try to step in and to central plan things violating the normal feedback loops, then you just create... Maybe the system is perfect at the beginning but then it degenerates at the end. So regulators are always increasing moral hazard. They are never serving everything. Even if in the short run they are going to stop some scam, they will produce bigger scam in the end. Well, let's... I think we'll just set there. Giacomo goes really well with the discussions we had earlier on today as well about how Bitcoin is the social contract part of an experiment. So when you're actually putting all that together you can understand why maybe it's not a normal asset, certainly from the view that we're looking from a traditional finance perspective. Particularly because it actually looks at reinventing, re-managing, actually allowing people to have control in their finances. We talked about a market for private money. That's new. What we're saying here is maybe we shouldn't be looking at something new with the lenses of an old world. Should we move on to a question from the audience? Because you seem to have woken up and I really like that. Intrinsic value come on, you should know this, aren't you? Don't you? Intrinsic value assembly is you take, let's say, share an equity part of an enterprise of cooperation and you ask yourself what also returns to be expected in terms of earnings for the next couple of years. And what you're going to generate is earnings and you get data dividends and then you can give it a price. That's explained for equities. You could go ahead and explain it to a real estate whatever you have in mind. So that's not a problem. Systematic as such is quite simple. But it's nothing such with Bitcoin. Tell me what is intrinsic value. Is anyone here being able to say what's intrinsic value of a Bitcoin is? Please tell me. What? CRO. Okay, thank you. Well, I will disagree about that. So first of all, I think a better distinction I think would be between expected exchange value and direct consumption value. So this is a very clear distinction. But even if you do that so if you have a piece of bread you can sell it but you can also eat it while usually a good form of money has very low consumption value is mostly a store of value and a medium of exchange so you want to exchange it. Bitcoin in this regard is different. For example, there is George Sargin saying that this is the first time that there is a synthetic commodity. So this is a good argument. All the commodities we use as money in the history started as something used for something else. For example, decorative purposes or collectibles and then they evolved to be used as money. Bitcoin in this sense has the presumption to be designed directly in order to assume the function of money. So in this sense it is a more bold, it is a better which is more ambitious. But a one Bitcoin has the same kind of consumption value of any kind of scarce collectible. Imagine that you have an autograph by a basketball player or you have the t-shirt of Mick Jagger with some sweat. So what is the consumption value of that? Many pieces of modern art you can say there is a consumption artistic value no, I mean they are horrible. But the only value is that you have that and nobody else does. So the fact that sometimes we say that price value arises from scarcity and demand but the truth is that scarcity itself in some condition in the dynamic of collectibles can be itself a direct consumption even if you don't plan to exchange your autograph of a famous person with somebody. The fact that it is scarce that you have it and other people don't is itself a consumption value. Indeed there is an hypothesis that historically even commodity money didn't really evolve from consumption goods but it did evolve from collectibles. So people were showing off shells because these shells were rare, they could have it and other people couldn't and then they understood that they can also store shells and exchange shells and it evolves with Mises regression theory. But I accept the fact that bitcoin is different because bitcoin was designed to become money while no previous kind of money except for fiat, shitcoin had the same kind of origin. Just explain us nothing else in public economics. Thank you for this because modern arts is just the same as bitcoin when it comes to prices and liquidity. You are trusting the generic market aggregates. You are expecting some kind of behavior from the market and you know the market behavior cannot be changed single-handedly by any single entity and so you expect a typical social long-term dynamic, lindy effect network effects. You expect to invest something. It's not true that bitcoin is trustless. You trust math and you trust typical economic laws. Sorry, please go ahead. For me personally, gold is not a reason, not at all a reason. My question is why do central banks buy gold and why does it merely breed? Buy gold as a substitute for gold? I can't tell for them. We have better asset classes to invest but we are incompetent also to say it's a matter of culture. It's a matter that others believe in and Dr. Waller just put it quite nicely. We are talking for the Federal Reserve that the Fed is able to create its own currency that we should do the same having the ECB. Therefore, your point is a very valid point. Does gold make any kind of sense? No, it doesn't. We are simply believing in it. We are believing in the surprise of modern arts might skyrocket even first. We are believing that fiat money is actually somehow powered by central banks. I don't believe in fiat money at all. I'm just using it to transfer things perhaps to store value to a certain extent. I'd rather store value with real assets. That's what we are going to have outside in forms of drinks but that's what you might also have in forms of equities or something. I'd never believe in anything. Let me make that point. We should start from that. But the thing is when it has an intrinsic value that helps a lot to anchor it and to anchor its value. US dollar taken as such is just a matter of transfer value for it. Excuse me. Maybe you had a discussion from an IT perspective. I believe that the real value of the Bitcoin system is the most powerful compute and storage network which is out there and we have seen through the presentation the fact that of security and immutable data this is where the value grows and it's what people trust that when it comes in it will generate it. This is unmatched. We cannot deny it. And I would see it in intrinsic value as well. Bitcoin has become the base currency for all the other cultures. Bitcoin ecosystem where you have a base layer but there's only a few fractions. Exactly. But I also believe that it's not a Bitcoin only new system. Because we have great use cases out there we take ripple we have people talk about it is a Bitcoin conference. Sorry. Can I add something with the next base of Bitcoin for decentralized so it's small contract systems decentralized apps and all those things. So there won't be prominent use cases but Bitcoin lies the foundation of trust for us to connect to that and could work on coins to the other. So I switch into your side of nihilism can I add something to the gold question? I just want to quote Warren Buffett one of the best investors of our time he just wrote in his letter but a very smart guy and he said he's 88 years and he said during his lifetime the national debt of the U.S. has grown by 400,000 percent in 88 years and there have always been people fighting monetary policy buying gold and overall the people who bought gold had the worst performance over 88 years. So usually entities which are very deep in debt eventually they fail but this time it's different right? No, no, no, no I would say an asset class an asset class in my view is an asset pays your dividend for your interest. So is the company the presenter from the Fed he said he would rather buy the S&P so do I I would rather buy the S&P and hold it for like decades. I think I might stop it here because it is time to go out for a beer I'd like to thank the panellists but I will like to leave you all with a thought which I'm going to read out straight out it's the first sentence from Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper and the sentence says a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution so just consider that. Okay, thanks Thank you It was good