 All right. Thank you, Zanka. I feel a bit like a robot with this thing on my head, right? So I'm going to sort of follow on from what Ulrich just talked about and not really discuss much about blockchain, but more like the wider context of the open science movement or, you know, things happening in the space at the moment. So at the moment, as Ulrich again has indicated slightly, we're in the middle of a what you might call a global scientific crisis. Things are so bad in some circumstances that they actually made a movie about it recently and they'll be showing it in Berlin here in a couple of weeks. So if you're based here, you should totally come along and watch that with us. There are four major crises sort of within the modern research environment. The first is access, the fact that most people do not have access to most research on this planet. So only about 25% of all published research is open access. And that's after about 20 years of relentless campaigning in this field. So something's not working too well there. As Ulrich just said, there's this reproducibility crisis in some fields. The cereals crisis, where in the last 30 years, the cost of subscribing to journals has increased at 300 times the rate of inflation. And finally, again, this evaluation, you know, the metric that shall not be named and defaulting to inappropriate proxies for research evaluation. So what is open science and what is it supposed to be a solution for? You know, research at the moment is often redundant, slow and wasteful. In many cases, it's also governed by commercial interests. Copyright is no longer used as a tool to protect authors, but instead used by commercial companies to attack authors and reduce information flow. We have the four crises, which I just mentioned before, and this all sort of contributes to this illusion of academic freedom, where we're said that we're allowed to sort of do what we want and research what we want, but really it's governed by external forces. And this leads to things like questionable research practices, again, as Ulrich just mentioned, such as harking and peahacking. And overall, closed science in this manner means that people suffer. So a question for you all is, do you believe that science can help us solve some of the major issues that we're currently facing? So these are the UN Sustainable Development Goals, there are 17 of them, and it includes things like affordable and clean energy, high quality education and improving life on land, so getting over the biodiversity crisis, as well as solving issues to do with climate change. So does anyone here not believe that science can help with these things? All right, good. But like, if that is true, then you must also acknowledge that by preventing access to research we're also acting against meeting these fundamental human goals. And this is what the present scholarly publishing industry is doing, in many respects, in exchange for billions of dollars every year. And this is not like a bug, this is a feature of the system, and if we believe that science can save lives, I don't know if this... Then, you know, then preventing access to science must, by default, cost lives. And like, the more you learn about it, the worse it gets, like for an analogy for researchers, trying to get published is like going into a restaurant, bringing all of your own ingredients, cooking the meal yourself, and then being charged 40 bucks for a waiter to bring out on a plate to you. It's ridiculous because you are, at the same time, the provider, the product, and the consumer. So why open science now? Well, you know, things are getting worse. If we look, for example, at the United States, half the population there don't believe that climate change is a real thing. We have an incredible co-option of the open science movement, as we've seen with the open access movement, and commercial interests are strengthening, and also taking over now our entire open scholarly infrastructure, so it's not in fact open scholarly infrastructures becoming closed. And we really have to act now, like now, like today, as a global community and the people in this room, to take control of the scientific enterprise again, or open science. But like, what is open science itself? So, ironically, the only systematic review ever of what open science is, is paywalled by Elsevier. Yeah, and that described open science as a transparent and accessible knowledge that is shared and developed through collaborative networks. I feel this is very bad. Another definition was given by Mick Watson in genome biology a few years back, and he said, open science describes the practice of carrying out scientific research in a completely transparent manner, and making the results of that research available to everyone. But isn't that just science? And I think this is really good, and we have to be very careful here, because what we've sort of stepped into, or stumbled into, is trying to define open science as a process-based concept, whereas what it should be in reality is based on values and scientific principles. And again, we're treating open science as like this very distinct entity from just science done well. And what this means is that open science as a definition, or as a concept, becomes extremely easy to co-opt, and we are seeing this. It also becomes incredibly easy to become sloganized. If you look in the European Commission at the moment, they use open science to gain political brownie points. And it's not cool. But realistically, we need to return to these principles of what open science is, or what open scholarship is, or just good science, based around principles like inclusivity and equality, and the fact that knowledge should be a public good, as well as very human values, which are intrinsic to all of us, such as freedom, fairness, justice, truth, and liberty. And once we return to these fundamentals, it forms this feedback loop where the principles and values bounce off each other and inform our practices every day as a scientist. So these things which we call open science will become inherent to us if we just adopt good human values and good scientific principles. Now, a problem in this space at the moment is that mega publishers such as Springer Nature and Elsevier et al. are corrupting open science. So these organizations stuck in a pre-digital mindset where the key product is based around a 17th century sort of concept. We still call them papers for goodness sake, and it's 2018. These publishers are essentially why the open science movement began in the first place, because they have business models which are based on exclusion, exploitation of privilege, as well as discrimination, and extortion of public libraries. And what these companies do is they essentially pay lip service to open science while simultaneously subverting it to meet their own needs. And it's insane because if you look at the business practices of Elsevier and Springer and Taylor and Francis Wiley, these big publishers, they do not share these principles which we say underpin good science and human values. And it kind of makes me a little bit sick when you see Elsevier say that they partner with the research community to empower open science. Like what the bloody hell is that? It's just an outright lie, right? And we should be telling them on this. And thankfully we are. So recently I published an article in The Guardian calling Elsevier out for corrupting open science in Europe, because I don't know if you know, the European Commission now have this open science monitor. Guess who's providing all the data for it? Elsevier. Elsevier are now monitoring open science in Europe. They're going to be dictating the future of open science policy in Europe and the future of your careers. How cool is that? So we wrote a petition about this to the European Commission and it's gathered more than 1,100 signatures at the moment. Elsevier and the Lisbon Council, the Lisbon Council in charge of his consortium behind the open science monitor got really miffed. And like all of these really high level arguments that we put against them, they're basically challenged by trying to discredit myself and all the others who got involved with this. And we basically told them to shove it. We were like, if you can't be bothered to be civil and engage in like a courteous debate, then don't bother trying to debate at all. So recently the European Commission actually investigated this. So they wrote a formal complaint to them saying what on earth do you think you're doing? Letting Elsevier like, you know, dominate the space and continue to corrupt open science. And they actually responded to us. And their response was exactly sort of as we expected. You know, they said, we don't really think there's a problem with having Elsevier monitoring open science. They actually didn't really address any of the sort of key critical points around conflict of interest and inherent data biases that we explained. But at least now what the Commission have done is have put like an advisory group in charge of monitoring the open science monitor group, which is fantastic. So we won a little bit there. And if you're interested in like joining in, we are actually currently creating a counter response to the European Commission and we're annotating using hypothesis at the link here. The cool thing is that while they were busy dealing with that, we were already preempting like the next move. And as Zinke mentioned a few days ago, we submitted a formal complaint again to the European Commission Antitrust and Competition Authority explaining how Elsevier were dominating and abusing their position within the global scholarly publishing landscape, along with the other publishers to try and actually get like some regulation and like fairness within the current market around scholarly publishing to give you all space to like breathe and actually like compete on a fair level in the space at the moment. And it's not just, you know, a few of us sort of fighting in a corner here. There are big sort of like national and international rebellions happening at the moment in the sort of open access and scholarly publishing world. So, you know, Germany has cancelled through the deal negotiations all of its subscriptions to Elsevier journals across like 160 research institutes, which is fantastic. And earlier this year, this chap here is Martin Grutschel. He's the President of the Berlin Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. And he gave an opening talk at the Academic Publishing in Europe conference, which Zinke and Lambert and a couple of others were at. And I hope you remember him giving this talk because this was to a room of about 300 of these publishers and he basically just shot them into silence. You know, he was talking about what it's like being in the negotiation room with Elsevier. And he said, one big publisher, Elsevier, stated, if your country stops subscribing to our journals, science in your country will be set back significantly. And he responded that it's interesting to hear such a threat from a producer of envelopes who does not have any idea of the contents. And this is like, you know, sort of how scientists and publishers are creating big rifts in the system at the moment. They're affecting the entire sort of way in which we publish and communicate research. And you know, on the face of it, Elsevier are in it for money, Martin's in it for the people. And you know, I think he's a bit of a hero in this context for taking on these monolithic corporations and trying to, you know, make things fair for us all. I'm glad Uli mentioned the difficulty of culture change. So, you know, statistically, 50% of academics are stupider than the average academic, right? And we live in a system defined by cultural inertia. So, has anybody ever heard of like this psychological effect called the penguin effect? It's a crowd mentality effect. And what it describes is if you imagine, you know, a group of penguins or a flock of penguins and they're all huddling on an ice cap together. And they're all getting really, really hungry. And we're looking out into the sea and we're like, we could go and feed out there, but there might be a sea lion or a killer whale or something. And it's really dangerous. So they all just wait and they get hungry. And they wait and they wait and they wait. And then eventually one of them gets so hungry, but he's like, all right, screw it. And he slides down the iceberg and into the sea and he goes fishing and he feeds. And then everyone's like, oh, wait, you know, he's okay, he didn't get eaten. And they all begin to follow. It's a flock mentality, it's a crowd mentality. And it really nicely describes sort of how researchers work. You know, we were terrified of things like open access when that first started happening, but now it's, you know, becoming a norm. And, you know, things are slowly changing, but they require a lot of force. And, you know, people still haven't really discovered what it is yet that makes scientists tick as a culture. And especially within this sort of system where, you know, the publisher perish mentality is still strong. And again, I tend to agree with Uli that what sort of like all of this blockchain talk is doing is trying to provide technological solutions for cultural and social problems. Because, you know, as he said, you know, if you speak to an average researcher and you ask them, you know, have you heard of blockchain? They're like, what is that? You know, some sort of Tetris game or something. They have generally no idea what it is or how it works. And I often feel that when we talk about blockchain for open science, we're often sort of missing the point of having the wrong discussion too. But, you know, academics have been generally terrible in the last sort of 10, 15 years of making predictions. You know, these are all statements that have been said to me at some point over, you know, open access will never catch on. Preprints will never be a thing. Sharing data will never be mandatory. Open peer review is fake news. All of this stuff, blockchain will never be needed for science. You know, at some point, scientists have always been wrong about these things. These things are now becoming much more commonplace. And I wonder, you know, if academics ever get tired of being wrong all the time. And, you know, I would love all of you in this room to prove the blockchain skeptics wrong and, you know, create some sort of blockchain for science revolution. Because that would be fantastic. But, again, like, I think there's still a little bit more to it than this. Like, I don't think blockchain addresses the real social problems that we have. Because if we look at all the drivers behind open science, you know, these fantastic things like reducing publication bias, increasing reproducibility and reliability of the publishing record, increasing collaboration and increasing trust. All of these things should be fundamental to science. But the barriers to these things are not technological, as Uli said again. You know, it's mostly social. And if you speak to early career researchers especially, you know, it's all about fear, mostly because they still live within this system that's governed by this. The impact factor. And blockchain, again, is not the solution to this. You know, so far, you know, people keep mentioning tokenizing for incentives and all of this stuff. It's like, great, you know, has anybody got a single research fund or research evaluator yet to say that they're going to use tokenized sort of things as an evaluation system? Like, it just hasn't happened yet. And no one has managed to budge this huge problem that we have. So, you know, again, I'm glad that Uli set this up because I do believe that we do have a bit of an education crisis here. And I do believe again that we can break the cycle through appropriate training. And like, just if you look again at like the attitudes of researchers versus like the practices, you know, some of the things that they do and some of the things that they say are just completely mental. Like, this is a research paper came out last year describing the proportion of open access in the biomedical health literature. And what it found was that 60% of researchers, so three out of five researchers, do not self-archive their work, make it open access, even when it's completely free and keeping with the journal policy. And you have to wonder, like, why is this, you know, because they're doing this research because they want to help improve people's lives and, you know, promote health equity. But they're not doing this very simple thing of just making their work open access even when it's completely free for them and risk free. And, you know, I don't know why this is. But I feel, you know, there's a lot of misinformation out there. You know, one of the most common things I hear is that open access is just too expensive. And yeah, in some cases it is. If you have a very narrow mind and you focus again on the big five publishers who do try and rinse your money out of this. And this common view about open access being too expensive is due to a combination of monopolization of this space, like we're trying to fight at the moment, as well as political broadsiding and sabotage from commercial publishers. Like, this happens. Like, they have lobbyists in the European Commission who make sure that when open access policies go through, they're very much in the favor of the publishers rather than the public or the researchers. And as well as that, there are so many, like, low cost or free options when you don't have to break the bank for open access. So like I said earlier, you know, self-archiving is free. About 70% of open access journals, of a directory of open access journals, do not charge article processing charges. And you know, again, like, if you look at most of the German research institutes, they provide funding for this stuff automatically through libraries. So it doesn't really actually cost researchers a penny. And in fact, almost all the evidence points towards open science at you being inherently good for your career. You know, even if you default to this sort of flawed system where we default to things like impact factors and citations and alt metrics for research evaluation, you know, open access has been demonstrated almost across the board to provide a citation advantage. The same is true for releasing preprints. You get more citations faster and increasing at a, yeah, a more rapid rate. And again, on the right here, it doesn't show up too well, but on the right it shows you the number of citations you get if you share your data openly compared to on the left if you don't. And the same is true for sharing your code too. So all of these practices, which we consider to be open science are actually really good for your career and not really bad. And openness really is better for everyone. You know, it makes a statement about who you are as a person, you know, that you believe that the public deserves access to the research that they're funding. It means that people beyond your, you know, limited local sphere can reuse your work. It means you get more collaborations, more attention for your research, more attention for yourself, and it's inherently good for your research and your career to be more open about this. And, you know, I feel, you know, as a journey researcher, again, that we should be in a position where we're able to influence the academic system and not be stifled by this sort of fear that's, you know, creating all of this inertia. So, yeah, my question is, you know, what can we achieve if we all stand together? Instead, you know, of competing, what happens if we collaborate and focus on a common goal? So what if we, you know, unify the global scientific community, including the blockchain community, and make sure that what we're doing at the end of the day is acting in the best interests of the public and not private profits, so hashtag people not profits. You know, culture change is difficult. And this is one of the things I'm working on here. So through education, training and support, so we try to develop this open science MOOC or, you know, we call it, it's a MOOC, but the C in it stands for community at the moment. And this is all about providing education, training and support, not just to junior researchers, but essentially to anyone who needs it and wants it. And hopefully through this sort of, like, bottom-up approach to open science, we can sort of have a knock-on effect where we empower the next generation to become leaders in their field, and through that we shift power dynamics to reduce all this bias and abuse that's rife through academia, and, you know, we build ultimately a global community based on sharing and collaboration. But what this needs again is massive-scale engagement to realign open science with current incentive structures. So in 20, 30, 40 years of people talking about problems with journal-ranking systems and the impact factor, it's still there. It still controls everything. And I don't know if people in this room have an actual solution to break it. You know, if you do, please, you know, get it out there and get it out there fast. Because, you know, this is the most important thing. Incentives govern everything. You know, researchers need to put food on the plate. They need to pay their rent. And, you know, they're not going to do something which they believe compromises their career, even though it actually, in fact, may not. So, you know, our vision for the future for the MOOC is, you know, to help make open the default setting for all global research by creating a welcoming and supportive community with good tools, teachers and role models and build upon, you know, this values and this principle-based approach to research, you know, with freedom and equity as, like, sort of the core principles. Just to shift on a little bit, you know, the current scholarly publishing system, the communication system is absolutely mental. Like, we're still stuck using, like, 1995 technologies on a 17th century project. It doesn't make any sense. You know, everywhere else across the entire web, we're using networks to evaluate information and collaborate and do really cool things. We're not doing it in science and it's totally crazy. You know, why are we not using the power of peer-to-peer networks with or without the blockchain to evaluate and share scientific results? Because the technology, again, this exists, again, with or without the blockchain. Imagine, like, a future system which is something like Stack Exchange combined with GitHub combined with Wikipedia. These things already exist and it's very simple to create some sort of social peer-to-peer network where we all communicate and evaluate results of our scientific research out there, you know, because these things are already being done by different communities. Imagine, like, if we built some sort of platform that was, you know, low-cost, creditable, where everything was inherently collaborative and communication was instant, but it was also owned by the global research community and, you know, reproducibility would become an inherent property of communication. You know, this channel cannot be blockchain-ified if you want, but, you know, these tools readily exist, but we're just 20 years behind everywhere else and, again, I don't understand why this is. But, like, the ultimate goal for us, you know, all of us here is to pull all of our knowledge and resources to create a decentralized scholarly infrastructure but with communities of the focus. And then we can actually start embracing, you know, these principles of science and these really good human values to return science as a public good for the betterment of society. That's why we're all here, essentially, right? Because if we're not here to do that, then I don't know why we're here. And, you know, I think the blockchain community does have a really big role to play here. So there's a lot of great thinkers in this room, a lot of great tech people, a lot of great researchers, a lot of great librarians as well. And I think what you all need to do is coalesce together more as a sort of consortium or a community to begin to challenge the other side of this. So, for example, the STM Association, they call themselves the Global Voice of Scholarly Publishing. They essentially do all the sort of politics and the lobbying on behalf of the established scholarly publishing industry. Like, why don't you want to take them on? Like, build a consortium where you take them on in the name of open science. So all of you people in this room come together and don't just make it blockchain for science. Make it blockchain for open science, right? How cool would that be? And, you know, you actually come together and you share your ideas, you collaborate because you have this common goal which you all want to address and you realize what you're fighting against and the steps that you need to take to overcome this. And then you can collectively address together the real issue of governance of public research and, you know, who owns access to public research. This is it. And, you know, ultimately, I'm going to steal a quote here from Brian Nosek and Chris Chambers and say, you know, future generations, this is what we want. Right? We'll look back on the term open science as a tautology, a throwback from an era before science woke up. And open science will simply be known just as good science or science. And the close secret of practice is that define our current culture will seem as primitive to them as alchemy is today. And that's sort of what we want to achieve, right? So, hopefully a lot of you recognize the logos here and let's build blockchain for open science as well. Thank you very much, John. Thank you very much for your talk. Okay, so we'll have three questions. Okay, John. Yeah, okay, good. So, a common question or we just continue with the next one. John, there was a fantastic talk and I couldn't agree with you more. But the only question that I have for you is how do we work with the publishers instead of having them on the other side and telling that they do something wrong, which is in a lot of ways they do harm. But how do you bring them back to the table in order to achieve this logical? How do you make them your allies instead of having them on the other side? That's a really good question. So, I don't think necessarily, as always, us versus them. So, in fact, I think people from Digital Science and the working on this amazing blockchain-ified open peer review process. I don't know if anyone's here. Yeah, and that's a really great initiative with Catalysis and Springer Nature, Wiley, TNF all joining in with us. And that, I think, is really great. But ultimately you have to ask, what do we all want? And can the tension between this incredible for-profit motive of players like Elsevier, Springer and others be reconciled with that? If you have CEOs taking home like $14 million a year and 3,000 bucks for an APC, 40% of which just goes straight into shareholder pockets, or 5,200 in the case of nature communications, you have to ask, can that be reconciled with what we want to achieve? I don't have an answer for that. I think it has to be assessed on an individual basis based on the values of you and your own companies. And these are really difficult questions. But it's not up to me to define that for you all. I would just say, think about how you reconcile the tensions and between what you want to achieve and the motivations of these big companies. Hashtag not all publishers. You asked a question regarding, if anyone knows a kind of secret scenario how to reach your goal. Well, there are lots of literature about change management. So this is typically a situation of having a bad habit in the whole system. This is a systematic error. And it's not really possible to solve this problem with only scientists and from small communities. There is an institutional support which is really needed and you have to take along the academic institutions and of course the publishers with you. And the major issue what I see now is that there are European Union funded projects which are really forcing this. This is a kind of top-down effort. And then there is a bottom-up effort which is coming from these kind of communities. But in between there are these institutions which still have the good old habits, not to convince, not to go through. But if you could tackle that one, getting along institutions, using change management, that would be I think the possible scenario. Yeah, I totally agree. If we go back to the Penguin scenario, I don't think we're in the phase where everyone's still sitting on the iceberg. I think enough penguins have slid down the iceberg now that people are beginning to realize that this is the future, like open sciences is the future. Open access policies are taking off all over the world at different levels and open science one is too. And the future is definitively open, but we have to be in a position where we're defining that trajectory. Because at the moment I still think there are some players who are controlling too much in this space. And I think the research community needs to, again, come together and realize what the tensions are and how do we overcome them and get the people who aren't in the room, in the room, so that we can address their barriers too. But yeah, I completely agree. Nice talk, John. Dave Kuchelko from Artifacts here. I'm curious to ask, are there any funders in the room? Come join us at the front. Because I wish there were more of you, because it strikes me that funders governing the entire economics of the overall research ecosystem. And they take your change management points. There needs to be a bottom up set of collective activities, but there also very much needs to be a top down drivers and funders are in that position to affect change here. And every incentive to do so, why haven't they acted more aggressively and sooner? That's a really good question. And honestly, I think this is part of our collective problem as the open access or open science community and that we've just completely failed to engage in more many levels. It's been 11 years now since the NIH policy came into play and that was groundbreaking. But since then, that was really progressive for its day. And now funders seem to just be... It seems like everyone's yelling funders are the ones with the power to change this, but then we never invite them to the room or we never go out and speak to them. There was only one here. Please, everyone go and mob her at the back at the end of us and tell her what you want. I really wish there was more cross stakeholder engagement and not just with funders as well. I want more librarians in this space too, because librarians again hold a lot of the purse strings in this space, especially now in Germany. They're opening up millions and millions of euros after saving all this money from wasting it on Elsevier. And they have so much to spend it on, including all of your projects. So I want more librarians to be here to engage. And as well as that, we should have the big commercial publishers here to defend themselves. I don't want to just speak to an echo chamber. I want people to disagree and I want disagreement from across all the spaces so that we can find out what we don't agree on and what we do agree on and move forward from there. And more funders, please, God, yes, organisers, get them more in the room. All right, just one more? Okay, a short one and then we continue. Oh, I have to be short, do I? Whoa, that's loud. Yeah, I agree with all of this and I wanted to share two things. One, I actually did a talk at STM last December on the concept of resilience and resilience systems, which is not the normal thinking of resilience. But when it comes to change or, okay, it comes from ecological research. And if you look at systems, whether it's like a pond or human systems, they all tend to function the same type of way. And when you have highly, highly resilient systems can be great because they can withstand change, but they can also be very damaging because like Japanese knotweed or something can be very hard to change something. And this is my view of the scientific ecosystem is that you, so it's just pulling together a lot of these threads that you've got, you know, funders, publishers, librarians, researchers, academic institutions, obviously incredibly important for changing incentive structures, the platform providers, the start-ups. And even though no one I think is wedded to certain ideas, like I don't think publishers actually give a fuck about, sorry. I don't think publishers actually care about the impact factor really. That's, again, not the, it's not, no, it's not the cause of what they care about. You know, even if you want to look at elsewhere, it cares about the, I'm just going to go down this route actually. Anyway, so first up, like you need to, in order to shift the ecosystem, you do have to get all the people in the same route. And in the theory, you get different levels. So you've got the one level, which is our social scholarly publishing ecosystem, and you've got the levels above it and the levels below it. So you want to mobilize the individuals within, but you've also got to change the kind of higher level things like on the governmental or policy level. So what I'm really saying is that you should go and check out like resilience theory and think about it in terms of scholarly publishing. And the other thing is that Daniel Ropers of Spring and Nature did an interesting talk at the Frankfurt Book Fair recently where he said, yeah, CEO of Spring and Nature was saying that really the decentralization, as it were, ironically of academics and the fact that you've got such distributed systems of people all over the world and no single like negotiating power has allowed publishers to get too much power, which is quite an interesting thing for the CEO of Spring and Nature to say. And I feel like the willingness to change and find something else is there. And so what we want is this to be one node, but to go out and find all the others and work together to make the actual change. Sure. So I think there are two points there. One about ecosystems and one about incentives for change. So like, regarding the ecosystem, I would love someone like a PhD student, maybe the HIG, one day to undertake a project where they actually visually mapped the open science ecosystem of a scholarly publishing ecosystem, like the players, what power they have, the financial flows, the communication transfer, which happens and actually sort of map that out. And then we can figure like where little like levers and things are and gears are that we can change to actually move things. Because, you know, like you said, there is a system of inertia at the moment and very strange relationships that are very difficult to understand. And I would love someone to sort of try and map that out to figure out how we can actually begin to change as an ecosystem. Because, you know, there's a lot of parasitism happening at the moment, a lot of mutualism as well. And I just think it would be really great as a project. Where's Zenka going to get a grad student to do this for you? And I think that's a really, really great idea. And it's a great analogy to work through, too. Regarding Springer Nature and the CEO, yeah, he's a bit of a liar. So I don't know if anybody saw the recent Springer Nature IPO, where they talked about things like how they were going to inflate the impact factor to increase the value of their journal so that they can increase the APCs. And the researchers were like, are you kidding me? That's sort of like the antithesis of what everyone else is trying to do. And then the CEO came out and was like, oh, you weren't supposed to read that. That was supposed to be for potential shareholders. And then the IPO failed and we all left. So I think, again, like it goes like this is your intentions, right? I don't think what Springer Nature want is inherently what we perhaps want as the open science community. Or the blockchain community. That's all for you to decide. Again, who do you want to work with and why? All right. Thank you very much, John, for this.