 Just referring about what you said before, the concept of evolutionary biology, that's something that I've been looking, there's actually a lot of interest for many people around that, how you can draw similarity to that. And I think it was the case that there's been quite a lot of work being done with some anthropologists that evolution occurs when the more, not competition, but more cooperation. So the greater level of cooperation between a certain species will draw greater evolution. So if you draw that parallel back to digital economies, I think a Bitcoin, going forward there will be two type, a macro type of currencies and I wanted to know what your feedback about my vision is. This one is sort of like a Bitcoin model where it's a rival game, so it's a total sum game, either you have it or I have it, and it's trustless, it's sort of like Chicago school away. And then I think there's going to be another model where it actually, you know, it's a multi-time player when you have the identities and you associate some metrics of reputation between people that they interact many times with each other. I think there's sort of like the needs of cooperative coin as well and a cooperative, sort of like relationship economy, so I just wanted to know what your position was about it. Thank you. Yeah, that was, that's very, very clear. So I think two things about what you said, cooperation is a very important part of evolution, and one of the things I didn't talk about was the concept of cross-pollination or horizontal transfer. So modern biology identifies the fact that a lot of evolution happens through horizontal transfer of DNA between species or cross-genetic lines, not just parents to child but also across. So we take genetic material from viruses, viruses take genetic material from us, give it to bacteria, there's a mishmash of cross-species exchange of blueprints, of ideas, of successful systems that end up jumping from one species to another. And I found that really interesting because there's a very close relationship between that and the open source environment in which cryptocurrencies have grown up. Because one of the really important genetic traits of the new form of internet money is that it is all open source, almost all open source. Which means that if somebody comes up with a good idea and they write an implementation, that little piece of DNA can be borrowed by someone else and they can incorporate it in their system. And I think we shouldn't underestimate how rapidly bitcoin itself is progressing and how much it's changing both internally in how it works but also in some of the higher layers above it. And I think when you have a team of developers that are very talented and they can take very good ideas from other systems and adopt them and then run them on top of a $6 billion, $7 billion, $8 billion economy, that creates a very interesting environment. So I think we're going to see a lot more cooperation not necessarily within the currency, but between different currency implementations through their open source exchange of genetic material. Now, to talking about consensus algorithms as systems that are more cooperative versus competitive, I think it's interesting to look at consensus systems like that. There's some interesting work being done, for example, about incorporating concepts of basic income. For example, which is a different political perspective than some of the stuff that Bitcoin does. And I think you're going to see these ideas evolve over time. Identity and reputation, I think, are double-edged swords. They are something that works really well in small communities of up to a couple hundred people and is part of our social makeup. But if you try to take those same reputation systems and scale them, beyond a certain point they start collapsing. And then you have systems that actually become problematic. So if you take reputation systems, and I've talked about this before, but it's something I feel very strongly about, reputation systems require infrastructure they're running on to be a close-knit society of humans that forget. And forgetting is one of the features of reputation systems. Because when you have a small society and that society is capable of forgetting, that means that it is capable of forgetting as part of it. And you put it into a mechanistic realm where you strip those very human characteristics. And it becomes a very rigid, inflexible system. We're already seeing this on Facebook and other social media structures. You're seeing very rigid systems of reputation and collaboration and social interaction that are guided by mechanistic algorithms, which are written without accountability by a very, very small number of people who can control enormous populations. I'm not sure that's a good way to go. So collaborative systems, consensus through collaboration, I think, are great ideas and they're going to evolve. But whether they can also scale is another question. And whether we really want to do reputation at scale, we can. And now the question we have to ask is, should we? And do we really want to do reputation at scale? So a bit broader perspective, but thanks for that question. Great.