 I love you to get back to the privacy and transparency issue you touched upon. I mean, we all have in mind the Tinkook resistance to the FBI request of providing a cryptographic backdoor to the iOS operating system. And oftentimes when I talk with regulators, I make the point that in the near future monitoring communication and that subset of our communication, which are financial transaction will not be possible because even with cryptographic backdoor, the honest people will have their privacy exposed and bad people would just use backdoor less cryptography on top of whatever layer. So we will be facing a new different society in which the transparency for a low agency that we are we have been used for will not be available anymore. We'd better get ready. Do you share some ideas on these? Law enforcement never had visibility into our finances until probably the mid-1970s and the beginning of the 1980s. Until then, most of our finances were completely invisible to law enforcement. Somehow, they were able to enforce law. In fact, they reduced crime quite significantly without visibility. The actual tool of having visibility into finance has proven to be not a very effective law enforcement tool. It's a very addictive law enforcement tool. It certainly gives a lot of power, and with that power comes great addiction to power. But it doesn't actually demonstratively change the fundamental requirements of law enforcement. Most law enforcement still operates with very traditional mechanisms. If I want to find out what Bitcoin transactions a company has been making, you find someone who has done something wrong. You take them into a room and you say, well, 20 years for you, or you tell me everything about your boss's Bitcoin address. Then you go to their boss and they say, well, 20 years for you, or you tell me everything about your boss's Bitcoin address. And you keep rolling them. I believe that was invented here in Italy, that system. The point being that law enforcement has never had full access to all of our finances. We should be skeptical about the idea that in order to be safe, we have to give away privacy that we've had for thousands of years, completely, in a way that has no accountability. I think that is a terrifying idea. I think what it does is actually endanger security. Privacy is not the antithesis of security. Privacy is security, and security is not the absence of crime. It is the presence of justice. You don't create a secure world by removing crime. You create it by increasing justice. And if we allow full financial surveillance, we are not increasing justice. In fact, the price we pay for full financial surveillance is the economic exclusion of four billion people from the world's financial system. Because without access to sufficiently credible ID and proof of assets, they are the unbanked. The price we pay for the bourgeois and pure oil illusion of security that we have bought with totalitarian surveillance is condemning four billion people to poverty. That is not a price I'm willing to pay. And so that's what we should be asking. What is the price you're willing to pay to create this little totalitarian dream of yours where you can surveil everything because it doesn't make me more secure? I think we are actually winning this particular battle. A lot of the people who got involved in the battle for crypto in the last decade probably see us losing. But I was there in 1991 when they tried to ban it worldwide and put back doors in every chip. And we won then. And we've got a lot more crypto now. And a lot of the more people who can write crypto now. So you're right. Not only is it not a good idea, but also it doesn't work. And we should resist it because it is evil.