 Why has Segwit adoption stalled out at about 12% of transactions? I think all of the wallets that were ideologically committed to implementing Segwit, as soon as they came out, did. A lot of the larger players who do a lot of the transactions, the large volume of transactions, some exchanges, some very large wallets, some very large merchant providers, have not yet finished the work on Segwit. Perhaps some have not even started the work on implementing Segwit. There is a strange set of incentives here, because if you operate one of these very large infrastructure companies, like an exchange or a merchant service or a very large wallet, if you paid low fees and give your users the flexibility to adjust fees and implement things like that, then if there is a problem with the fees, the spillover falls into your customer service department, where you have people complaining about stock transactions. That has a very high cost to the business. Responding to all of the customer service requests about stock transactions is very expensive. If instead you simply pass on the cost of the fees and give your users no option but to pay high fees, then mostly they take their complaints to the developers and the miners and the forums, instead of your own customer service department, because you just go, Bitcoin is broken, we have to pay high fees, even though you don't really have to pay high fees. That is the cynical answer. I want to be cautious, because there is some of that going on, some of the incentives, but I think a lot of the explanation for why the big players have not yet implemented Segwit is rather simple. The bigger the infrastructure player, the harder it is to introduce new features, new capabilities, software changes in a way that doesn't cause massive disruption or the possibility for massive loss. A lot of these players have centralized control over keys, or millions of users moving hundreds of millions of Bitcoin around. While the benefits of implementing something like Segwit are great, if most of the fees are paid by the users, they are not so great for the provider. The cost of doing that well, the number of hours you have to put in to implement a solution, to implement it well, to test it from a user experience and user interface perspective, to document it, to train the customer service people, to be able to respond to questions. Just a simple change, if you implement Segwit, everyone in your company is going to be asking, how do I move the coins that I already have into Segwit addresses? You have to create some kind of migration process, and that is going to bring up other questions, which is, why do I have to pay a fee to do that if I thought Segwit was going to save us money? Why do all of my addresses start with the three? I don't understand. I thought they started with the one, now they start with the three. Do I have multi-sig? No, I don't. What is this? What's going on? All of these questions will just pour into the customer service department, which means that it takes quite a bit to move these large infrastructure players to a change that is fairly complicated, that will require some educating of their users, of their support staff. It takes time. This is not something that can be implemented overnight. I saw a tweet the other day, where someone said, I took three members of my team a day and a half to implement Segwit. What's up, Coinbase? Yes, well, that's Junior League. If you have 12 million customers, it takes a bit more quality assurance and testing, documentation and training in order to roll out a change like that, manage the migration of the customers, etc. It's a massive infrastructure with a very high security burden. Quite honestly, you should be glad that large companies like Coinbase have such an enormous responsibility, and will create an enormous reputation hit for Bitcoin if they screw this up. You should be glad that they're taking their time, and they're not doing the, hey, three people, two days done approach to implementing Segwit. We will see it, and it will probably be a step-side increase in the number of Segwit transactions. Just one of these large infrastructure players, blockchain info, Bitcoinbase, etc., or any of the other exchanges, some of the big wallets, just one of those implementing Segwit will increase by double-digit percentages, with a number of transactions that are using Segwit, and bring a whole new set of users into the fold. But it will take time. Why do you think companies like Coinbase, BitBay, and other big players in the system will first push for Segwit 2x, and now are not implementing Segwit into their own systems? Honestly, because Segwit 2x, a 2x increase in the base block size, externalizes the problem, and pushes it onto other players, and all of the costs of dealing with the problem. They would have to do absolutely nothing to their own infrastructure in order to get relief from fees. But they do that at the expense of putting a lot of pressure on node operators, especially independent and small node operators, by making it more expensive to validate, download, and store the Bitcoin blockchain, because it is bigger. If you are a businessperson and you are presented with two choices. Choice A takes all the pressure off you, has zero cost to implement, and pushes all the costs on others. But it starts pushing against some of the principles of the system. Choice B requires six months or more of heavy engineering in order to implement a scaling solution, that you will have to teach your users and your support about, and will have a lot of cost for you. It will bring you more or less the same reduction in fees, and take the pressure off you, but it involves a lot more cost. What do you do? Well, you go for plan A, and when plan A doesn't work, because the rest of the ecosystem says no, then you reluctantly and belatedly start implementing plan B. And that's exactly what we're saying. It's okay. It's a rational business decision making, and it's the responsibility of a CEO to respond to the needs of their investors first, and their customers second, and the broader ecosystem and the amazing principles of Bitcoin, a long-distance third. If you're expecting companies to act against their own self-interest in order to protect the ideology of Bitcoin, you're in for a surprise. Don't expect that.