 Good morning, everybody. Thank you very much for being here. I want to take a view about some of the why for this project. Just by way of background, I actually run a startup called Blockfrate. We're looking to create a blockchain for global logistics, specifically shipping container logistics. And the basic premise is that a community trust model at Federation of Interested Parties in Logistics and Supply Chain should define a set of transactions that are effectively a document replacement, a digital replacement, and that for each transaction, there'd be a license. And that license would be effectively a token. And that token would be on Bitcoin. Now, an ideal price point for this kind of service is in the range of $1 US. But as we've seen the fees in the Bitcoin transaction scale up, they outstrip the gross price point of our product. So for anyone in business, you want to ensure that your cost of goods sold is less than retail. And Bitcoin Cash obviously has transaction fees that are sub $1. And that's a much better medium and a much better rail for what we need in our business. So that was the impetus for this project of porting what is effectively a good platform in the counterparty project on Bitcoin to Bitcoin Cash. So I want to take the view that as technologists and as developers and in this space, what we're effectively doing is retooling some of the infrastructure of commerce. We're retooling some of the means by which we effectively coordinate purchasing, et cetera. And one key theme in the digital currency space is that money is broken, and particularly national money is broken, it's unbound. It doesn't have a clear standard as to what value it will be in the future. And this project of Bitcoin and digital money and peer-to-peer electronic cash is to make the claim that there will be 21 million units that are the language of value to define all things in the world. So if money is half of every transaction, then the other half is either a good or a service and that's where we see there being an overlap between money and objects and tokenization. So what digital money is... I'm skipping ahead in my slides, let me just revert a little bit. Peer-to-peer electronic cash has created a 300 billion market and has been accused of creating a Swiss bank account in people's pockets. I also believe that capital is fundamentally broken and what we've seen tooled up around the Ethereum space and the ICOs is the tokens, assets. An ICO market is creating a capital-raising market of $5.6 billion last year. So the question is, how do we generate 100x growth this year in that same vein? I think what is being built is what we need to build. I just think we need to build more of it. So I would have moved to this notion of creating a NASDAQ in your pocket. So what... And because equity is broken, I think that we should be starting to create equity tokens so that all of what ERC-20 is doing is going to be effectively on Bitcoin Cash. So if we get to a point where the language of value is digital currency, where the way in which we delegate capital and ownership in corporations is fully digital, we could imagine that at some point we effectively have all the world's wealth in our pocket and borderless and permissionless. I'd like to announce today that Bitmain has seen that there's potentially some value in this tokenisation strategy and have agreed to sponsor early development work. The core takeaway that I want to leave in this message is that aspirationally we should be tooling up the rails of the new digital economy. I think that if we are not building a parallel system, if we are not engaged in actually redefining how commerce is done in our lifetime, then this is just a glorified hobby. I don't believe that we are engaged in what is a glorified hobby or a niche activity. I think that what we are doing is important and that we should take that mantle to actually declare and define commerce over the next decade. And on that note, people that share that view, particularly in the developer space, this project is fairly technical. I know many of you in this room are already partners in the project. But for anyone that has interest in the counterparty protocol being mapped to Bitcoin Cash, I'd invite you to reach out through our GitHub, get involved in the counterparty Cash Association in Zug, Switzerland and help us build these new synthesis of tokenizations and assets and licenses all on Bitcoin Cash with the underlying rails of peer-to-peer electronic money. Thank you so much for your time and attention today. I'm happy to take questions. All right, we're rolling on the questions. Do I have a runner? My runner is not here. You're in it? Okay, here we go. Hi, I know there's been a lot of talk about whether there was a burn or whether to, I guess, accommodate the current XCP holders. Has there been a decision on that or? Yeah, so the answer is yes. There is a burn process for the creation of XCP-C. The burn process is going to run over an extended period of time. It's going to extend over a two-year period. One of the issues that was seen in the launch of the counterparty protocol is that was a very limited window and there was this sort of, and also I think we've seen in the ICO space this propensity for countdown clocks and a fear of missing out and really driving speculation as a basis for action and participation. The culture within this project is manifestly different from that sort of use it or lose it or reflexive response to participation and action. What we are trying to do is literally build the industrially useful tools for the denotion of whatever is being represented. Whether that is, in our case, a license to redeem a transaction, whether that is an equitable interest in some projects, whether that is a bond, a loan, or any other sort of financial instrument, all of these tools should be built on Bitcoin Cash, in my view, and there isn't a great advantage in creating this sort of market manipulative, speculative driver. This is not the cultural driver of the project. Thanks for being here. I'm glad you're doing what you're doing. I'm curious about the connection between the existing counterparty project and what you've created. I see you have up on the screen CCA and Zoog. So I presume it's a different organization. You've just addressed how you might reward the existing holders, but just curious about the teams and the difference in the organization. So we're fortunate to have about a dozen people who have variously been interested to be either end users or asset issuers on counterparty and developers within that community express a willingness to participate in a project such as counterparty cash subject to certain things. And some of those were, this may not be a ICO pump and dump, the elements in the form and the culture within the project was a necessary precondition for there to be, I guess, consent or a willingness to, I guess, give a blessing or advocate or support for it. The other thing is that there's people's livelihoods in this space are very important and they need to be resourced. So the question around financing and funding and transparency and process came up. One of the other things is this sort of started as an ad hoc project whereby individuals, Dev and Wellup and myself were, whether it's a legitimate threat or otherwise, the threat of, and the specter of a class action for the very existence of the project was raised. That was really the impetus to create an association that acts and then we are members of that association so as to direct that buffer. The last part that I didn't address in the previous question was around XCP, the native asset in counterparty. That XCP is also going to enjoy a most favored nation status or an MFN clause around being able to redeem counterparty for, sorry, able to be redeemed XCP for XCPC at a set rate, again, without really mechanisms for speculation driving or too much obvious price impact in the way that that's announced. But the specifics of that roadmap will all be published within 30 days. We're just signing off on contracts with participants to receive their consent to be publicly attached to the project. I got a question for you, Julian. Sometime in 2014, the SWARM project by Joe Dietz made an attempt to do voting using counterparty for the Bitcoin Foundation. Publicly, we saw miners collude to prevent counterparty, SWARM voting transactions from being broadcast. When we think of counterparty cash and some of these minor risks, how does the counterparty XCP see community look at that, given that essentially counterparty itself suffered from minor collusion? Yeah, so if we're depending on an underlying infrastructure such as Bitcoin Cash, then obviously the roadmap for the project is something that we have to be eyes wide open in. And to that extent, Bitcoin ABC, Parity, and developers of Bitcoin Cash nodes are having an open dialogue as to what that roadmap looks like. I mean, if anything, the expansion of the opera turn-byte limit is more enabling than constricting. So in my view, unless something radically alters for what the roadmap for 2018 and 2019 looks like, it seems like actually a really nice fit. Any other questions? All right, Julian, thank you, counterparty cash from Blockrate.