 Good morning, we're about to get started. Thank you for joining us at our panel on fast, friendly and effective disruptive tools and philanthropy. We are grateful to you for making the time. I know there are a lot of competing agendas, especially at SoCAP and that it's so wonderful to be back together. So we're grateful to you for making the time to join us today. I'm Casey van der Stryk. I'm principal of Solve Innovation Future, which is the philanthropic venture vehicle associated with MIT Solve. Solve is a marketplace for impact and innovation. We find entrepreneurs from around the world who are laser focused on solving the world's most pressing problems. And we connect them with transformational partnerships that support scale. So you'll hear, I'm sure, more about Solve and we'd be happy to talk more about our work at another point in time. But in the interim, I'm thrilled to share the stage today with two of our friends and partners, Lindsay Androski and Artie Chandler. Both Artie and Lindsay are really thoughtful folks who are using philanthropic capital in innovative and renewable ways. And I think part of the reason we are here today is that for better or for worse, we often introduce complexity into the work. And our focus has been on how can we make this simpler? How can we use philanthropic capital to drive disruption in entrepreneurship and effective transformation in entrepreneurship, but do it in a really simple and reputable and scalable way? So we'll hear us talk a lot about that. So that you have a sense of what the session will look like, we'll do Q and A's for, sorry, we will share a panel Q and A for the first sort of two thirds of the panel and then we'll open up to questions. So if you have anything on your mind, let us know and we'll open up for comments from the audience at the end of the session. So do keep that in mind. So let's get started. Let me introduce our panelists to you. Artie is an impact investor and strategy consultant working with early stage for-profit social impact ventures. Given her deep passion for social change and empowerment, Artie mentors, social entrepreneurs and invest in companies driving change. She leads impact investing for Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund where she is a partner and is on the board of trustees at Case Western Reserve University. She also serves on the board of directors at Peninsula Bridge and Shine Together and is on the advisory board for the Center for Asian Health and Research at Stanford Medical School and the advisory board at the Miller Center at Santa Clara University where she is also an adjunct lecturer. Artie previously held positions at Information Technology and led global IT teams at several tech companies including Oracle, Hitachi, Coherent, Autodesk and Nikon. We are so thrilled to have Artie here today. Lindsay is the founder and president and CEO of Roy Vent Social Ventures, a social impact organization that makes early stage investments and incubates biotechs focused on improving healthcare access and outcomes for underserved groups. Ms. Androski currently serves on the president as the president of Incubate and Advocacy Organization that educates policymakers on the critical role of early stage venture capital in biopharma. She's also a member of the MIT board of trustees and sits on the MIT visiting committees for sponsored research department of biology and the department of humanities. Lindsay also has a bunch of other really fun pieces in her background that I will let her share if they are relevant, including working as prosecutor at various points in time. So happy to share more about that. But to start, I would love if Lindsay, why don't you start sharing a little bit about Roy Vent and sort of the idea behind Roy Vent and the structure. Thanks, Casey. So Roy Vent Social Ventures is an entity I launched because I saw a gap in the early stage development of drugs that particularly could be helpful for unmet needs or underserved patient populations. And I saw an opportunity to do corporate philanthropy in a better way. So Roy Vent Social, Roy Vent Sciences is the company that spun out Roy Vent Social Ventures. I was part of the founding team there. And what we did there on the for-profit side is actually take in drugs that someone else had invented but weren't going to bring all the way to patients. We then launched and incubated new biotechs. And that was, I joined in 2016. They were a little bit older than that. But to date, we have five approved drugs from this method. So it's a method that we know works. And as time went on, I saw that two things really. First was that we were saying no to investments that we would have said yes to in the early days. And the reason we were saying no is because we had a curse of success. We had too much money to deploy and we had to get high enough returns for our investors. And so I thought to myself, we're looking at programs. A lot of times there's a big overlap between the things that aren't profitable enough to invest in when you model it out and the things that can really help underserved groups because it's often Medicaid patients or it's a small patient population or things like that. And I thought to myself, what is a model that we could adopt that would allow us to say yes to those projects and use our expertise in diligencing, in bringing drugs forward to patients and get to yes. And so at the same time, we were growing, Royal Event Sciences was growing as an organization and we didn't have a corporate foundation. So I pitched the idea of launching Royal Event Social Ventures instead of a traditional foundation. So the difference is that we are a public charity. So we're focused on underserved groups, on met patient needs. But my staffing is volunteers from Royal Event Sciences. So as opposed to fluffy type of corporate foundation initiatives that we see sometimes, the employees at Royal Event Sciences actually get to work on work with social entrepreneurs, work with startup companies and it has really improved employee satisfaction. They feel very engaged to making a difference. And I think this is extremely important in today's world where we see so many people job hopping or lying flat because they're looking for more professional fulfillment. So one of the things I try to do is encourage other companies to adopt this model of corporate philanthropy. Perfect, thank you. And I think part of the reason I should add that we put this panel together was you have MIT acting as an academic institution and thinking about philanthropy in new and regenerative ways. A corporate who's thinking about philanthropy in new and innovative ways to drive transformative entrepreneurship. And then Arti, who you're doing this on your own. So tell us a little bit about the structures that you use to fund these entrepreneurs. Yeah, so I do a variety of things. So I do Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund was started by Laura Riaga and recent and we have a for-profit and a non-profit side. I'm more on the for-profit side. So we invest in for-profit social ventures and we're sector agnostic. So we get to see a variety of really good companies out there who need seed funding, who can do well but cannot get your regular VC funding. I do the same, I have my own family foundation and I invest again in various companies on the social, for me it's more tech for good when I do it personally. Again, I do those as PRIs. So in both cases, we're using philanthropic money to seed these great companies, some of which like what Lindsay said, but in every sector, whether it be FemTech, ActTech, ElderTech, whatever tech you wanna think about, JusticeTech, all of those. And I've actually invested in two of MIT Solve companies, one of them was my mentee and that's JusticeText and the other one is MedHaul who was also in the Miller Center Accelerator where I am on the advisory board and also was on a panel for that particular company. So there are many good ones out there. There's a lot happening and your philanthropic money can be reused and this is something that most of us don't think about. When we make a donation, you're giving your money and it's gone, gone in the sense, it's gone for a good deed, but it's gone. Whereas if you were to invest it as a returnable grant or if you were to invest as a PRI or any of those kinds of vehicles, your money comes back and you can put it to good use over and over and over again. So it's a pot that doesn't empty out. So that's one of the things that I like is I can reuse it. The other thing is with both for-profits and non-profits, a non-profit doesn't have to be a charitable organization in the sense that it needs money all the time. You can be a revenue generating non-profit which is a good way for people to do things because you are encouraging them to be self-sufficient and you can give small loans. There are various ways to do this. So yeah, I believe in catalytic investments and the money coming back and being reused. And that's a nice segue, Artie, because what we had saw, we saw an opportunity to effectively leverage what Artie has put forward and Lindsay has put forward with respect to a way to use philanthropic dollars in a new way. And we married that with what we were hearing from the solver teams. So solver teams are typically seed stage entrepreneurs slightly earlier, slightly later based on a bell curve who are working in four sectors, health, economic prosperity, learning and sustainability. And often they may have raised a small amount of money sometimes from philanthropy, non-dilutive capital is great for all of those entrepreneurs but as they look to make the jump from the sort of pre-seed or seed stage to their first institutional round, there really is not a lot of funding available for those teams and the funding that is available is very competitive to get. And so what we've tried to do is set up Solve Innovation Future to really marry these two pieces of feedback that we heard. One, that philanthropy is looking for new ways to deploy regenerative capital. And two, that somehow entrepreneurs still aren't getting that capital. So how do we create a vehicle that allows those two goals to be achieved? So Solve Innovation Future is actually structured as a donor advice fund where we're taking gifts to solve, depositing them in a donor advice fund and then directing a combination of traditional and alternative investments in teams, equity, debt, revenue, late financing, et cetera. And proceeds from those investments go back into the fund and back into future solver teams. And that's important for us because the philanthropic capital allows us to take the risk and have the multi-strategy perspective of structuring the right investment for the right entrepreneur based on their goals. So some of those teams are going to be super high-growth venture investments. Some of them want to owner-operate or have a brick-and-mortar strategy that just requires a slightly different source of capital or capital expectation. And I'm wondering, Artie, maybe we'll start with you. When you, who are the right innovators to sort of work within these frameworks using the philanthropically sourced capital with the more traditional investment structures? Why do those entrepreneurs like working with you, whether it's justice, text, or some other innovator? Yeah, so it's very difficult for social entrepreneurs to get funding easily from OVC because they have a mission, their impact first, they do want to make money and many of them do return at market rate. But it is difficult for them to get that first level of seed funding. So they prefer working with people who understand them, who understand that it's a mission that they're really after. And again, it is patient, it's a patient investment. You're not going to get your money back in most cases very quickly because that's not the purpose. So hence they like working with impact investors who think like them, but more so, those who get involved with their mission and who can help them in other ways other than just writing a check. So some of them ask for grants, many of them don't want grants because with a grant what happens is they have to do what the grant requires them to do. So oftentimes they just prefer getting OVC type money but getting it from a venture investor. I'm sorry, from an impact investor. So that's an easier thing for them. The difference, in the two monies that we look at it is when you make a program related investment or a PRI, you are expecting a market rate return. You want the money to come back. If it's a grant that you're giving them, even if it's a loan or a grant that's a grant that you get the money back, even in that case, oftentimes it's catalytical and you're okay with not getting the level of return that you want. But it's easier for them to talk to us because we understand them. And Lindsay, did they understand you internally when you went to go pitch this idea as starting RoyVent? It was an interesting discussion. It was with our CEO and founder and he was ultimately pretty enthusiastic. The reason being that he feels that a lot of corporate philanthropy is just lip service. And what I was pitching was a way where we can use our professional expertise to help advance important programs that we weren't going to do as a for-profit venture. So that was really what made it compelling. And for the companies, it's the same thing that RT just said. We have a track record of success. They are working with experts who we can staff as advisors. And often we can either just incubate or we can give an investment or we can do both. And when we do give an investment, it's exactly as RT described. It is we are the first, we're usually the first non-grant money in. So we will do a convertible note or take some equity and we are knowledgeable. We can help guide them. And we understand the mission focus and because we are a non-profit with a very clear mission focus, they know we're aligned with them. So it's a very nice hybrid of the professional expertise and the mission focus. And I think this group was probably interested in what those structures exactly look like. So you referenced convertible note. Have you had to build any goofy things into your convertible note docks to actually get the money out the door? Or can you, how does that work? So no, we haven't had to. The convertible note looked pretty standard, but I like to. Yeah, so one of our initiatives, so we picked three focus areas of what is the ultimate impact that we wanna see in any of the drugs that are developed using our assistance. And they are making sure that there is timely global access to any drug that is approved, making sure that any clinical trials that are run accurately reflect the real world patient population, meaning diverse patients, and data transparency. I could talk all day about data transparency and all of the lost progress that I think is happening from all the studies that are run pre-clinically, clinically, and then siloed in biotechs and pharma companies and the government and never made publicly available. So we will embed requirements to do all three of those things. And then what we're working on now, our companies will, we write fairly small checks, and they need to graduate from us to traditional investors, for profit investors. So we are building a consortium of like-minded impact investors who also care about those things, who will back us up in the next round or join us with follow on funding and support keeping those socially minded provisions in. We're very careful to structure them in a way that is not bad for business. So you need to make your data available at a time that is not going to jeopardize the patents or the profitability. But we want those things to be embedded from day one. In my past life at Royavid Sciences, I built and led our deal team. So I have lots of experience of taking in deals that have weird provisions in them. And I know firsthand that we'll say, oh, okay, are we gonna lose money on this? No, then we'll do it. And so I'm trying to embed that early on for others. This is I think where the field will go. And Artie, I wanna pick your brain on working with that collaborative of impact investors, but I'll share an anecdote from Solve. We recently executed a transaction where we're supporting an AI platform for medical supply chains. The team is extremely focused on impact, extremely focused on trying to serve the hardest to serve. They're also working with DARPA, which is terrific, but could go a number of different ways and maybe slightly outside our scope. Depending on which kind of project takes off. And we started to really explore what can we add to the deal terms to actually ensure not only that impact is inculcated into the DNA of the organization, but also what does that mean from an investment perspective in the long run? And it really was looking at the capital stack and saying, okay, there are other investors who have a similar perspective. And can we actually build in some tag along rights so that we could exit at the same time as management should that activity happen? So I think what's interesting to me is that's not wildly complex, that's building off of existing documentation and makes it easier for founders to then go out in their next round because they're not getting some whack-a-doodle new document, they're actually just getting a convertible note with a side letter and there are ways of working through that as you move along the capital continuum. But Artie, as a network builder, if you could share a little bit about how you think about building that community around an investing. Yeah, so most of the investees need capital from various people who can help them in various ways, right? So we also do mostly convertible notes because that's the easiest way for them or using YC is safe. That's the easiest way for them to invest, but they need much more than capital. So it is, again, when we look for other investors who we can invest together with, we are looking for skill sets that the others may have that we don't have or pull in others who can help these entrepreneurs get to the next level. What I've found is that one of the hardest things is their business model. They have a good heart and they have a great mission, but it has to be a business model that's scalable. It has to be a business model that makes money. And if it doesn't do that, they're not going to get future funding. And many of them don't realize that. Very many of them are very academic because they come from different backgrounds. So just being an entrepreneur is not an easy thing. So they need this whole village with them who can help them be true entrepreneurs. And I think some of the best ones are who are willing to give up the CEO title if they need to when they go for further funding because it's not always that easy for them. We also tie their metrics are important. Any kind of data, I'm a big data person. So data is really important. What is it that you're doing? What is the outcome? What's happening? That's on the product side of it, but also or their services or whatever it is, but we also need impact metrics. And that's important. We oftentimes will tie these metrics to SDGs and see how that works. But yes, they do need a lot of hand holding and advice. And I like the idea that Casey just, you need a whole cohort of people helping them. Yeah, and I think that the cohort idea is probably, this audience is probably interested in how do you build that cohort or how do you access that both from a deal perspective and a post-investment perspective? How Lindsey, how do you guys go about finding your deals? And if there were philanthropists or other corporates that were trying to find deals, where do you start? We are lucky enough to not have a problem with deal flow. Roy Bant's science's name was well enough known where people reach out to us and refer others. And so that has not been an issue. That said, my VP of investments still spends a lot of time going to conferences and meeting new people because we do wanna expand the network, especially we're focused on underserved populations. It's not great to have only referrals from our known network. And so we make efforts there. On the coalition side of impact investing, that's actually where we're spending a lot of our time and efforts right now because we didn't know that world. We didn't know this world coming from for-profit biotech investing. And we're working with the World Health Organization Foundation and other groups that have tentacles into a lot of places that can introduce us to investors that are like-minded, equally focused on things like prompt global access to approved medicines and stuff like that. And so a lot of my efforts now are finding our people so that we can build a more systematized channel, basically, of where does the funding go after we step in? And R.T., do you see any, I'm curious whether the coalition, I heard yesterday actually two separate perspectives on the wrapper around some of these investments is best if it's community-based or place-based. And then I heard, oh, it's actually better if it's sector-based. Curious if you have a perspective, knowing that you are a part of a place-based community versus a sector-based community in terms of how to support entrepreneurs. So we are sector-agnostic and we also place-agnostic in the sense as long as it has impact. I'm speaking for Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund and myself personally as well. So, sorry, Casey, your question. Oh, I'm just saying, post-investment, is it easier to say, here are other investors from Silicon Valley, or is it easier to say, here are all your ed tech? Yeah, I feel it's more than place-based. It's easier if you're interested in ag tech. You find people interested in that or in healthcare or in FemTech. So it's easier to work with investors who invest in a certain sector unless it is a problem that you're trying to solve, a community-based problem. I found that the community-based problems slightly different than the types of investments that we do where we are investing in companies which tend to be more sector-based than trying to solve a poverty problem or a housing problem, those kinds of more community-based problems. It is important, though, to find like-minded investors because not only do you learn a lot from each other, the entrepreneur learns a lot from you, but it's also good from a diligence purpose. It's not fair to the entrepreneur to make them do the same diligence over and over and over again. So I encourage people to work in cohorts. Again, especially investors so that you can share each other's diligence and take the burden off the entrepreneur and let them continue and do their work, which is what they should be doing. Yeah, that's a really interesting point. And if you had asked me four years ago in 2019 when we launched Solve Innovation Future, we had a perspective that what was actually most helpful to entrepreneurs was being able to offer a solve deal like OICSafe or something else. And quickly, what we learned was that for innovators, our ability to be a follower was actually very impactful and catalytic. And I'm excited to share that for every dollar we've invested, we've actually unlocked an additional $6 towards our investees because we've been able to be a follower. So because I care less about my position and I can get cut back a little bit given the source of philanthropic capital, I can be an impact-focused co-investor and unlock 10x my investment through participation in a round. So I think that that point's really important again for scalability, the ability to be a follower and to not impose your own frameworks or your own deal terms on teams, even if we have to slightly adjust what those terms look like. And I think it's also, we've learned to a certain extent the role of intermediaries is important in this market. And as we try to unlock philanthropic capital to drive towards some of these teams in a catalytic way, it's terrific to make big pledges with respect to these investments, hundreds of millions of dollars. But functionally, getting those big pledges onto the ground often requires some sort of intermediary or some sort of group that is trying to put together five, 10, 20 deals rather than 300 deals. So I wouldn't discount that for some of the smaller folks in this room that intermediaries can be a really valuable way to try to get more deals done. And I'm curious, that's one barrier that I see of why more philanthropy is not doing this work. Do either of you have a perspective on why more philanthropists or more corporates aren't looking for these types of deals? Is it just knowledge or is it something else? I think it's a combination of things. It's not very many foundations and philanthropies have really been educated on what a program-related investment is, it's better now than it was like four years ago, five years ago, people didn't know these things. Also, a lot of times the way that we have been taught philanthropy is you write a check and some, the money goes for good use. Very rarely have, we haven't grown up with the thought that philanthropy means to give money but you get the money back so you can give the money back again. So it's a different way. Also, there weren't vehicles previously, there weren't dafts like impact assets and other dafts that allow you to invest philanthropic funds in for-profit companies through a daft. There's more of those now. So I think the vehicles didn't exist and I think in the last few years as impact investing has become a more important thing and there is now return and people are seeing market rate return, there's new vehicles available. MIT saw it didn't have a fund like this in the past not at the Miller Center and now they do. So it's a different, these are new vehicles. Yeah, I have found that it's still confusing for people and I think that it is because it's still relatively new. I've only been around for two years and I find myself always educating people about why we are structured the way we are. So a couple of common questions or objections I will get is, okay, well, you're associated with Roy Vance Sciences, why doesn't Roy Vance Sciences just fund this program if it's important for patients? And then I have to explain that we say noted deals all the time because it's not money making enough at this point. Sometimes it can just be because it's early and you have to show proof of concept. We're happy to step in to get people to that stage but that's one thing I hear. And then from the donor side, it's exactly what RT was saying. The idea that you would donate charitable funds to us and we will invest them and then get repaid and redeploy them is more confusing than I would have expected to people. When I talk about it, I say this is so exciting because we can build a self-sustaining charitable model that can make an impact. Your dollars can matter over and over again but a lot of times if people don't quite understand that because they think, well, when I give money to a charity, it's used and it goes away. And then sometimes when people do get it, they say, oh, that's great, can I invest in your fund? And then I have to go back to explaining, well, we're earlier than that. We're at the early stage when people aren't yet attractive to a fund but you can certainly invest later but please support us charitably now. I think we see, I'm nodding along because we have the same conversations and I think the onus is on us to a certain extent and partially the reason we're here is to share more of the success stories and where this type of investment and support can work really well. And Lindsay pointed to some of them, I think what we in terms of being too early, the other example that we often see a deal that I often share is we participated in an inter-series round with an asset management exchange platform. A lot of jargon in that language but functionally this table could be used at another venue if that other venue knew that this table existed. So how can we better essentially share assets? This company came to us and they said, hey, we wanna execute an inter-series round to build a carbon capture calculator into our platform. Corporates are now making pledges with respect to carbon remediation. We wanna be able to measure the carbon remediation because someone used our platform and they reuse this table instead of getting rid of it and getting a new one. Can you help fund that as we go forth? Then that actually gives us a leg up as we go to sell more because we can say to companies, hey, you can actually track this. And that company has successfully raised a second follow-on round that was quite successful with a lot of investors that some of whom are probably in this room right now. So I think it's really interesting that is sort of a nirvana, right? Not every venture investor is gonna say, yes, I'll do an inter-series round to build a carbon capture calculator. But we will and that sets somebody up for a logarithmic growth in the future should they be successful in the interim. So those are the types of deals that we see that are the kind of a perfect fit. Anything that I've missed before I open the floor to questions from our panelists. I think that you would share advice to give to philanthropists or to corporates or individuals that are looking to do more of this type of work. We were so exhaustive, there's no, there are questions on the chat. I don't have access to the chat, but we can, if someone does have a question, we can raise hands and we'll repeat, we can repeat the question. I see a hand in the back. And we can repeat it. So the question was, especially in different geographies where there are family offices or foundations or community foundations that are interested in this type of work, where should we direct them? Yeah, so I learned a lot of this just by reading stuff because I was interested in it. But if you look for, and I don't know where you're based out of, but like in the Bay Area, that's something that Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund does is where we teach people to be, part of our thing is educating people on how you can deploy your monies because I learned from others who were doing it. I also looked at the model of the Gates Foundation and that was pretty helpful. I invested very early in a company called NEPRUS which had a great exit and again, they were funded by the Dell Foundation and that's when I realized that there are foundations doing this so why can my foundation not do this as well? So I've done several PRIs through my family foundation but it was a lot of research and reading really. But conferences like this would be helpful because you can network with others and see what they're doing. My inspiration initially was the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. So if anyone here is familiar with the biotech world that is a very well-known success story in a non-profit doing for-profit investments. A lot of patient advocacy groups meaning folks focused on specific diseases, specific sub-populations that still have unmet needs are doing this. It's very clean and easy to understand because they fund medical research in the area they care about and then when a drug is approved they get repayments and so the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation has more money than they know what to do with because they funded what became Vertex's biggest drugs. So though you might not be in biotech that is a very clean story to use to educate someone about how PRIs can work. And I think the only other piece I would add is the Stanford Social Innovation Review often has a number of academic articles that we've written one about donor advice funds and how to make direct investments out of donor advice funds. There's a lot there that have pretty, it's pretty toolkit-based with respect to here's what you would do for a second and third. Yeah, sorry I didn't mention that SSIR. That, you know, we work very closely with them and I've attended several of their conferences but at the minimum if you even just look at their newsletters and their magazines it is hugely helpful. Yeah, so I have a lot of opinions on this. This is one of my favorite. So there's first of all, there's some really cool models out there right now that we did not talk about today, frankly because they're more complicated with respect to non-profits owning for-profit entities that allow for that regenerative work to stay within the community. I would point you to the Shorfast Foundation in Newfoundland. They're doing some really cool work that's explicitly focused on community development and there's a big for-profit hotel that essentially offsets microloans in the community to do lots of small business, essentially community development. So those, I would say those exist, those are just slightly different than we're talking about with respect to and you guys may have a different opinion but pulling money out versus leaving money I actually would frame it slightly differently. I would say in the best scenario it's an option to roll the grant forward and my experience has been that many philanthropists or many folks executing either a PRI or a coverable grant or an investment through DAF often say I just want to actually get more to the community and by encouraging for-profits and non-profits to have sustainable business models that could spin back the proceeds from the investment or the grant that's actually helping the entity to become sustainable and giving me a chance to put it out again and that you can structure options that would like a checkbox frankly in some of these in the recoverable grant would say if you return just put it back to work and I think more often than not investors often choose that even philanthropists who are executing recoverable grants rather than saying okay I'm gonna pull it out and I think finally it all depends on it's scenario by scenario. So in some investments that we might make it's about operating expenses and capital expenditure and so if someone's trying to buy a facility to produce something once they've done that they should be sustainable and that may be more appropriate than to grant that funding back the proceeds back out to a local non-profit or it might say okay cool let's do it again and build a second plan so it sort of depends on what that end state objective is for the right structure for that reinvestment. We just got the five minute warning I don't know if you saw it. Yeah. All right I see another, we'll do one more question. Yeah, yeah. All three of us, like let us tell you more. Go ahead Lindsay. Well I was gonna give an example of our first investment and so to me the focus should be on what is the end goal, what is the mission versus what is the vehicle that you're using. So our first investment was a spin out of MIT that is called sunflower therapeutics and they had designed in a lab setting a way to manufacture flexibly meaning you can change what you're manufacturing. Vaccines, biologics can be insulin, they're not there yet and this can be done in the size of a galley kitchen to support the city of Boston annually and can be done by someone with a GED education. So their goal was to sell these to low and middle income countries to allow them to get off the global supply chain and support their own population with the drugs that they need. And our funding which was their first non-grant funding it was a convertible note allowed them to manufacture their commercial prototype which they have since sold. And now they have revenue and are pitching, they're in discussions to sell these to the first low and middle income countries. And so at the stage they were at and with the goals that they had they were not attractive to traditional investors. And so we were able to do it in the way that sustains our organization but very much focused on mission and helping them get somewhere tangible that can then allow them to move to the next stage. So could we have done it with a grant? Yes, but they're also trying to mature as a company. And so dealing with a friendly investor as their first investor is also important to these companies as they go down the path to broader investment and commercialization. The only thing I would add is we have a very robust capital market with lots of different tools and it's still working in sort of a broad with a broad umbrella. The second piece is let's have a more robust philanthropic network that just allows us to recognize that companies are taking lots of different forms now for profits, non-profits, hybrid, social enterprise. And so let's just come up with the right financing mechanism for those folks. And if philanthropy has because it's earmarked for good has a charitable orientation then that is all the more flexible to say it doesn't just have to be a grant that meets the needs of the philanthropist it can be an investment or an instrument that meets the needs of the entrepreneur. And I see a one minute sign so I'm not sure we should take any other questions but anything that you would add before we No, I totally agree with what both of you said. The way that I look at philanthropy is we should keep giving and if the money can come back it doesn't come back to you as a philanthropist it can come back to the organization you gave it to and make them more self sufficient so that they're not it takes a lot of time and energy to go and ask for donations every single year if they can become more self sufficient and reuse the monies that was given to them once over and over again I think that's a good thing, so yeah. That's certainly what we're trying to do. We're trying to keep the focus on the program's work rather than the continual fundraising. Well, thank you both so much for coming today for sharing your experience. Thank you to you all for coming. We look forward to connecting with more of you. Thank you. Thanks.