 Alright, so I figure I'll talk today a little bit about my learning journey over the last seven years. I'll talk briefly about what actually happened over that time and try and get quickly to the nuggets of what I've learned and then have a fair chunk of time for discussion. So about seven years ago I was pretty ignorant to what's going on in the world. I was just an engineer, I liked building things, I liked software, I liked working on companies and woke up one day and that wasn't enough and I started looking at what was next. So I basically started a deep dive into the social issues of our time and particularly the global ones. Looking at food systems and sustainability, all the stuff everyone here knows about. For about two years along that path I was just doing contract work in my spare time and do it one or two days a week of contracting. The rest of my time I spent volunteering trying to figure out how to turn my time into impact. I figured I had about 80,000 hours of working in me if I was lucky and I'm an engineer that became an optimization problem. What's the best use of that time? And so I was doing lots of little experiments to figure out what actually makes an impact. How can I do something that makes a difference here? Because the scale and the significance of the challenges are obvious to anyone who looks and lots of people are looking. And so after a bit of that time I came up with this idea that I think fundamentally what we have is a capacity problem that there is not enough human energy going into the biggest problems of our times and I decided to try and help more people work on stuff that matters. So I took my personal consulting company called Inspiro and I turned it into a collective vehicle to help people who wanted to change the world get contract work and have the capacity and the ability to spend their lives doing something that matters. So that was March 2010, the first full-time person came in and the last four years have been full-on doing that. So I basically would meet people, one person at a time, get to know them, who are you, what are you passionate about, how would you like to make a difference, how can I help? Do you need money, do you need contracts, do you need opportunities, people to collaborate with? It's probably been about 400, 500 people that I've sat down with and had that conversation with over that time and we've built a collective of social entrepreneurs who are spending their lives trying to make something, make a difference. It started out doing straight IT work, so just doing software contracts. Very early on we asked the question what's the company of the future going to look like and I spent a lot of my time thinking about when you're building organizations these days, what makes the most sense? How do you design an organization for people rather than for cogs in a wheel in a way? And so that's sort of what's happened and the journey of it. One of the other questions I asked at the beginning was how can we have access to all the skills you'd have in a large corporate? So we really quickly diversified out of straight software and started a law firm, an accounting firm, marketing folks, sales folks, accounting folks, all in this context of a collective of individuals who want to make a difference. So I think, and if you want to know more about Inspire, I'll happy to talk about it later or field questions around it. I think the interesting stuff for me is about where I've gotten to with those seven years is that when you look at our global systems and the opportunities for impact or change, like what is a feasible and realistic plan to turn this train around into something which is a global human sustainable civilization and organization. And I found I've had to transition from being an engineer and a programmer to being a biologist. And I'm not a biologist. I don't know much about biology at all. But those ideas, I think, is where the mechanism or the pressure point that I see and that I'm applying in my work. When you look at humanity as a whole, it feels like you've got lots of individuals and lots of people. And it's really to focus at the individual level on things. It feels like those people organize into companies, institutions, volunteer groups, organizations. And I see this layer as an organizational level. And then you'd have a cultural level, which is the commonly held shared beliefs. I feel like all my work is going into this middle level here, which is at the way humans organize together. Because I think that the fundamental cause of the problems we have on the planet is the way our organizations are built and arranged and constructed and the consequences of those organizations. And a lot of the work is being, how do you look at nature and how organisms work and how ecosystems work? Because I really see this, if you look at the corporate landscape and how corporations are structured, or if you look at the way that charities are structured, or if you look at the way that political organizations are structured, they behave like organisms. They have a life, they have a death, they have attributes, they have DNA and ideas that can be shared between them. They're a lot more flexible than a biological organism. They can rewire themselves from within. Humans are inherently adaptable. And I think that if you take pretty much anyone and you put them in an environment where they're supported by people who love them and care for them, feed them good food, give them an opportunity to grow their skills and do good work, you'll see a dramatically different outcome for any person on this planet if you put them in another opposite environment. And so I think the environment which people end is if we can change those environments, we can fundamentally change all the individual behavior. And so that's the key work that I've been doing over this time is basically looking at what are the pieces of DNA in organizations which shift an organization from having a damaging and harmful impact on the people within it, on the environment with it's in, and acting at cross purposes to the health of the whole ecosystem. What organizations actually help nurture and heal and grow people within it and have a supportive and nourishing environment on the whole ecosystem? Because those organizations exist. And when you look for them, you can study them. And there's lots of different examples of organizations that are doing great work living not just sustainably but generatively, like sustainability is the baseline, and that the only feasible strategy I see for shifting things is to move into helping organizations which have a positive and generative impact and exponentially growing the impact and number of those organizations. And that becomes a sort of evolutionary task in a way. So that's the work that I focus on now is basically looking at organizational pieces of DNA. So I figure I might share a couple that I've come across with in spiral that might be interesting. One of the ones about nurturing people, it's pretty obvious lots of organizations do it, but regular retreats is what you're doing here is one of the most valuable things that we did at the beginning. Every six months, go away, spend two to three days together, connect as people, learn, share ideas. And it was when I look at what has worked for us, that was one of the pieces of one of the practices which was really strong. There is, when you look at the majority of organizational forms of more than 10, 12 people, they start to look like pyramids. It is the dominant organizational methodology of our species in a way, that you take the best people you can find, you put them at the top, you centralize money, information, and control. And the smartest people you know set the direction, delegate, set budgets, and set directions for everyone. I think that the reason that is the dominant methodology is it was the most competitive form of an organization. It had the best outcomes and the best results. What we're seeing with our change in technology is that the environment for organizations has fundamentally changed. It feels like that level of organism has got a neural network in a way. It's got a nervous system for the first time. And that means you can dramatically change the shape and the form and the function of those organizations. So I've become obsessed with network-based organizations. How do you consciously get a group of people working together where you decentralize money, information, and control throughout that group of people? And what are the consequences of doing that? A couple of stories that I've come across during this time which have profoundly affected my thinking. One of them was about the Rio Earth Summit in 1991. So delegates from all the countries of the world get together. They acknowledge and accept the challenges of climate change and biodiversity. They allocate massive amounts of resources and formal commitments to what they're going to do about it and completely fail over the last 20, 30 years. The same year the first GSM network launched in Sweden and 30 years later more cell phones and people on the planet. And I think for me this demonstrates how change propagates in a complex system that you don't, if you want to, it's possible to get big collective action but it's really hard. And I think that the way change usually propagates is that somewhere one component of this system comes up with something which is better. It is, it provides an advantage to that group of people that organization and it spreads. It's replicable. And so I think that the, when I look at something like how do you change the consequences of corporate life in a way like for profit companies pushing the limits of the planet to make money because of the system they're in? And I think that the answer is you need to come up with adaptations which provide an advantage to an organization. They need to be more efficient. They need to have a better outcome and that advantage needs to be replicable. If you can create things like that like a virus you actually got a shot of shifting a massive amount of human energy from being destructive to generative, really non-trivial but possible. And the stuff that I've been looking at in terms of because what's happened with the internet and information systems is the environment of organizing has dramatically changed. And I think we've got an opportunity with these network based organizations to build a form of organization where its competitive advantage is intrinsically linked with its positive impact. So you can't have one without the other. And so one of the things you might know a bit about Lumeo, so that's our group decision making tool where it's our first attempt at really consciously decentralizing power in an organization so everyone has a voice and everyone's heard. And they've got a really big vision about if a decision affects you, you have an opportunity to have a say in it. Really non-trivial thing to achieve but it's possible. And it gives enough of an advantage at its initial form and initial stages of organization that they're getting traction, they're getting people picking it up. And it's got a shot at changing how power is managed through people everywhere. We've also started to do stuff around financing in the last year. So instead of having, so the way we've been funded from the beginning is individuals and companies within the group make contributions. So it's sort of like a voluntary tax. People choose how much they want to contribute and then some of it goes to the fixed costs of the network and operating which is quite low. The rest of it is discretionary funding which the person who contributed gets to allocate in a sort of public forum. We call it collaborative funding and we're building an app called co-budget around it. So instead of having a few people who've got who are sitting on the resources of the group and making the best decisions they can, everyone basically crowdfunds and votes for the budget lines they want to fund. This has dramatically changed how we operate and how engagement looks because it's no longer a tax. It's your money and you choose what you want to fund but you're funding it with the lens of what is going to help the collective good rather than what are my interests. And so we're starting to see more creative ideas and a more efficient budgeting process and really interesting opportunities coming out of that sort of process in the collective. So they're the, I guess the, some of the things that we've been doing around how do you make it, how do you craft a virus for an organization where this virus will make this organization shift from being destructive to generative? How do you give, how do you make it so that virus helps that organization be more competitive and that competitive advantage is completely linked with its social impact or its generative function? And that's the sort of job that where I'm sort of passionate about going. In Spiral is now a collective of people. There are 35 odd members, one share per person, all of it surplus goes into its social mission, which is pretty much more people working on stuff that matters. We don't care what you work on, just spend your life trying to make a difference, follow your own skills and passions and so on. And so I don't know where in Spiral's going to go. That's, it's an organism. It's one of these entities up here, but it's very much for me a playground of exploring or trying to generate these sorts of viruses. That's pretty much, that's where I've gotten to over the seven years about, what's a realistic plan to make a difference? What's a realistic plan which can scale up in the timeframe we've got, which is not very long, which can scale up to solve things as deeply intrinsic as money as debt, corrupt political systems, food systems which can't function without massive inputs. Like, give the smartest people you know a huge ton of resources and say, fix money as debt please. I want you to rewire our economic system. It's just, the scale and difficulty of it is enormous. But I think that, you know, I was really interested in the conversations around pioneer species and mature species. If you look at the last 200 years of organization, it has been amazingly effective at generating a huge amount of technology and it's like it's created so much stuff but it's also destroyed so much stuff in that process. I'm not sure if it's a valid pioneer species or if it's just a rapacious form of organizing which should be destroyed, which we have to do away with. I can see an argument for either way but no matter what, we can't keep doing that. We have to out-compete that into something better to have any shot avoiding significant collapse in my opinion. Couple more thoughts. One is that I think the, with this exploration of biology, I've really dived into evolution and how does things evolve? Like what are the environments where things actually get better and adapt? And if you look at the natural world, billions of years of evolutionary R&D goes into every single cell and every single biological being. Like when you look at a forest and how it regenerates, that's happened millions and millions of times before and every one of those times has informed the process now to something which is unapproachably beautiful and simple and brilliant. Like a human mind could not even approach that level of effectiveness. But I think that our job is to try. Like if you look at, when you have metaphors about the human species and it's like, hey, we're like a toddler. We're breaking things and so on. Well, billions of toddlers have grown up before and this is the first time that we know of that a civilization has faced these sorts of challenges let alone what it looked like. Like regardless of how hard it was 150 years ago, just the changes recently, it's like a completely different world that's been created. That the only way I see of solving that is through really rapid evolution and fortunately at this level, like this organization level, there is no physical reality there. That's just our shared imagination. We can change that pretty quickly. So we can evolve that pretty quickly and we can use that as a playground to try and evolve these forms which actually have a shot of achieving the goal. And I think I'll just finish with one story which there was a, in Argentina, in this sort of economic collapse, all the factories, a lot of the factories shut down. The workers would take over the factories and they would occupy them. They'd keep them running as a worker-owned collective. Sort of, this happened quite a few times and a guy went around and studied this four or five years after the fact how are these collectors doing? And he said, he met one lady who was the CFO of this factory. So, and before the takeover, she'd just been operating a moon up and down every day, eight hours a day. And he was like, well, that's a big step to go. What was the hardest part of becoming a CFO? And she said, learning how to read. And I think there's something about the potential of individual humans to grow and step up to this. Like, when you look at the amount of people whose life work is making a difference and fixing this stuff, tiny fraction. But I think that the more, I think the more of us who do this and more of us who make it our job to help more people work on this more effectively, we can actually get an exponential response going. And we know a lot about that sort of stuff in the IT world. So, yeah, that's sort of what I've gotten out of the last seven years. Yeah, just in terms of cultural evolution going like fast and biological evolution, which it can do, it's not quite constrained by its changes in its DNA. I'm really interested in the question or the twist of comments you made in terms of the funding of Inspiral, because, I mean, the whole idea that the tax can be a voluntary contribution, which we just all are putting into for the common good, because that's what a tax should be. It should be a contribution so that we as a group decide on how to do things as a common good for each other. Can you just, a little bit more of the sort of the actual mechanics of that? Because, okay, everybody puts in do they decide themselves what their contribution is. And so they're all different. And if that's the case, and it goes into a poll, then does everybody put in bids for the use of it? And then what is the process of deciding on the budget? And I'll just go back to another little comment that goes back to Argentina. And when the Workers Party, the, and got in, I'm sorry, not in Argentina, I'm sorry in Brazil when the Workers Party's got in and put a leg grip, and they started doing the community-based decision-making about the budgets. Incredible difference in what the budget looked like because the people themselves were actually involved in the budget. And I need a little bit about how they did that, but I'm really interested in this question because I think it's a question about how, as a group, we make group decisions about really important things, about how priorities, about how resources are gonna be used. Can you just elaborate a bit more on how that works in York? Yeah, definitely. So when we started, I was a contractor, I just did contracts a little bit. I started working with other contractors and I said, hey, let's do this as a collective. Let's put 20% of our income into a collective fund and let's decide how to do that to meet our shared costs and so on. That was our origins. Early into it, we sort of, you know, people would, there were different requirements and instead of going, it always has to be 20%. We have made a rule which was the norm is 20%, but change it to whatever you want. If you wanna make it less or more, you're free to do so. And that was based off some sinking around the book Good to Great and one of the iron companies which basically sent someone an invoice and said, at any time, if you don't agree with anything on this invoice, just cross it out and don't pay us. And they did that as a feedback loop. Like you know about things really quickly and you act on them because you haven't been paid for this, what's the problem here, let's fix it. And so for us, it was like, cool, if someone starts contributing nothing, there's a, what, that prompts a conversation. And so there's a, one of the things I've been really exploring is soft power. So instead of having a hard legal agreement about this is how it's gonna be, how do you have a cultural thing? And like, for example, when I'm sitting, when I started sitting down with people and saying, cool, what is it you want, how do you wanna make a difference? Instead of trying to pitch them about here's what's in it for you, it was basically a conversation about what is your mission, what lights you up, how can we help? It was purely just a what can we give you, what can we give you, what can we give you? And the whole approach to just giving to people really generously, like going to all of my work with Inspiral, I'm not, a huge amount of personal sacrifice has gone into that and no personal compensation on that behalf, but it was designed to do that from the beginning. It was designed to be an opportunity engine rather than a financial engine. There was a huge amount of power in showing up and just giving to people and saying, if your mission is to change the world, we just wanna help you succeed. And that creates something, that creates a reciprocity, which means that it's never a conversation about, hey, you have to give money or a sort of thing. It's like people naturally want to reciprocate because of that. And people also, there's a really fundamental difference between when you demand money or ask for money, even on a contractual basis with someone who's agreed to, it's really different from saying it's your call. You choose. And not only do you choose how much to give, you choose what to do with it. So if you see something that could be better in the collective that you wanna fund, well, fund it. Commence other people to fund it. They've got the call too. And it just, this core idea of decentralizing money, information and control, like when you just do all the nuts and bolts and making that happen, the impacts on individuals' experiences in an organization and the overall behavior of that organization are absolutely profound. I believe that you can build something which is an order of magnitude more efficient, productive and competitive. And when you talk about pioneer species transitioning to a steady state ecosystem, it's not because they stopped being pioneer species. It's because the steady state ones just do it better. And so that's how we started out. Out of that culture grew a set of companies who all make different financial commitments for a services-based company. It's typically like 5% of revenue sort of thing. They'll throw that into the middle, it covers some basic costs and then they say what they want from the rest. And so we found this to be profoundly powerful in our own organization. So one of the viruses we're crafting at the moment is let's build a map and help other organizations do that. I believe that more people in the organization making decisions would have much more humane, sustainable and effective budgeting decisions being funded. Like you said, when a community funds something, it's different from owner funding it. So that was one part of the question. Well, the other part was really, that's the contributions too, but then it's the decision making around that you've now got a pot of money or resources, you can say. And how do everybody do they then have options and then they bid on them or? So there's a couple of layers to that. Some are cultural and some are processed. So one of the cultural things is about, one of the problems we had in the beginning was no one knew how much money we had, no one knew what we'd spend it on. It was an information problem. Like just getting that, getting, if you try and get your employees to read your profit and loss, it's really hard and it's really hard for people to go and extract information from the data. So what we did is we flipped that a bit so that one of the primary purposes of this budgeting process is that everyone knows how much money is there, what do we spend it on, as well as having a voice in that process. The way that projects get proposed, if someone sends an email saying I want to do a project, they write it up, it gets put in the system, once a month, all those things are listed out, and then people fund the stuff they want to. This idea I stole from like all this stuff or each individual idea stole from somewhere. And it's just, you just get inspired by it and mix it up and that's sort of what the world's about these days. And I think that the whole, so a co-housing place, they basically had central money and so everyone put in a little bit of money into a pot. They'd have a party in a place like this. Everyone who had a project, I'm going to build a retaining wall or I'm going to do some roading or whatnot. They'd have a stall saying what they were doing, they had a number, they'd have a bucket, everyone got monopoly money, they'd walk in, put money in the bucket if you wanted. As soon as the bucket hit its limit, they'd ring a bell and say we funded the retaining wall. That was the idea. So we just reproduced that on a digital level. What do you think is the biggest barrier for the collective network going viral globally? Would you say it's our individual quest for wealth and status or what have been your insights in your seven-year journey about the biggest barriers for this going viral? So I don't think that Inspiral is the answer or Inspiral-like organizations are the answer. I think they're really interesting. I love them. Personally that's how I want to work and the people I want to work with. But it's the bits of DNA that are crafted inside them which can be shared and replicated which feels like the answer to me. I also think that there's a natural gestation period. One of my favorite quotes in IT is you can't, it takes nine months to make a baby, you can't get nine women and have a baby in one month. And I think that there's, particularly when you're talking about complex systems and evolution, one of the things is time. Like you start out in a simple form and then it evolves to a more complex state and a bigger form. And again and again. And we've had multiple sort of phase changes in the collective so that I wouldn't be able to go hey, here's a blueprint and just go set something up at this stage. I don't even know how to start from a germ of an idea and reproduce it somewhere else. I'd give it a crack, but it would be another four years to see if it worked or not. I think I've learned a lot about, I've got ideas about how to grow this sort of organization and this sort of network based thing. And we're trying stuff out there. But I think for me that's not the real goal. I think the real goal is looking at the individual pieces of it and how they can be retrofitted into existing organizations. Like we can keep starting new stuff and just out competing the bad things. I think that's a viable strategy in some situations. But I think a lot of the work has to be changing the game fundamentally and substantially and completely rewiring some existing organizations who are really embedded and old and resistant to change. And that's the job of viruses. Have you heard of Game Changers 500, that company at all? No, I don't think so. It just feels like a couple of us know the founder, Andrew Kewit, but it's just a collection of, the idea is for it to be an alternative to the Forbes 500, so collection of the top companies who then the measures of success take into account other things, like social responsibility and environmental sustainability and things like that. When you're talking about developing an app that could be good for other organizations to use, I automatically thought that that list might be an automatic go-to for partnerships or whatever, however you wanna do that, so. Yeah, that's great. It also sounds like a rich source of DNA to me. Yeah. I think about like this stuff's happening naturally. Like pretty much you talk to most entrepreneurs who are starting companies these days. Everyone's got ideas about alternative, sort of not corporate forms so much, but organizational forms. Let's do something differently. It doesn't make sense to work that way. And there's so much illogical inertia in our accepted way of working that it's just ridiculous. And when you actually have a go at it, you can just do better than it without thinking very hard. Like when it's, one of my favorite lines was most people who are working, it looks more like being bribed to suffer abuse than anything else. You do stuff you don't want with people you don't care about because there's a paycheck. And when you start to have conversations around passion and engagement, like write your own job description, what do you really wanna do? And how do you make an organization be able to engage with people like that instead of nine to five, 40 hours a week in the office, this sort of CV, these sorts of outcomes, off you go? It's, so tons of people are doing this. And when you start to just dig and research the work, it's really inspiring. And there's huge amounts of ideas and tools which you can just pinch and you just try them out. And lots of people doing that, like I wish there was a GitHub for this sort of thing and I wish there was a common language which I don't know if it's possible or not but that would be, that would be fun. Amazing stuff, I really resonate with a lot of it, cheers a lot of thoughts. Just a few questions, I'm just curious if you can kind of go into more about it. So at one point you kind of said that, I mean you kind of talked about all the challenges that the world faces and then kind of moving towards more decentralized systems of power and control. And I'm curious if your basic thesis is that is kind of the root problem or one of the most root problems of the issues that we face. If you could talk a little bit more about like kind of what led to that conclusion besides just kind of the concentration of wealth in the kind of top people or could it be, like in my mind there's also kind of the question of what did the systems propagate and encourage for the people that rose to those positions of power and do other systems make sense that still do have more traditional forms of leadership? And then kind of another question I had was around, yeah go ahead, please. Otherwise I'll forget it, I'm sorry. My brain's like, yeah. I think for me I do think that there is, when you look at the consequences of a centralized power structure, you basically have a huge amount of inefficiency because the people who make the ultimate calls are at arm's length from the cold face. And there's also to take all this information here and translate it into an understandable thing, you basically have to abstract it to such a level that it fits inside a human brain, even really smart humans, they just, they get it wrong and they don't make as good a decision. So I think conceptually pushing out the decision making here, so long as you can have people collaborate effectively, like if you look at the history of why does an organization exist, it's because it's more effective than a bunch of people who can't really work together effectively trying to do something. But I think that, and what the internet and technology promises or the possibility of it is that actually we can collaborate because we can share stuff so fast. And for me the metaphor of it feels like this organism just got a nervous system and what's now possible is sort of there. So but I think of this, I think this is true at a societal level as well, like you have people making decisions and having power far removed from the results, the consequences and that separation causes decisions such as, let's shut down the mill, let's put all those people out of work because it makes sense on this paper, our abstracted mental model, that's a logical and rational decision. Whereas a community who owned that mill and was using the fund that they'd never do that, they'd do something different. When you look at how collectives and community owned enterprises operate in times of scarcity, really different and much more human and has lots of consequences. So I think an element of that, I wouldn't go as far as saying, I think that's the problem. I don't think just going decentralize money, information and control in the world and we're all fixed. I think there's probably multiple root causes to this stuff and they're reinforcing and whatnot. And I'd have no idea about, I've got some ideas like for the thing that I've been researching a lot recently is the consequences of ownership on the organization form. And when you look at what happened, a really great story, Guy in Seattle, Michael Looney Lives, he's running an accelerator using alternate forms of investment. So he said this great story about the Ford Motor Company, starts in 1905 or something like that. $100,000 of capitalization in that day's dollars. Then Henry Ford had sunk a couple of companies before, so the investor said, you can only do it if the Dodge Brothers come on and they earned 10% of the company by doing that. Within 15 years, that company based off that $100,000 initially had returned $5 million of dividends in those days. It was like the Google of its time, massive payout, sort of 500X return. All those shares issued to the entrepreneurs and investors and the founders, those are still traded on the stock market today. They've been going the whole century, paying dividends along the way. If you think about, I think when you look at entrepreneurship and capitalism and ownership, it makes a whole lot of sense that people get compensated for their risk. Entrepreneurs create a lot of value, they should get compensated and that should look outsized to normal salary sort of things. If you look at investors, I give you my money, you have use of that money, I don't. There's a chance I won't get it back. If I do get it back, it will be in a long time from now. They should be compensated for that. It makes sense, but I think it should be capped. And when you look at the current dominant ownership paradigm, it's not capped and it's limitless. It basically, a successful company transitions from being something that's generative to something that's extractive. It becomes a license to extract money from the economy and that license is traded and that's called the share market. And so, one of the things that I'm really investigating now is how can I help make capped returns, collectively owned things, social enterprises, charitable enterprises, how can I help make them more effective and more competitive than publicly owned traded companies? Because I think as, when you look at the whole consequences of public, of that ecosystem and that long history of how corporations are structured, consistent growth. Like, that's the driving thing for consistent growth. Is that if I own some of that company and it's not returning, that's a bad investment and logically from that single point follows a huge amount of pressure to keep continually growing and to help with the consequences pretty much. So, that's something that's sort of on the edge of my learning at the moment. I'm just really exploring that. I feel like there's another truth there. And I feel like if I had to name one thing that I could change, that would be it. What if every for-profit company right now transitioned into, hey, we're going to pay you profits or we're going to stop them eventually. We're going to eventually evolve into a form where 100% of us, where we've paid back the investors, we've paid back the founders, we've given people a fair exchange for the value they've created and the risks they've taken. But then we're going to stop doing that. And all of our surplus is going to be controlled by the people within this organization and it is going to be mandated to be spent on our social mission. If that one change happened, what would the world look like? And I think that it's, theoretically, I think it's possible to build something which is more competitive. And the thing about the business world is if you're more competitive, you win. And if we can help that form of organization just out-compete and do a better job, then that's got a chance. That can go exponential. Yeah, second question? Amazing idea. I'll just ask one more. So I'm curious what your thoughts are on kind of leadership in these new paradigms and more explicitly, one thing I've struggled with in our organizations has been when people have a say in a lot of different aspects of the organization in embracing this type of decision-making kind of balancing between needing to know about a lot of different things and learning about a lot of different things versus what you said I really resonate with is organizing around people's unique strengths and contributions and gifts and how do we create organizational structures that kind of strike that balance? At the moment, I think it's basically you give it your best shot. I feel like we're in the infancy of exploring what a truly decentralized organization looks like. We've got a whole lot of history with commander control structures. You can just sort of intuitively feel your way through them. But when it comes to, because it's a really non-trivial task to say, let's get this group of people, let's give them a say in everything and let's get better outcomes faster for less time and expense because it's so efficient just to say, hey, Yosef, can you sort that for me please? Here's the thing, just delegate it to someone. But, and so I think that the tools start to look like a huge amount of, like there's two flows, one flow is information. You need people making decisions to have the closest information in the most accurate mental model. You need to have the ability for them to make a smart decision based off that. I think that we over emphasize the intelligence required to make a smart decision that in the management and leadership world, there is this elitism around, hey, if they're not the best people in the building they can't make that call, that's too big. The consequences are too scary. Whereas I have a huge faith in the capacity of humans to do great things. And so I think that if you put someone in the right environment with the right inputs and the right support, they will make a good decision. And you need to, like you can't just put in one thing to do that, you have to change everything for that to be possible. And then the other part is the actual making the decision process. And so, Lumio's a really great first attempt at that in my mind, but there's so much more work that needs to be done to really do it. And that sort of feels like the work to me. So, yeah, I'd be happy to sit down and talk longer about specific ideas, but yeah. I just have a quick question. I love your approach so much. It applies so much to just what my organization is going through right now. And I'm wondering if you have any opinion on whether you, do you feel it's more effective if you have an organization that's looking to decentralize leadership? Do you feel like it's more effective to source existing leaders from other like-minded organizations with a similar mission and create a collaborative or a collective? Or do you feel like it's more effective to open up a space for new leaders to step in? I don't know that much about changing existing organizations. I've played with this stuff in the context of a new thing we've created with people who've come on to sign up for this stuff. I'd love to explore that stuff more, but I don't think I'd be able to give a reasonable answer off the top of my head. The main thing I'd suggest is that when you start to think of it as an organism and as individual parts of it as organisms and things evolve, then radical change is sometimes there, but usually not. It's about incrementally making things better. And you do that on a small scale so that other people can see it and they want some of it. And so if you can get one, like it's, there's a long history in software about Scrum taking over organizations where if you get one development team starting with an agile process and doing, and other people just look at it and it, just by doing that, it causes these ripples throughout the whole thing and then change propagates. So I'd suggest that with an existing organization, the first thing I would try is try it small, try it with a team, just see if you can get that team being happier, working better, sort of, and then other people wanting some of it. And then I think the consequences of that will naturally ripple through into a complete transformation of the organization. Thank you. Ah, one thing. Joseph said I had to say where Inspiro came from. So the word, I sort of, I don't know, 10, 15 years ago, 12, looking for a name, so started in Spiral and it basically comes from the Latin root from N to like enlarge, encourage, and endeavor and so on. It means to create. And Spiral was based off one, a spiral as in the golden spiral, golden ratio sort of thing, but the other part is the Latin word for spirit, respiration, sort of breath. So it's linked with breath and spirit. It's basically to create a spiral of spiritual sort of energy. So that's where the name came from and I liked it at the time and just rolled with it. All right, thanks a lot.