 So let's imagine that if you have some cryptocurrency, then somebody takes a gun and puts it in the bus for your cryptocurrency to some address. Yes. Then one customer is done, it cannot be reverted. You can go more about that. OK. What else? Unless you spend a lot of money, you won't be able to revert. I personally feel like this is the main obstacle to getting a lot of traction in the main media. But nobody in their own mind could look at their network for something that can be lost. OK. I think that's a fairer comment. And in fact, it comes up a lot. And forgive me if I say that it's based on a misunderstanding of the underlying mechanism. I'm actually planning a talk specifically on this, which is the difference between a system that delivers hard promises that can be softened and a system that delivers soft promises that can't get any harder. We're used to operating in a system of soft promises, meaning that your bank can reverse your transaction if you want, or if you don't want, because you asked for it, or because the government asked for it, or because they decided to kick you out of your home. A system of soft promises has its own problems. These blockchain systems are systems of hard promises. But you've got to understand the really, really subtle distinction. Bitcoin does not guarantee that a payment will happen irreversibly. And neither does Ethereum. Bitcoin guarantees that the contract within the transaction will be executed irreversibly. And if that contract says, without second thought, give this money here and never look back, that is the contract that is going to be executed irreversibly. But that's not the only contract you can put in there. You can put a contract that says, this payment can only be made with a 30-day refund payment controlled by a third-party escrow signature that can resolve a dispute. And then that contract will be executed irreversibly, and your choices that you've made in there will be guaranteed. So you can simulate all of the softness that you want. You can do an automatic 30-day refund. You can do a third-party escrow. You can reintroduce counterparty risk. You can reintroduce consumer refunds. But the fundamental difference is that the owner of the money is the only one who can reintroduce those constraints. They can reintroduce them in the way that they choose who the third-party is and can very carefully tailor the conditions and controls under which any third-party, or any time lock, or any other system operates. That is not an irreversible payment. That is an irreversible guarantee that the wishes you expressed as a consumer within your transaction script will get executed exactly that way. Right now, it is very difficult to do the more complex transaction scripts, but that is an engineering problem. The whole point of this space is that that is just a few rounds of incremental innovation. We can do this very easily and offer more robust, more predictable guarantees for consumer protection than any system of soft promises. Assuming there are no bugs. And there will be bugs, which is why you then iterate through the bugs.