 Hello there, so I would like to continue with Karol's question, the very first one. I would like to touch it a bit. When he asked you if you were like doubt sometimes, I'm becoming like really believer. I'm pretty new to Bitcoin though. And I'm just, when I'm reading the articles about like big corporate companies and banks investing like millions of dollars into research of like blockchain technology and stuff. But what do you think about like why should they adopt a currency which like a 60, 65% is already out there between the people where like early adopters have planted of that. And what makes them to stick with Bitcoin and not to make their own currencies? Nothing. Banks cannot adopt Bitcoin. They cannot adopt Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the poison pill of global finance. Bitcoin is the pill you cannot swallow because Bitcoin is global, is borderless, is not controlled, is peer-to-peer, is censorship-proof, and none of the financial world can allow any of that. And therefore they can't do it because if they are banks, they are institutionally trapped in a regulatory system that they built as a castle around them to prevent competition and in which they are now prisoners in their own castle and can't leave because they cannot go outside of regulation. The same thing that prevented competition for 50 years is now their prison. And so they cannot do Bitcoin until they have to because everyone's doing it, maybe, or maybe not. And they will build. They say, great, so we heard about this very interesting open, decentralized peer-to-peer, peer-to-peer, borderless, uncontrolled, censorship-persistent currency. We would like to create one just like it, only not open, not borderless, not peer-to-peer, not decentralized, not censorship-proof and controlled by us. The problem is that we use a blockchain which is an incredibly inefficient way of settling global transactions because we want to get the benefit of freedom, financial freedom, censorship-proof, global access, open access, empowerment for all. And if you don't want these things, and I can guarantee you the banks don't, then why pay the inefficiency price for a blockchain that doesn't give you anything? Because it's no longer immutable if you're doing signing. It's a giant honey-put for anonymous. It's going to be so much fun when they start breaking into the bank blockchains, or when they take over the signing keys of a central bank's fancy new blockchain-based digital currency that they launched and hold them to the most amazing ransomware ever. We have your country. We will begin issuing or not issuing currency with your keys, or you have to change them in a very disruptive operation, unless your queen dresses in a hot dog suit and dances in the garden of the palace on YouTube. You have two hours. Blockchains without proof of work are not secure. And so I have this free advice for the banks. Purchase and install Microsoft SQL. Data center edition, so it's scalable, make one of the fields a hash pointer to the previous field, and one of the fields the digital signature of the proof of authority. That's not a blockchain, but it's a hell of a lot more efficient and does everything you want to do, which is signing instead of mining and chains of transactions with hashes right there. It's going to be a thousand times, ten thousand times, twenty thousand times, a hundred thousand times faster. So let them do blockchain. We are building the internet of money. They are building the Microsoft front page of money. The outlook of money, the internet of money. And what is the internet? It's the place that is not secure where you can't run any of the cool applications, where all you can do is read stale content that your IT department approved six months ago about what are the latest HR policies. That's what they're building in a currency.