 Speaking from a country where banking is like organized crime, I did a lot of work in Moscow for many years, and studied the early banks that are essentially pyramid schemes. But my question to you is, I think you're bringing up the question of principal agent problems, right, is who gets to speak for me, and are you assuming the same amount of agency for all actors who are being captured on the internet? So we are all assuming that we're all very technically savvy. We all have a high deal of agency to decide, at any moment in time, what goes into the ledger, what doesn't. But what about children? What about people who are, for some reason, their agency has taken away from them for a period of time, or perhaps forever? In an immutable system, what does that mean for the assumption that we have about principals and agents? That's a really great question. I'm hoping to do a talk soon on the use of these technologies for people with disabilities, cognitive, physical disabilities, and also who are disadvantaged or disempowered in some way. I honestly think that, given sufficient good user interface design and software design in a decentralized system, agency is an app. Agency is something you download, and it helps you gain power, even if you don't understand how it works. What you hope for is how many people in this audience are related to someone with some form of disability, hearing, sight, cognitive disability. When you write software for them that gives them power and agency, everybody else can use it, who needs it. I'm rather optimistic, especially since I'm speaking to a San Francisco audience. You can assume a certain level of techno-utopianism. I'll accept that. What I do know is that the systems we have today, not only do they not offer agency, they actively conspire to remove agency, not just from the people who are disadvantaged, but increasingly from larger and larger segments of society, until everyone is without agency.