 Nicola asks, what conditions should the ideal wallet meet? Nicola, that's a question that can only be answered if I understand what your particular requirements are. There is no perfect wallet for everyone. Wallets serve different purposes better than other purposes. It really depends on what you are trying to achieve. It's a bit like asking the question, what's better, a Ferrari or an agricultural tractor? The question really depends on what you are trying to do. If you are trying to go really fast on a very flat surface in a closed track, then the Ferrari will perform better for your needs. But if you are trying to pull four tons through a muddy field, the Ferrari will be pretty useless for that task. What is the ideal wallet? The ideal wallet really depends on what you are trying to achieve. You have to find the right balance of security, privacy, ease of use for your technical level of skill, cutting-edge features or capabilities that you are particularly interested in, such as the ability to manage fees well, through replace-by-fee and child-pace-for-parent or fee estimation technologies, the ability to implement various new technologies, like segregated witness and PECCH32 addresses, all of those things might be considerations for you, or they might not be considerations at all. What you are looking for is something that can make payments reliably, quickly, efficiently, and without much explanation. I can't really answer that question in the general. Kira Lee asks, with all of the new tokens, coins, and changes to existing coins, such as Segwit, what is your view on the ability of wallets to keep up? This is actually a good question. It is not that easy. We are seeing that adoption of new technologies is primarily restricted at the point of the user interface. The reason for that is because a new technology that is introduced into the blockchain or infrastructure can't actually be used by the end-users until it is part of a wallet's user interface. Unfortunately, it is not that easy to do that. You have to design the user interface, you have to make sure that the user experience is intuitive and consistent, and that the metaphors and user interface modalities you use enhance security rather than undermining security by creating expectations for the users that are intuitive and secure. All of those things make it very difficult for wallets to keep up, because user interface design is not easy. When a technology is launched at the infrastructure level, then it takes a lot of work for wallets to introduce that successfully to users. We see that also with exchange interfaces, not just wallets, and many other environments that involve a lot of users, because new features will also generate a lot of customer service requests and helpdesk requests. The people at the helpdesk and customer service desk also need to be trained in the new technology. We see a gap. This gap can be anywhere from six months to two years between a new technology being introduced at the blockchain level and actually being usable by a majority of users at the user interface level. Tim asks, what will it take to provide simplicity for mass adoption in terms of signing up with an exchange, using various kinds of wallets, purchasing altcoins, etc. Is the interface going to be centralized? The interface is already centralized. In fact, if mass adoption comes from signing up with a centralized and custodial service, then the decentralized digital currency experiment has failed. A centralized custodial exchange is not a decentralized digital currency. It is one thing to use that as an on-ramp, so that you can familiarize yourself with this technology, and also, perhaps, obtain your first cryptocurrencies. But the risks of custodial systems, the surveillance and identification required, the possibility of that information being used against you, especially in coercive, despotic, and corrupt regimes, is very, very high. These are not decentralized systems. Mass adoption at the expense of decentralization is completely pointless. If what you want is mass adoption, then PayPal is probably a better option than decentralized digital currencies. Mass adoption does not matter as much as providing a true alternative to the existing systems, and that means maintaining decentralization.