 Welcome you all to our session today, which is how Web 3 is giving power back to society and your nonprofit organization. So you're not alone if you might be a little bit confused about what blockchain and Web 3 are, but that's what we're here for today. We're here to learn all about how this technology is changing society and how it interacts and behaves with one another. And so as nonprofit leaders, we have a really exciting opportunity to participate in this technology and this change. And so today we're going to be hearing from our expert speaker Jodi Callender. She's going to take us on a deep dive into decentralization and also how blockchain and Web 3 are changing society. Now I want to say a huge thank you to the FilePoint Foundation for the decentralized web that made this session and this series possible. My name is Ann Connolly and I'm going to be your host and helper today. And with that, I am really excited to introduce today's speaker Jodi Callender. So Jodi is currently the Senior Director of Strategy and Operations at the Emerge Group where she's responsible for developing grants and implementing operational clearance. Before that, she contributed to Gitcoin, a Web 3 grant giving platform. She also served as the advisor to the New York City Mayor's Office focusing on preserving public housing. Before the Mayor's Office, Jodi various strategy and operations roles including Chief of Staff within the real estate division of the New York City Economic Development Corporation where she oversaw budgeting and reporting efforts and managed a 3.6 million square foot portfolio. Jodi holds bachelor's and master's degrees from Georgetown University. And I know Jodi's from the Web 3 and blockchain space and she is absolutely incredible. So we are very excited to have her here today. Jodi, I will hand it over to you. Hey Ann, thank you for that. Good morning or good afternoon everyone depending on where you are in the world. It's great to see all of you thanks for joining this webinar about the promise of decentralization where I will be sharing my experience in social impact organizations both traditional and Web 3. But before we go any further, I just want to thank Ann for encouraging me to speak today. I'm not much of a public speaker but I appreciate every invitation to push past my comfort zone in that area. And to Eli, thanks for being the glue that's holding a lot of the session together. It's been a pleasure to work with you both on this. All right, just like a bit of housekeeping Ann shared a little bit. I will just say that we will be talking about a couple of topics today and I wanted you to know what to expect. We'll be reserving time at the end for questions but I'd like to keep it casual where I can brings down the temperature in the room for me. So if there are any questions that you have along the way, feel free to share them in the chat and I think Ann will just interject and highlight that for me. So with that, just a little bit more about me. My name is Jodi as Ann shared. I live in Brooklyn, New York with my husband James and my cat Garbanzo. And beyond that, yeah, I work as the director for the Emerge Group. The Emerge Group is a real estate practice that supports community development organizations in the land justice movement. So in my role, I provide technical assistance to a lot of individuals and organizations that are interested in community-based land stewardship whether that's through land trusts, airs property and land loss prevention or creating some other strategic initiative around that involves real estate but for the community use. So how did I get here? I think I've always really been interested in complex systems. I think that all came to a head in college for me. I graduated during the Great Recession which was a difficult time for many of us for those of us that were here but it was also a really interesting time for someone like me to graduate. I'd studied finance undergrad and had also worked at Fannie Mae at a moment of time in time when the U.S. economy and subsequently the global economy was free falling due to the subprime mortgage crisis. And since then, I went on to study real estate finance and Decent studied after studying real estate finance and development held several programmatic and operations roles mostly in startups and nonprofits but not exclusively and mentioned I also worked for the city of New York as well. A lot of my focus has been housing and economic development but not exclusively. After in 2021, I jumped in head first into the web three space where it was like the co-director of the operations team and how which runs quarterly grants rounds mostly supporting public goods funding and open source software projects open source software projects falls under that of course. I'll dig into that a little bit more in my experience there in the subsequent slides but a lot of my curiosity with web three was related to natural systems and I would say complex systems. And I think what I saw as maybe the most transformative aspect of the work that folks were doing in web three was how it really allowed communities to weigh in on the services in the programs that mission driven organizations were creating and therefore creating more impact. It allowed organizations to be more tapped into the communities that they served. And it also offered those organizations an alternative to a lot of the top down and centralized decision-making that we all know of in the nonprofit sector but don't necessarily know how to of alternatives to those decision-making models. So what is decentralization and why is it important? I included this quote from Adrian Marie Brown's Emergent Strategy. Some of you may have read the book but if you haven't definitely recommend it. Nature teaches us that our work has to be nuanced and steadfast and more than anything that we need each other at our highest natural glory in order to get free. I included this quote because I think it in many ways summarizes what attracted me to decentralization as a concept. Specifically from a systems theory perspective decentralize systems is an emergent, is emergent, they're emergent in nature meaning that they just naturally show up. Instead of relying on top down centralized control natural systems often rely on low level components working with like local information that then give rise to more complex behaviors. That's a fancy way of saying that nature organizes in a way that is just that naturally and with ease allows for bottom up emergent strategies and behaviors. And our organizations don't run like that. Arguably a lot of our systems don't work like that and either do our financial systems our democratic and national leaning systems they could they bump up again against what's natural. And what I see is that running in like running in digital and in IRL or in real life organizations in this manner in the manner of one that is more nature natural or emergent has a couple of pretty big benefits. One it increases the fault tolerance removing single points of failure. Meaning that no one person or no one component of that system can bring down the entire system. It also has a way of making it harder for bad actors to get what they want from that system by improving attack resistance it makes it more costly for bad actors to try to attack the system. Think of for instance, if instead of your bank your bank account gets being hacked by one person that invests a certain amount it required I don't know a thousand bad actors working against that system to actually break through that system that's a naturally more attack resistant system. And then the third thing about naturally occurring systems and why they're beneficial is that it again it reduces the potential for collusion. It just becomes really hard for all of those bad actors to work together to impact or take down the system. It takes more time and it takes more money for them in some way. So what does all of that mean? It means that natural systems are by default more resilient systems. So why don't we build that way? Just a bit about the history of the internet has me know it today and how we got here. I'm gonna date myself a little bit. So I'm an 80s baby. I remember the world before the internet and the world after. And my family in the 90s our first computer was like this hulking hulet packer that I had to dial into the internet using AOL for those of you that remember AOL. And that was done on the family's phone line and it was a revelation. I loved logging in. I loved the access to information that it provided and the ability eventually to meet more people and new people online. What I didn't know then was that the internet that I knew at that point in time was very much due in part to open source research done by academics and scientists both in the public and private sector that worked together to build that internet. Much of that was led by groups like IBM and Bell Labs in the 1960s and 70s. And all of that led to Linux in the 90s which was built open source Linux the Linux foundation is still around by the way and they're responsible for a lot of the things that we love including the open source infrastructure that makes up like the TV screens on the back of your flight so you can watch a movie on a long flight. Anyway, all of that was later commercialized and then siloed in heading into the early aunts and our access though our access was sped up in many ways we no longer dial into the internet. We all we for the most part most folks in the US at least have an urban dense urban areas have access to broadband. It's not something that we have around the country around the globe but it is we have greater access to information but so much of the issues that we encounter with the internet today have to do with the silos that have been created. So think of large scale blackouts or hacks or leaps. All of these in one way or another are connected to increasingly centralized online structures. So web two which commonly describes the internet as we know it now think of logging on to Google Chrome or to Safari and searching for the thing that you need on Google. That's what we would, that's what folks in web three would call web two. That rep web two represents the shift where individuals could start microblogging think of Facebook or Instagram that's a form of a microblog and rather than maintaining your own server and your own information web two companies like Facebook like Google, they pay all the bills using ads and in exchange they also create silos. They sell user data and behavior and create social graphs that are very valuable to those advertisers. So in web two the individual user really, the user of the system is actually the product which isn't natural at all. So if web two means that our data is owned by platforms that platforms that we use then web three means that the builders, the operators, the users, the people that use the internet actually have their own, they own a piece of what they use and can be compensated for their contributions. That's the major difference between the two. These building blocks allow for greater online organization as well with blockchain as the basis for decentralized ownership and coordination along the internet. We call that web three. Folks can now organize on the internet in very different ways. This is where DAO's enter the equation. DAO stands for decentralized autonomous organizations and what they do is create like this flexible governance and decision-making framework that sits over the money layer or the blockchain layer of web three. DAO's allow people to come together very quickly on the internet for specific purposes and they use provable voting and reward systems through token and token economics to make those decisions and govern those organizations or those communities. And so organizing this way is like a big unlock because there's a wide and has created a lot of, a wide range of online communities including social investment and protocol DAO's. For instance, in 2021, when Sotheby's announced the auction of one of the 13 original copies of the US Constitution, a group of 30 or so folks in the web three space began to organize what they called constitution DAO. In an actually relatively short amount of time, the group raised over $47 million from around the world and those funds could be verified by Sotheby's so that constitution DAO could participate in the auction for one of the constitutions. Ultimately the DAO was unsuccessful but there were really important implications for crowdfunding that this case study or use case revealed. So without much overhead, I would argue the small group of individuals were able to quickly organize around a common goal and they were able to empower the folks in their communities or the token holders within that community to set future direction for what to do with the, in the auction and then subsequently with the documents should they actually won that bid. Jodi, can I dump in? We've got a question from Joe who's just asking, can domains be used as DAO's? Not sure, maybe they're not clear on exactly what it always I think. Okay, yeah, no, so I think that's fair. So I would, so domains are real estate on the internet. I would describe them more as real estate where an organization basically puts up their sign. A DAO is more involved in that. It's a legal structure though tentative, right? This is relatively new, the proliferation of DAOs in the United States but places like Wyoming have started to create a legal framework for recognizing DAOs as entities, think like LLCs or corporations as like an organizing principle for communities that seek to create a, that have come together around a purpose and would like to cooperatively work on a specific goal together. So a domain, a DAO say, I'll just use Gitcoin as an example. Gitcoin DAO is an entity that is a formal structure and has a foundation, has an LLC, has all of these other legal documentation documents that are tied to it that allow it to be like an official or legal organization and Gitcoin.com is the domain where you can find out more information about that organization. I hope that makes sense. Cool, thank you for the question, Jeff. So second, the second thing about decentralized governance models is that when they're set up correctly, they can be excellent building blocks for trust and transparency. Consider this. So DAOs are essentially a community group with a chat attached to it where in the chat, they have rules for how to withdraw money from their shared bank account. Because blockchain records, because all blockchain votes are public and transparent, community members can participate in decision making without gatekeeping. I should note that this is also highly dependent on community governance being clearly and simply articulated, but we can talk about that a little bit more on subsequent slides. But the point here is that contributors to a decentralized organization have full confidence that major decisions will be presented to them. And this promotes a sense of trust within the organization because they have voting power within that organization and can weigh the pros and cons of any decision that the organization takes on. So in this way, Web3 governance models reduce centralized power and opaque top-down corporate structures in favor of more emergent community-led structures. And then finally, another benefit of this type of organization structure is the potential for decentralized decision making. As an example, when Gitcoin DAO, the public funding platform that I contribute to, decided to shift its strategic direction, a bit contributors from various work streams, brainstorms, potential directions that the organization could take, they presented proposals to the broader community, and then they developed roadmaps and budget estimates for how to get there. All of this was presented to the community, a community that is made up of thousands of people around the world. And it gave each of those folks a moment in time to actually weigh in on the future of the organization. The decision-making was decentralized in nature as a result and it brought a diverse, more diverse perspectives to the decision-making process than my otherwise in an organization that relies more heavily on traditional forks of governance, say a board of directors and external reporting to the community without much feedback from that community. So we can't really talk about the promise of cooperative ownership, increased trust and nimble strategy development in organizations and without actually talking about some of the challenges. And so for all the promises of decentralization in DAOs, I also wanted to share some of the pitfalls because what I observed working for it, DAO, was that there's often strong intentions around decentralization sharing and cooperatively owning and making decisions together, but it doesn't always work out that way. One of the first challenges that I'll just highlight for you all is decentralization theater. This is, I would say, I would characterize this as an organization's leadership team exaggerating how decentralized their operations and decision-making actually is. And this is usually done for out of some misguided sense that if they state to their community and their investors, particularly in Web 3, that they are decentralizing power and authority, that this somehow enhances the value of their brand or their token price. And these organizations often paint a very utopian picture of how they're making community-led decisions, but on closer examination, it actually reveals a mismatch between what they say and what's actually happening. And to be clear, I don't think that a lot of these leaders are actually doing this on purpose or purposely trying to misguide people, but I do think that the values of decentralized decision-making and organizing sometimes bump up against well-worn habits that we all have around centralized top-down control. We vote that way in most aspects of our lives. And that is usually getting the information and doing what you need to do to be an informed voter is also just like it's not a quick process. It requires a lot of a bit more time. Seating control can often make these leaders a bit anxious and requiring accountability on the part of everyone involved to make the vision of decentralization a reality has to be something that is communicated and understood broadly as a value with a community. Toward the end of my tenure at Gitcoin, some of the contributors began raising concerns about governance and expressed a desire to move toward a system that didn't award so much power to a select few. Significant portions of the governance tokens were held by a smaller group of folks that were designated leaders within the DAO and those were usually a number of them were investors in Gitcoin as well as 14 members that worked full-time, many of them worked full-time for the DAO. And then there was essentially another layer called the stewards who were also granted a certain allotment of tokens to vote on governance proposals on a regular basis. So if you've got a question in and around Gitcoin, John's asking this is, Gitcoin has a drastic funding module. Would you be able to explain a little more how they approach public goods funding projects and like what's their philosophy and their approaches? And maybe get a little bit into quadratic funding but keep it simple for everybody. Yeah, so that's a great question. Quadratic funding is, simply put, quadratic funding is a mechanism for democratizing voting authority within an organization. With, we didn't actually do quadratic voting, which was also a proposal at the time, but with quadratic funding, you essentially vote with your dollars. Within Gitcoin, you could essentially upvote specific projects that were seeking funding by pooling or getting more of your friends to contribute small amounts to that project and more populous projects that were more popular among the community would be matched by Gitcoin and its partners more. So they would receive more of the pool of funding that was available during around because there was a broader base of community members that supported that project. This was also a means of ensuring that bad actors who basically wanted to see certain projects receive more funding, it actually made it harder for those organizations to break through because they would have to get, whereas Gitcoin's quadratic funding model allowed for more natural and emergent voting or upvoting of quality projects, colluders couldn't necessarily break through that because they would have to convince people to support specific projects. We also, I would say, did a fairly good job of just making sure that projects that were just there to scam community members out of money were kicked off of the platform. So that's a little bit about quadratic funding and how Gitcoin used it during its quarterly rounds. What was the second part of the question, Ann? It was, let me just pull it up here. What was their philosophy, their approaches? Maybe what's the big picture of what they're doing Yeah, I think the big picture for me was that they really wanted to empower communities to fund themselves and to decide what was worth funding for themselves. Though the quarterly rounds did quite a bit. There's a team on the Gitcoin, in Gitcoin called the Public Goods Funding Team. They did a lot of curation work, like pulling together rounds, presenting proposals to the broader community about different rounds that they could run and the rules for being allowed into that round and to receive funding from Gitcoin's partner, matching funds from Gitcoin's partners. But they, I would say the big picture is like where they saw a lot of value and their purpose was actually helping communities decide for themselves what was worth funding. And with the quadratic funding, it was quadratic funding was like a really fun and interesting way to show how you could democratically decide which projects were really worth it and really put, even if it was a small amount of money, you had the same amount of say in actually upvoting worthy projects as a big whale that contributed a ton of much more money than you did to a particular project. And I really appreciated that about Gitcoin because it was, in its core values, I felt like it really and still does promote equity in how they approach giving. So, yeah, it's still a project that's really near and dear to my heart. I hope that answers awesome. We have another question here from Michelle that I think is probably an important one to address, which is, how does a tiny nonprofit like mine without an IT department deal with the transition to web three? Is there something we will have to do? Yeah, it is. That's a really good question, Michelle. I was going to talk about this a little bit on the next slide, but I think it's worth mentioning here that I actually think that there's a pretty big, there's still a lot of work to do in creating linkages and bridges between web three and traditional organizations. In many ways, a lot of this can, a lot of web three can only exist online right now, though I think we're getting closer. I'm seeing a lot of the work that web three organizations and how organizations like ColonyDow are rewarding contributions from individual contributors as being very analogous in ways to some of the employee shared option models that we're starting to see in traditional organizations or other cooperative models for owning companies, land, et cetera. And I think that it really comes down to for individual nonprofits, if there are enough synergies about between what you're doing and what the technology allows today, but it also just requires quite a bit of onboarding because unlike much of the technology that we are accustomed to using every single day, web three requires as it exists today because of the user interface and just like the need for better user design in web three requires quite a bit of sitting down with someone and going through the steps to create a wallet and set up a wallet. It requires like folks to sit down and explain why it's extremely important to keep your seed phrase and for your private keys super confidential because that's almost the keys to the kingdom for an organization's treasury or your personal funds, a digital currency funds. I think that for most organizations it's still well off. I would say especially, I worked for a organization with a fiscal sponsor and we do all of our funding and fundraising in USD like in regular American greenbacks because most of the folks that we work with in our broader community and the communities that we serve aren't on web three. They don't have a wallet, don't hold tokens. And so it really just depends on what the organization is doing. With that said, I do still think that there are ways to incorporate decentralized philosophies and models without necessarily switching all of your operations and structures onto web three. As an example, like we were talking about in the previous slide where we were talking about empowering cooperative ownership and promoting trust and transparency. I think there's always like work that organizations can do just in their operations and governance to more like to consistently bring in the voices of the communities that they serve and not just playing lip service to it, actually sitting down and doing user research and actually putting forward proposals and putting proposals and strategy in front of the communities that they serve. And having them, really inform the programs and services that they do, that takes longer, and which is why a lot of organizations don't want to do it. But the thing that you get from it is the additional trust and goodwill that you foster with your community, because you actually, you didn't just listen to them, you heard them and you work to understand them. That's not something that you necessarily need blockchain technology to do. That's just an investment of time that you actually do. That's just an investment of time that you have to set, like that you have to invest in the communities or in the constituents that you serve. Cooperative ownership models have existed for ages. They existed before Web 3. You're seeing organizations like, oh my God, I'm blanking now, but it's not REI, but there are organizations that, particularly in Europe, but not exclusively that are moving to models where they are engaging with employee stock option programs where those employees within the organization actually own a piece of the corporation or the company. And it is a way for the owners who have deep roots in a particular community to make sure that that company exists and that they can retire and that the folks that really care about the organization continue to see it through. It's also a way of collectively owning and a different model for owning that doesn't involve shareholders, giant boards and satisfying investors that don't actually live in that community. So that's how I would answer it. I don't think that you need to switch to Web 3. I think that there are ways of thinking in a Web 3 way that provide an alternative to the way that we operate organizations today. Thank you for the question, Michelle. I see that we have about 15 minutes. So I'm going to run through the next two slides fairly quickly, but I did wanna just quickly finish up on the challenges of decentralization and getting past the theater. There is also just the challenge of lower community engagement. This to me is, this comes up when the problems are twofold. There are unclear channels for communicating how decisions are made or when they will be made. So community members don't know when they are required to check in, get coins all this while I was there by really trying to push out a lot of information to members of the community about really important upcoming votes. And they did that through various channels, both our Discord, direct outreach to specific members, particularly our stewards, and drafting proposals on a public governance forum that anyone could read and comment on. But there is a bit of overload when you don't know when to engage. The other part of it is that I also observed that where there was a certain members of the community had more token and therefore more power in voting than the rest of the community, folks tended to disengage because why vote if my vote doesn't matter as much as yours? This is where the question that I think John asked about quadratic funding translates into another concept called quadratic voting. Like quadratic funding, you can democratically, so you move from a token based, one way to solve this issue of reduced community engagement and folks feeling like their vote doesn't really matter is through quadratic voting. Quadratic voting is a system where essentially one person, you move from a system where you have one person with lots of tokens and therefore more voting authority to a system where you are one person and you have one vote and your vote therefore means more. With quadratic voting, the more people that vote with you very much means that your vote has more weight. And so there were definitely, there were some pushes to move to a system that felt a little less oligarchy and that's a way of getting past the challenge of reduced community engagement. And then the last challenge that I'll just highlight is around contributor accountability. Many DAOs have inflexible leadership structures and that often is like there are no clear consequences for decision-making within the DAO and that's ultimately detrimental for decision-making within the DAO as it makes it feel like whoever has the authority or the most tokens also has more say and can run them up as much as they want. Gitcoin system wasn't perfect but at least once a quarter, about once a quarter leaders within each work stream had to submit a budget proposal to the broader community on behalf of their work streams and that was voted on the community. A vote against a work stream budget could signal a vote of no confidence in the leadership and that was our accountability mechanism at the time but there obviously everyone benefits from more accountability and feedback along the way and one of the things that I think I often see as being absent is any form of real rules or rituals around providing consistent and honest feedback to leaders and members of the DAO about how they're doing. Oftentimes people only find out when things have gone terribly wrong and there's no confidence in their leadership or their contributions anymore. Okay, so just one last side here. I wanted to include this quote by Austin Waite Smith because I and I wanted to bring it back to natural systems because before there were markets and states there were two dominant systems which resources were coordinated. Many social configurations between humans, organisms and minerals existed. Shared grazing land, waterways, fisheries, irrigation networks, forests, springs were commons. What happened? And I thought that this essay was really worth reading and I would argue that to the question of what happened is like they didn't really go away these more natural complex systems that allowed us to share public goods and commons, goods more effectively didn't go away but they definitely were pushed underground and we're not yet, as I mentioned earlier, not yet at the point where web three enablement will unlock the work or the impact that traditional organizations are trying to move forward but we're approaching it and those employee stock ownership plans and the work that I do with community land trust and perpetual purpose trust are more traditional legal frameworks for the things that folks are doing online through web three. So in the end, I think that we can, we have more tools for actually doing this and decentralized organizations provide us with an opportunity to really think more and be more thoughtful about how we organize our work and especially for social change but it I think is something that like we are all, we're always approaching. It's not something that we will ever arrive at but I'm really excited about those bridges. For me, it's just, it makes the work and the impact endlessly fund to just think about all of the ways that technology and the work that we do online can be facilitated, improved, made more efficient using this technology. With that, I will close out with just like a couple of references, some of the pieces that I reviewed and was thinking through as I pulled together these slides. One thing that the one at the bottom is one that I really wanna highlight. It's like just a fun YouTube video. Eli will share these slides but it talks about how Pleaserdow secretly bought this one-of-a-kind Wu-Tang Clan album from a farmer bro who shall not be named who's like an awful human being and then made that album available to the world. I thought that was a really interesting case study for how you can organize online and make it possible for more people to be impacted by the work that you do through the governance structure of the Dow. And with that, I'll close out. Thank you guys for having me. Any questions? Any more questions? Thanks so much, Sione. That was great. Ron had a really great question that I think is just perfect for kind of closing things out a little bit but if there's other questions, drop them in the chat. We'll see if we can squeeze them in. But Ron asks, what are your suggestions, for actionable next steps for organizations who want to incorporate Web3 for engaging their communities? That is a good question. I think I'll just frame this answer assuming that there are synergies that you already see, Ron, between Web3 and the work that your organization is doing. I can share a couple of resources after this but there are a couple of really good one-on-ones. I think Gitcoin has also created a number of one-on-ones specifically for their community around what it means to onboard individuals to Web3. Actional next steps is really an education of yourself and an education of your community around how Web3 works. And that takes a bit of time. But there are a couple of things that I can also share after this call. Eli, I guess I can share them with you. And they're basically like one-on-ones on how to set up a wallet. There are a couple of wallets out there. There's some on Coinbase. I prefer my wallet on Metamask which is a consensus product, but I'm happy to share those. Great. I would also recommend that small non-profits can just start accepting crypto donations. That's a really easy way to dip your toe in the water. There's a couple of companies that will actually do it for you so you don't even need to touch crypto. I would check out GivenBlock. Every.org I believe does it as well as YuccaPay is another one. So those are good ones. And maybe we've got time for one more. There was a question that Carol had. Let me just find it in the chat here. She said, do you know of any groups that would be willing to sponsor smaller non-profits? That was related a little bit to their education and getting started in the Web3 space. And what do you think, Gitcoin? And in terms of sponsorship, I assume that this means fund some of the work that these organizations are doing. Yeah, I read it as either funding their work or funding their education into Web3 or funding them getting up to speed. So I'm not sure exactly what she meant, but either or. Yeah, I guess I would suggest maybe checking out, and I'm sorry to keep coming back to Gitcoin, but because it's a platform that does quarterly grant giving, they actually do quite a bit of good work on onboarding organizations that are interested, that also fit the profile of the work that they do. So if you are working in a space where that Gitcoin is actively funding, and I think maybe even not, I think that if you just join some of their calls, there is some work that they can do to help you get set up, at least with the wallet. And then, Anne, I imagine some of the organizations that you mentioned also do quite a bit of work, at least giving primers about how their platform works and how folks can get set up receiving money and receiving crypto through their organizations. And so those are also good places to start. Yeah, I also mentioned most crypto companies and blockchain companies have some kind of community fund. Now, typically, those funds go towards like the production of open source software that support that company's sort of ecosystem. So it's not specifically like a charity grant of organization, but if your proposal is specific to, hey, our organization wants to learn about Web3, we want to see what's possible. Would you fund a $5,000 to hire someone to come in or something? You never know. They might say yes. Like it's, they're also pretty quick to make decisions and get back to you. So one email here or there could go pretty far, but I think they probably would be much less likely to fund like traditional nonprofit activities. So like, they're probably not going to fund your homelessness initiatives, but they would fund your organization that does those initiatives to learn about Web3 and how it might impact homelessness in the future or something like that. So it's probably be my advice.