 Richard, what was your part of it? So back in 2020, people did not expect that it's actually very easy once that we have 5G network to help people understand that even though we have different positions, we can very easily do common values if there is a mechanism to do so. So my part is like a digital peacekeeper. We made a space where everybody can share the reflections on what the problem is. And instead of talking about how to fix it, we first have people share what they mean by fixing it, what they feel about fixing it, and so on, so that we have a common map of the issues upon. And very quickly, people understood that there are certain pathways that are very thin, that are very difficult, but that's the only way out of the weakening problem. OK. And did it, if you look at it more universal, is there an idea how people kind of connected and cooperated on this level? Certainly. Back in the 20s, people had this idea that we have direct democracy on one side and representative democracy on the other. And they're kind of fighting each other instead of complimenting each other. But in Taiwan, starting from the 2010s, we're starting to prototype a new political system where instead of these two systems competing on fixed resources like budget and things like that, we have them work in conjunction with one another with participatory democracy set the agenda. It's like the first diamond in design thinking, which is, by the way, required reading for everybody educated in the 20s. So for the first diamond, it's participatory democracy and for the implementation, that's the development and delivery that's representative democracy. And once we fix on the same structure and everybody understood that this is a how-might-we question, that is the thing that democracy is supposed to produce. It became very easy for all the different democratic systems. It could be liberal democracy. It could be central democracy. It could be authoritarianism to converge on this new political system. And when you say direct democracy, did kind of the digital help us? Did it help us? The digital helped us a little bit by making sure that people, when we are having face to face understanding, listening, and so on, these could be amplified so that people can enter the same empathy space. Previously, before digital, it's easy for a room with 20 people to end up, if you have good facilitation, agree on each other's values. But these 20 people cannot bring that feeling back to their comrades, back to their communities, and so on. So digital helped a little bit by putting us in each other's shoes when we're forming the common understanding. But around the year 2025, quantum really helped a lot more. Because with quantum, we can now have people enter the space but just tailor-made to their personal feelings so that they can voice all their fears or their doubts or their misunderstandings or their uncertainties and participate in a tailor-made virtual conversation with everybody trying to not convince them but also just listen to them and provide a good overview of fact feedback so that people can feel that the Earth itself is talking to them, and that became only possible after quantum computation. And these different kinds of democracies you were talking about, are they upscaled? I mean, are they, the values might be more communal? And then, but they are everywhere, in a way. Yes, so around 2020, we introduced this idea of Internet of Beings. And so it is not just people, like adults, humans that participate in the democracy, but gradually all around the world, people starting including like rivers, mountains, animals, and so on. All the different species capable of sentience as well as collection of environment that could be translated into an avatar that speaks on behalf of them. All these were included in the participatory deliberations that we talked about. Of course, on the final decision implementation in the 20s, because of technological restrictions, these are still mostly human, but including the environment and the social and future generations in the first diamond is already helping a lot in the 20s. Of course, by the 30s, we now have pretty good sentient quantum simulations of future generations as well as of the environment so that they can also participate in the second diamond, although this is somewhat experimental at this point. Wow. And the democracies, are they still based on a market-orientated economy? The market has been expanded so that it is not just about trading services or products and so on. We use this simple idea called quadratic voting, making sure that people understand that each of our strengths or preferences is best if we just share our private assessments of common issues with the community because that ends up resulting in the best possible outcome. And this solved the old election paradox, the arrow paradox, because there was built on the idea that the person only had a limited number of votes and one vote per candidate. And that was because the bits were insufficient. The uploaded information is not sufficient, and that is the cause of the paradox. When everybody switched to quadratic voting, people discovered that they can save their voting points, they can save their voice credits, and everybody understand that it is the best for everybody if they evaluate only the parts that they actually have an idea about and also learn from the other analysis that found other people that they care about and just almost magically because each increasing return of each vote is the same as the increasing expectation of the cost. And so because the cost and the return are the same in this voting game, people are motivated to disclose their true feelings. And so without a top-down of the return and distribution of political budget and so on, a good, fair, sustainable distribution just emerged because of this market of votes. So there's no price system as we know it in a way. There's no, not this thing, people make prices and compete. There is less competition. It's not competition oriented. In a zero sum world, which is the battle days, I think it was last century. It's so long ago, I didn't remember. People had this idea there's limited resources and you'll have to compete on a win-lose mechanism and people who have lost make it a loose-lose mechanism to basically get revenge because of the systemic imbalances. But using quadratic funding, quadratic voting and other methods designed from the radical exchange movement, we discovered that if we, instead of playing game theory on zero-sum games, we can do reverse game theory, which is mechanism design. So once you turn mechanism design into a participatory game, everybody start devising games that are truly win-win for everybody involved. And because of that, people now engage in a lot more creative pursuits when it comes to politics. If people detect that there is a win-lose dynamic going on, they will say, hey, let's just have jam and hack us on and come up with a better mechanism instead of focusing their energy on winning the game and making other people lose. And next year comes out this serenity from Ethereum. I mean, it came out in 2020. And was that part of the solution? Yes, the serenity fork actually prompted people to have a new imagination about what a rough consensus-based governance can do because previously people understood blockchain or Bitcoin in a very fixed term. Like they are here to provide a public ledger that are self-funding, which sounds okay, but it doesn't really expand to other part of the society. But with the serenity, people now understand that the Ethereum naming system, for example, it could be adapted and used for legal identities. Those legal identities don't have to come from a top-down government or bureaucracy or a bank, but rather can be gain-nified so that people or authorizes, authenticates each other using what we call at that time a distributed identity system or social identity system. But nowadays we just call it the identity system because the old top-down fixed single point-of-failure identity system has just rendered obsolete after the new serenity system came about. And so that became one of the key points that enabled people to have multiple jurisdictions across jurisdictional identities and the imagination of alternate governance system become not something that you have to render out but can do right away in your existing communities and are compatible with existing contract lines, that one. Wow. Fantastic. Really? Yes. Thank you so much. Very convincing.