 The most important motivation about proof-of-stake is the way it scales as a protocol. We want blockchain protocols to actually be executed by a very large number of parties. And proof-of-work-based protocol, by nature, by the way it works, by the fact that it has this otherwise very wonderful permissionless properties. At the same time, there is a very hefty price to pay for that. As the protocol scales, the energy requirements for running the protocol like increase and the increase in a very substantial fashion. So, this is one of the main motivations for designing proof-of-stake protocols that if you want, if I may use that word, their energy footprint is actually very small. That means that as more and more parties like engage with the protocol, this does not necessarily reflect the very big energy expenditure. So, this is like one main drive for designing these protocols. So, another interesting aspect of proof-of-stake protocols, especially at the initial bootstrapping phase, is that you have a permissionless protocol based, let's say, on Bitcoin's blockchain and you start with a small amount of hashing power invested in it. The protocol itself, by nature, is susceptible to an external force that has a big amount of hashing power. So, it is like a small number of parties with limited hashing power executing a small blockchain, which is based on proof-of-work. It can be an external player that can come and completely disrupt this blockchain. So, this is a concern, especially for a smaller blockchain protocol that does not involve a large amount of hashing power. And that's a sharp difference from what happens at proof-of-stake. So, proof-of-stake protocols are not susceptible to this type of external force that can actually subvert them. If the hashing power that currently is invested in the protocol execution is not substantially high.