 Okay, so while we're getting connected, we're going to just get started, so we have planned on putting out a little questionnaire to get a sense of, you know, what are the most pressing legal issues that you guys see. So we're going to just do this out loud and raise your hands, and then we can talk about it and get a sense of what's going on with it before. So, first one, do you think your DAO is a legal, i.e., operating outside the existing legal framework? Operates outside the law. Do you mean the rules of nation states? You're doing a wonderful job. So we mean, you know, kind of a misconception, a perception that, oh, because you've deployed something on code, you've made private contracts between individuals, and there's no specific law that you think has reached or should have reached, but you can somehow operate in this state. So by law, specifically, it's kind of a legal system associated with the nation state? Yes. Okay, so not just legal framework, please. Actually, I was just thinking about it. If they're not registered anywhere, then they do not have to comply with any regulations. So regulations, meaning legislations associated with the nation state apparatus? Yes. By regulation, you mean legislation associated with the nation state apparatus? Yes. State law. State law. Okay, so this is a question about legal framework that's in state law. Okay, great. Great. If so, it's a very different answer than if you just mean law. Law is a God. For example, national law. That's coming. I don't think it is. I don't know if I agree with the last thing you said, but yeah, I get what you're talking about. Common laws depend on the jurisdiction. Anyway, we should not hide that, which is what we're trying to do a little bit. They don't like to play games, that is. I think that you guys can just deploy code and figure things out, and then you can grow, and then at some point, you know, figure out a lot later. So again, I mean, yes, just because you mean specifically very narrow definition of law. Okay. You're saying it's for the rest of the questions. I assume that what you're referring to law is state law. Okay, yes. I don't think that it applies as though it is not state law. If I would have said it's international law, would you have the answer to be difficult? Yeah, I mean, so we're going to have to guess. Like, nation-state law? Like, no. So international law. International law. International law. Absolutely global law. International law. Absolutely. I mean, the powers are absolutely acceptable. So what nation-state law is doing? You know, this is your opinion. This is your judgment. Okay, guys, thank you so much. We'll have the discussion within the national law now. Okay, how many of you guys have a legal rapper? Me too. Key word from it. Yeah, it's a token that we think is a scary token that counts a legal rapper. Yeah, I'm sure you just have to share it. But you have a corporation that is involved. I don't have a name for that. Any part of the presentation? Yeah, actually, it's fine. We planted it in the audience. We're all one. Oh, shit. Yeah, it does like a doubt with a security token where the company documents, reference, the contract counts a legal rapper. But the DAW is it basically within the company? Because we trained the companies of some kind of legal rapper. Is the DAW outside of that company? Are you guys incorporating a jurisdiction? Does the company own the DAW? Does the company own the DAW? Yeah. Does the company own the DAW? Actually, we have three people out of 16 who have a rapper. I just came in. Did you redefine what a legal rapper means in this discussion? We did, actually. Yeah, we did. Legal rapper, in what we mean by legal rapper, is pretty wide. It is a company, a corporation, an LLC, a mutual, a cooperative. Anything that allows you to have legal personality within the legacy legal system. So, do you have a legal rapper? Your DAW, does it have a legal rapper? I don't have a DAW. Okay, thanks for the question. My DAW has a legal rapper. And so what is the legal rapper saying? So it's not having to be a company itself. It's not a contract. Oh, yeah. Okay, can your DAW buy real assets and hold title real assets? So when you say DAW, are you referring because people use the term ambiguous? Many people use it to refer to the deployed smart contract, which I disagree with because it's a smart contract. Really what the DAW is, it's some sort of, you know, it could be a tacit agreement, but it's some sort of pairing of an agreement with a smart contract. So the code is augmenting the organization, but it's not the same thing. Is that how you're using the term? So actually, we've had these very long discussions on what is the definition of a DAW is more than a smart contract, the same as a smart contract. In this case, I think we're talking more about this kind of larger, you know, there's also this problem of the DAW only exists in the series of smart contracts, but the idea of the DAW, the project, the participants obviously encompass more layers. Right, but the organization is that broader. Exactly, so we're talking more about the broader thing. So then, yeah, it can buy. Well, it sort of depends whether... But a person must do that. Right, a person, yeah, a particular set of smart contracts. Exactly, but a person can or a legal person can. If you just, depending on the nature of the social agreement, there may be a legal person, maybe a partnership, it could be an actual formal entity, but it should, if it exists as a legal person, it can buy, or sort of the group can buy and it can become like, you know, a tendency in common in the property. Right, so in this case, where we have two out of, let's say, 16 in this room we have some sort of legal wrapper, that legal, that persona, that legal personality would be the one that would buy the real assets. But in all of the other cases, it would be... I'm not so sure. Because you're wearing a part of the lots of stuff that would be a legal wrapper, a lot of the time, right? No, no. So, but maybe, but even sometimes just a group of people getting together, if they don't specifically disclaim otherwise, are deemed to be a legal entity. Unassociated. Yeah, so even if there's not a legal person, or a partnership, yeah, there still could be a legal person and that could apply. But the partnership itself wouldn't usually be a legal person. So the doubt is on the doubt. You're one of the partners in this. I think that is the doubt. Yeah, I think that is the doubt. You know, if the consequence of this group of people getting together and using the smart contract on the legal layer, if that's a partnership, then yes, that partnership could go out in my property and in fact, it may be doing so all the time. In some ways, maybe. So people don't realize that that's what's going on in the legal environment. But partnership is just about the worst legal structure you can use because you have unlimited liability and incoherent and uncrystallized and you don't recommend it because... Right. But it doesn't depend, I think the key point is just because you have a legal wrapper, you don't have a legal wrapper, doesn't mean you don't have a legal liability. You might. You might. You might actually want liability. You'd be much more credible if you're not on the line. I agree. I agree. You might want to use your... I've incorporated partnerships most of the time. They don't have legal personalities themselves. In terms of the majority of the musicians, they...you buy only half. You actually...the contracting is done on the level above. The persons who are the partners not the partnership itself. But again, if someone is in a partnership, they can go out, they can buy property on behalf of the partnership. The partnership is mine, the problem. So you're right, at a more mechanical level, the way that's rationalized is slightly different because what they're actually doing is they're going out and they're binding individually each partner, and that creates a collective effect. But it still is best conceptualized as like the legal person of the partnership, you know, partners. But then that creates a trust that goes to litigation. I've actually done complex partnership litigation before. And this is the last thing you actually have to do. So isn't the default legal entity also a legal rapper in itself? It depends. It depends on which jurisdiction you are. It depends on where... In the majority of jurisdictions, the default general partnership will not have on its own legal personality. It's actually the partners who have legal personality because usually there will be persons or other companies and they are legal persons. So in that respect, you wouldn't. Okay, so this is something you only discovered at X-post enforcement, you know, and that sort of thing. So in the eyes of the visibility of the legacy legal world, the person who's holding title might be individual, which is in this foreign partnership. And it's only later, you know, when you're looking at what rights and duties arise from this particular group of individuals and their actions, do you then... Is it deemed actually a partnership? As you've seen, common law jurisdictions which is English, American law jurisdictions. Well, civil law jurisdictions, France, Germany, China, Japan, situations probably different. Any civil laws? Very similar. Is it very similar? Actually, the difference between civil and common law in my opinion is very much overstated. So I'm qualified actually to be U.S. and in Germany. Okay. So there is space. But the adversarial and lucritorial systems as well as the certainty of finding previous judgments, it's very different. But in practice, the difference is very small. That's my... But that's a different... It's for businesses, in practice also. In practice for businesses. But it doesn't escape sometimes you have the seek action. You know, I just know how about this right now, so let's focus on the topic at hand. You know, we wanted to just ask these questions to kind of get ourself to prepare what the bigger issues are we have to look at in this workshop. So I think we should just go to the next question. Can you dial all crypto assets and hold title to those? Yes. Who agrees with this? That's just a variation of the previous question, right? Of course it can hold crypto assets, but whether it can hold title is just same as question 3. I think the issue with title comes down to private key ownership. Who has access to that private key? No, possession is 9th that's the law, but... But what do you mean by that? Control is actually an operation, right? But ownership is a legal stock exchange in terms of control or something. If the jurisdiction that's a legal rapper doesn't recognize crypto assets as assets, but it can still technically hold them, the question is does the legal... the crypto asset question involve legal title or not? Yes. Is it legal title question? Or is it an asset... We're just going to have to think about... We're just going to have to think about the difficulties with this question. I mean, the reason why it's changed like that is because, yeah, the difference in title and the point is because the legal point is different between control and actually have a guide into those assets and to answer the gentleman's question. But if your jurisdiction does not recognize crypto assets and you're not holding any assets, right? That's true. So, no. Legally no. But crypto assets... But in practice... Crypto assets... In practice... Does your doubt fall under any... I mean, is your doubt falling attractive and attached to any geographical jurisdiction? Other than the ones... I mean, we have the legal wrapper that two people love and doubt with legal wrapper. Does anyone else think that their doubt is not incorporated or has no legal wrapper? Is it attached to any geographical jurisdiction? And if so, how could they be attached to it? Is it attached to every constituent member in the legal jurisdiction? So, some total? Yeah. Oh, great. So, your doubt should set a jurisdiction? Yeah, yeah. Let's see. Because, I mean, you know, like, this comes back to the question we mentioned earlier, sometimes people in the space think that if they're not attached to anything, they are not falling under any law, but in fact they're falling under any law. It's just the other way around. But there's specifically space law, right? Space law is like... There's also international space law. Yeah. Yes, but we're not talking about space law yet, so... Who would think about space law and would be surprised if it does fall under space law or not? And then you have another completely different discussion on space law. Yeah. If you just look at, like, jurisdictions from a national space space... Yeah. So, that's what I'm trying to get out of that whole thing. But you know the whole discussion on, like, getting a framework for falling under space law is much... You're not dead yet. I think what he's saying is pretty much what you're saying. So, when you said that every now you've actually fallen under every jurisdiction that just means that there's no risk to risk. There's just... Everything belongs to all people already. When you create a law, it's already under all global jurisdiction. So, this is how it happens in international waters. This is what happens on Antarctica. This is what happens in space law. So the analogy actually makes sense. But the factors in all these jurisdictions that have something to say would say, well, no, this doesn't fall. I'm not going to do this space law. We're talking about a state jurisdiction. So, in a way, I mean, you're trying to be more practical at that level. And I just embrace the concerns that exist right now. I think I'm totally in favor of driving the space law especially forward. Does any of you have doubts on digital or virtual jurisdiction? What is a digital or virtual jurisdiction? Some doubt providers claim that they are in themselves a digital jurisdiction. Can you name and shame them? I'm not into that. What is your, I guess I wonder, what is your concept of beyond it being a claim, is there any validity to it or does it just basically, is it just a fancy way of describing two bipartisan rules? I think the moment any of the words and any of those digital jurisdiction is any possible through the New York Convention then it would actually become something real. But then that would just mean that it's something like a nation state. We're not as far as I know we have a bridge to that position. But there are people in the space working very hard on trying to make this work. I'm actually quite... And actually there are some examples that we have of non-state law nonetheless being recognized by states in particular situations. Is that a specific example? Sharia law. But Sharia law is state law, customary law which is a different category as well. On a virtual jurisdiction basis it is. It is a typical Sharia law in Malaysia there are Sharia laws and parallel law systems for certain classes Sharia law is not as much as one Sharia law there are Sharia laws they are very different but there is for example and that plays in here there are rules of laws and that's for example that are now used as like their contracts are state the law of... the contract is governed by their office standards and arbitration is supposed to be there without actually having and dedicating a nation state jurisdiction. And in that way... There comes out the enforcement so where are you able to enforce and with Sharia law caught it always comes out as Sharia caught enforcement. No, but this for example so if you're most Islamic law Islamic finance documents are... I'm familiar with that Commissar's positions So if you look at Islamic finance a lot of those contracts now say there are office standards because they're like you know it's coming out of the rain and then this is actually enforced by the English courts Because the English courts have chosen to give that credit between two parties who agree to contract with where was the Court of Jurisdiction where you said which Court of Jurisdiction But I think she's saying that it's theoretically possible that something could be done either on an international basis But that was between two private individuals contracting into because you can say I want to try this in the Court of Tabari according to the material The point is that arbitration if you choose arbitration you can choose your rules of law you can choose the rules of that procedure And your point is that yeah but this still needs enforcement and those are the gatekeepers, right? Because people can't agree with that But people enforce private international law People submit to that enforcement But the states allow you to actually contract out of the legal system States do between two private individuals subject to illegality and other things So private international law and the conflict of laws is just deciding which laws apply and in which situation So you can do various forms of It's also a contract and disputes between private individuals internationally That's what you call private international law conflict of laws So I don't think that's just conflict of laws It's also conflict in trade disputes It's conflict of laws Americans call it conflicts of law but the rest of the world is private international law It's the same thing So in America it's all about conflicts of law but conflicts of law are depending on the nation's state So Germany is different from the private international law rules than the US So maybe we went to the next question We should move on to the next question Can you doubt Brent's office space in its name? Can I just say Of all it seems to me that most of the rest of the questions had most of the questions in total Just come back to whether the doubt is a legal personality or not Which is just a way of saying does it have a legal background Yeah I mean you know we see that there seem to be quite a lot of experts on here It's more about framing the issues and how we approach that one point So this was originally supposed to just be an introductory thing where it's like here are the issues that we start thinking about Brent Yeah we come to that So we just calm down a little bit get to the actual instead of arguing with each other This is what happened This is why people avoid it One of the questions in this question is just setting a few states and then we go to the more basic intro and the things we think we need to do work on that law So I mean if you've said that these questions we got there we don't need to continue it then we start that now and we go to another person or another person I didn't like this Read through them really quickly We don't have to debate As a thought experiment you guys don't need to answer or we can go through it Yeah so for example can you dial an office base comes back to the video's reputation can you dial higher employees who are taxable in different jurisdictions and they are actually quite interesting in DORC it's pretty difficult to do this if your employees aren't in different jurisdictions I mean they're all yeah I mean they decided to do kind of the anti-contracting so but you still have to Can you dial open a traditional bank account in your jurisdictions when it comes back to that question can you dial a taxes does your DORC need to pay social security contributions while you employ people probably yes but maybe not able to because they're not clear about that should you do a personal legal liability based on your role as a court developer designer architect legal counsel for content writer and some of the options tell what do you think which roles should there be liability as well as huge people probably don't want liability right I guess I don't know I don't know yes you said it would be great to have liability yeah can't do it yeah because that way you can show people that you know they can trust you to not screw them yeah I think that's that's a you know there's this big spectrum between having a heavy hammer of the law imposing all this liability and having this completely free space that is unregulated by but those are but if I decide when I have liability that's a lot that's a free time for me right it makes me freer if I can say when the legal system manages me then it you know it gets to decide what if we have certain just but that's but that's where sort of the choice of legal wrapper comes in right the reason why most public companies are in corporations because they scale very easily because they have clear defaults not waverable if you share the duties on the party boards or directors and that and in their words much easier for people to trust them so it's it's kind of like a package deal then you can do LLCs have major restrictions you can waver away the most all you know responsibilities with LLCs it's kind of like what's the use case that's going to happen like right now developers all are like well they think they're doing that but they're really not their lawyers their lawyers write liabilities but it's possible in most use cases they try they try that's all I'm saying in Europe they're likely never trust them and if you if you they're not they're not they're not they're not they're not they're not it's not only about the rules it's also about the actions that you're liable for so I mean it depends we spoke before that tourists are always probably going to be falling under the liability but I mean it's not that all actions are going to be something that people are caring about so you think it should be much more it depends on the actions the other that should be liable it's the yeah yes on a high level when a DAO should be a corporation versus an LLC versus like in terms of like what I guess the DAO is focused on is the DAO is focusing primarily on being enterprise then should be like is it like based on the scale if the DAO is just supposed to be like decision making for some in terms let's say like art or music or something that could turn a profit but it's not like the primary motive is it better to be a collective or something like corporate governance and like that's all one of them had awards but we would be able to go over the different like benefits and stuff like that so we're going to kind of get to the in a presentation that follows the sort of your name we're going to kind of talk about this but one of them is you know on one hand you have you have this particular structures like you know corporation you have certain governance procedures that interest you know you need to have certain things like segregating funds capitalization so these are all kind of traditional legal requirements you have a jurisdictional hook so you're locating your home bases and some jurisdiction so these are all kind of enactment to the way DAOs work today you have you want free people without having to participate from all over the world you want a decentralized governance structure not one where you have a clearly identified CEO COO et cetera so you're seeing many different attempts to bring this decentralized space and somehow shoehorn that into these these legal boxes and because precisely what this did not say was that these legal boxes provided certain kinds of legal circumstances and protection to say okay we need to follow these little boxes and check boxes and conform to these rules do we and one of the thought experience that we're doing and we're trying to do is figure out what are these legal what are the kind of the goals behind these mechanisms these rules and how do we meet these in a technological context in such a way that we can maybe create a model law that meets the goals which justifies these protections while retaining the kinds of features that we want DAOs to continue to have so bridging that gap is a large part of this work and we'll get more into it and say you know and follow on your question that there very much depends on what you are supposed to do how you want how is structured in the code as to what is in the world right now it's very different than having a grant giving DAOs when the DAO that actually holds a decentralized exchange has the controlling operating powers in a decentralized exchange so there are differences and it depends on what you want to do the options to have on that we just continue on through this and then we get to our part can your DAO fight a lawsuit in court if you don't believe the rubber but no do you think you can be sorry I don't know that the answer is a simple no no I mean sorry I don't want to keep answers to this sure yeah I just I have no problems giving you all the questions or whatever but I don't think it's certain I don't think I think I think I think I think because people would be sued would be the the person in the DAO not the DAO itself sure they would be they would like they would have to yeah the group if you could sue the full group and they're jointed separately liable I mean to me it seems kind of too cute by half to say you can sue the person but not the DAO the DAO is a collection of persons but what usually happens is that the person who is the most hanged the nearest available person the person who is the person who is most easily identified the person who is most easily identified imagine that no one is identifiable and they can't identify them that's okay it would just be no point if you're not identified by them that's not necessarily that's not true they might have they might have assets somewhere identifiable exactly they could do assets but then it's difficult to wait for them you can't you can't actually you can't no I don't know the point is that there is no right or wrong answer there is a right or wrong answer I don't think I don't think I mean you can't you won't know until you get sued and then you hold that you should debate it's not decided there is it's what you're saying there's no decidable answer there is a little answer it's just not said there is an answer but why do you deal with that uncertainty it's going to depend on the fact that you're going to get the restrictions it's an exposed examination of all of these things and it's very unclear go this way go that way go that way I think it's a question of the world does your jurisprudence allow the creation of a legal entity that like wasn't created voluntarily that doesn't isn't associated with any particular people to be sued and so when you sue you know for example I can bring a some of these places you can bring a lawsuit on half of a river that was legal and maybe only three places you can do that it's right only three places India you can do that India because the thing is the idea of is that for a division you know how everywhere I know it states that where not people have to take this for something of a person cases of a temple person like it the temple doesn't exist anymore people have to put together and confirm that there is a temple and there are huge political fights around that for example there are many cases where temples have been turned to mosques and different groups So people claim, no one is doubting the personality, but what kind of personality is probably the difference. So and then in most cases, like for example, like the courtesism called in India, the actual statute, so unlike Sherry, every incarnation of God is different. So it's not like when you call a personality, it is the personality. So every instance is a different personality. And then taking part of the courtesism already, every part of the reward, has a different person responsible for it. So most of the rewards in forestry in India are for personality, but they consider minors. So there will be guardians who are taking care of them. So for example, in the kingdom of God, the pump is taking care of a certain family, the ears are not a family, the eyes are not a family, and this hierarchy. So the tongue to each we consider the most, if you look at two, take care of the tongues, get to decide over the ears and eyes, because of our religious problems. So that's why even if you have a personal identity, it's much more complex than a human's thing, because we usually say that it is one personality, it can have some personality, it can heal the human. So maybe India is not a good idea for all of them. No, it's a great idea. I think it's really good, because it demonstrates the flexibility of legal personality. I can, if there is no wrapper for you now, I can create one, and then I can sue it. We're gonna get into the presentation, the difference between legal personality and legal capacity, which are often collapsed, right? So later we can talk about it, the thoughts that depends on the logical assumptions. So for example, if you look at a soul, or the absence of those very different Abrahamic traditions, that's why you can have personality and personalities, which you cannot have in the Abrahamic conception of what the person is. Whereas what the person is in India, you can have capacity of agents, for example, so the Indian people don't work. You need to have the agency. Okay, so last two questions. Does your doubt comply with? KYC A and L loss. So does your doubt identify its levels? Tail does, yeah. Tail does, yeah. Tail does, okay. Identify meaning legal identity, like legal first name, last name. Social security number. Social security number? Yeah. Social security number? Yeah, it's very important. Oh, because they're employees. They're attending my contract. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay, do you think that voting rights holders of your doubt should have mandatory voting rights holders meeting? Is that just, they're starting to vote this? Basically, like in traditional corporate governance, in order to recognize that you have this legal personality and limited liability to not pierce that veil, you have to have certain kinds of procedures that protect contents of interest between the managers and the owners, vice versa, the middle share holders. One of these things is usually a mandatory meeting for people who participate after the consent and informed that sort of thing. Do you feel that that is also necessary or it's equivalent to the blockchain space which we are roughly terming as? That's very interesting. I always thought that it's the other way around. It depends on how a doubt actually works. There should be a legal entity form around that. So if a doubt, for example, functions like the general sentencing, then it's reasonable to form the rules around that that actually describe how the general sentencing functions and how these procedural rules are affected with all. And then here's some of the increasing of the week that happened and the decision that should be passed some way. And if it functions in form of having a lot of members, but then there's just a board member that actually creates the decision, then it might actually be that in partnership. Or if there's a whole board that takes the decision it functions like an LLC. But it's always about how the members are deciding that they're going to be governing themselves. We should apply the rules and we should apply the legal entity and we should form the procedures. In this case, if we say people who are participating in the governance should those members, whether it's the board or the entire general assembly, should it be required of dows to have these kinds of regular? Oh yeah, it depends how it affects the members. If it affects me as a member and it's a decision that somebody else took, then I would like them to be responsible for those decisions. If it affects me severely. If it does not affect me, but it's just a statement, then it's just a move on. It's not even necessary to have me there. So as a matter of due process, if you as a member are materially affected, you feel that you, which then also means you need to distinguish governance between people who have voting rights, tokens versus, but that might also include if we widen that circle, people who also vote for governance, yeah, right? So then that becomes a difficult situation. Okay, so we're done with the question of our thanks. We're gonna continue this feedback, hopefully, and get more when it's not 9 a.m. on the last day of the conference in Taiwan. So this is just an introduction to us. A lot of us are participants working in different areas of the space. We came together a few years ago to form a research and development community around how to create new legal frameworks, how to create new kinds of culture, that sort of thing. And so one of the projects that we've been working on, we've had a variety of working groups of the year is creating precisely because of this gap between the legacy legal system works and the way this infrastructure enables new kinds of participation, which might require a reclining of all of that. We come up with this project which is a Dow model law project. And we can go into the plan right now is to kind of go through what we see as the main issues and then if we have some time, maybe take a few minutes to break out into each component of the model law and have you guys brainstorm on what we can come up with as a technological guarantee or in the legal term of art, a functional equivalent to a traditional requirement such that we can map out a continuum of things that people can do to enjoy a spectrum of legal benefits and protections. That's the main idea. So, as you guys can see from the questionnaire, we've looked at why it's important to, why do we need to change the law? Because right now, the Dow's putting aside this unincorporated association general partnerships which are then looked at after the fact that things go wrong. Right now, taking away the exceptions, right now, Dow's can largely cannot own assets in its own name, enter into contractions own name, sewer be, outstanding to sewer be sued. And in absent all of that, the person who they're going to find when things go wrong is the nearest available human. So, right now, when Dow's, without a legal wrapper, or that, you know, they, the Dow's do not actually exist in the eyes of the law until after the fact, in fact, are my solid exceptions. It's largely, the law sees what the Dow is doing through what the participants are doing. What we see is that a lot of people in this space have done actually know what their life limit is because you can get a legal wrist when participating in a Dow, when joining as a reputation or voting rights voters in a Dow. No one thinks about it and no one thinks about Dow and Lyme, what can happen out of the world. So, you know, why is it important to solve these problems? Well, right now we have this unlimited liability. Never mind wanting limited liability. We have an unknown and unlimited liability today for all participants. In various jurisdictions. Right, we'll talk about this specifically. And, you know, frankly, Dow's have a difficult time operating in the legacy world. I'm sure many of you guys have been involved in the projects that, where it's been very difficult to get a bank account, right? It's an extremely difficult proposition. You know, when you hire employees, with what entity do you hire that employee, right? And, you know, in the case where you create some sort of legal wrapper and that particular third party, whether it's a person or a company, contrasts with that legal wrapper, there's still the legal reality that exists and then there's the blockchain reality. So whatever the Dow is supposed to be operated by this code, but you have all of these other non-off-chain rules and procedures that power dynamics that are actually effectively in the Dow operates. And some jurisdictions have started to implement laws. So, for example, Malta, to give some kind of recognition to the Dow, so it's part of the framework. What we have ever noted is that what they're trying to do, I mean, what is now my personal opinion, Malta has very much turned the Dow into usual corporations by applying seven different parties to be intermediaries for that particular Dow. It's very expensive for anyone to register their Dow in the jurisdiction. This is in a way, it's part of a, I would still call it a top-down imposition of a new framework. And what would be, or now which would be important is creating something that is coming from the ecosystem where we actually can produce a better framework that is more suited to the Dow realities. Just sort of a foundational question. Sort of, you know, I agree with a bunch of this, but given that there are, you know, obviously there are, if the main issue, it seems like the main issue you're floating is people are getting together, they're using smart contracts, they're calling it now, and it's not clear if that has legal personality, it wouldn't be convenient if it did have legal personality. But there are lots of current solutions for giving something legal personality, right? That already exists under current law, limited liability partnerships, you know, limited liability companies, corporations, you name it. So why, you know, it seems like, and I'm sure you have a reason for it, but I'm wondering what the reasons are. It seems like a dramatic step to say we need a brand new way to create limited liability, I would start to create legal personality. Why are the existing solutions just totally inadequate? What specifically is so bad about them that we need to create a new way of having legal personality? And in the meantime, until it comes out, everybody's in the legal limbo, so why don't you just use existing structures to cover it off, and then, instead of waiting five or 10 years for this to happen? Well, I don't know that they're both legal. Why don't we do both of these things at the same time? I mean, this is not end or or, I mean, there are, at the moment, current structures and the best structures right now are in the United States. There are various people who are not in the United States or who do not want to be associated to two restrictions in the United States. It's also a very bad idea, for example, to register, if you're down, or it's like a decentralized exchange or whatever to register.